Lydia Schumacher Introduction Forthoseschooledinthe historiographyofthe Franciscan intellectual tradition, a volume on the legacyofearlyFranciscan thought,thatis, the work of the scholars who foundedthis tradition in the decades between around 1220–50,may seem un- usual in its focus. Certainly, the later Franciscan tradition, from John DunsScotus (1265/66 – 1308) onwards,enjoys asignificant legacy, which is celebratedbysome and loathed by others. On some views, this legacystretched not onlythrough the later Middle Ages but even into modernity.¹ In laying the foundations for future de- velopments in intellectual history,however,later Franciscans are widelysupposed to have broken with their Franciscan predecessors, most famouslyBonaventure (1221–74), who codifiedthe findings of his teachers,including Alexander of Hales (c.1185–1245) and John of La Rochelle (1200 –45). Such early13th-century Franciscans were supposedlypreoccupied with preserv- ing the longstanding intellectual tradition of Augustine in the face of the rising pop- ularity of Aristotle’srecently-recovered major works.² Despite theirbest attempts, their formulations eventuallyproved outdated and even Franciscans, not justAqui- nas, turned in amoreAristoteliandirection, albeit in their ownway which was often at odds with that of Aquinas (1225–74). In recent years, this narrative has been called into question through research ef- forts that highlight keycontinuities between earlyand later Franciscan thinkers, which transcend their allegiances to sometimes differingauthorities. Some of these efforts have turned on illustrating thatthere is more thanmeets the eyeto Hans Blumenberg, TheLegitimacyofthe Modern Age (Cambridge:MIT,1985); Olivier Boulnois, Être et representation: Une généalogie de la métaphysique moderne àl’époque de Duns Scot (Paris:Presses Universitaires de France,1999); Louis Dupré, Passage to Modernity:Essaysinthe HermeneuticsofNa- ture andCulture (New Haven: Yale University Press,repr.2012); Ludger Honnefelder, Scientia tran- scendens:Die formale Bestimmung der Seiendheit und Realität in der Metaphysik des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit (Hamburg: Felix Meiner,1990). Franz Ehrle,Grundsätzliches zurCharakteristik der neueren und neuesten Scholastik (Freiburgim Breisgau: Herder,1918) was amongthe first to label earlyFranciscans ‘neo-Augustinians’.Etienne Gil- son followed suit in his voluminous works, includinghis History of ChristianPhilosophyinthe Middle Ages (New York: Random House, 1955), as did other leadingmedievalists likeBernardVogt,in‘Der Ursprungund die Entwicklung der Franziskanerschule,’ Franziskanische Studien 9(1922).See also Ig- natius Brady, ‘The Summa Theologica of Alexander of Hales (1924–1948),’ Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 70 (1977), pp. 437– 47;Victorin Doucet, ‘Prolegomena in librum III necnon in libros I et II Summa Fratris Alexandri, Alexandri de Hales Summa Theologica (Quaracchi: Collegii SBonaven- turae, 1948), p. 88: ‘Sed momentum, ni fallimur,Summae Halensianae in hoc consistit,quod omnia elementa,theologica scilicet et philosophica, huius traditionis augustinianae in ea colliguntur,ordi- nantur atque defenduntur Aristotele licetiam invadente. QuareetmeritofundamentumScholae au- gustino-franciscanae saec. XIII communitersalutatur.’ Idem, ‘The History of the Problemofthe Summa,’ Franciscan Studies 7(1947), pp. 26–41,274 – 312. OpenAccess. ©2021 Lydia Schumacher, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110684827-004 2 Lydia Schumacher earlynot to mention laterFranciscan appeals to authorities such as Augustine. In a previous volume for this sameseries with De Gruyter, TheSumma Halensis:Sources and Context,³ numerous specialists in the medieval and Franciscan tradition joined forces to nuance scholarlyunderstanding of how the earlyFranciscan tradition drew on authoritative sources, in the Summa which was in fact the product of the co-op- eration of the founders of the earlyFranciscan school, aboveall, Alexander of Hales and John of La Rochelle, but not excludingOdo Rigaldus (1200 –75)and potentially Bonaventure. This Summa,one of the first and ‘flagship’ systematic theologies of uni- versityscholasticism, was also the charter text for the earlyFranciscan tradition.⁴ The sources of this monumental work include not onlyAugustine but also the Bible; the 5/6th century author,Pseudo-Dionysius,whose works grew in popularity duringthe 12th century;and the Greek Father John of Damascus (676 – 749), whose De fide orthodoxa⁵ had been translated in the samecentury by Burgundio of Pisa and was initiallyemployed in alimited wayinPeter Lombard’s Sentences (c.1150), which became the standard textbook of theologyinthe earlyuniversities founded around the turn of the 13th century.⁶ As Saccenti has shown, theologians of the early13th century,not least earlyFranciscans,started to engagewith the whole of the Damascene’swork, in part because of its affinity with the Sentences of Peter Lom- bard in terms of the themes covered.⁷ Indeed, the order in which those themesweretreated lent itself to the eventual divisionofthe work – probablybyPhilip the Chancellor (1160 –1236) – accordingto the four-part structure of Lombard’s Sentences,which treated God, creation, Incarna- tion, and Sacraments.⁸ As Saccenti demonstrates,the late 12th-century manuscripts of Burgundio’stranslation do not present the work in terms of this four-fold division but accordingtoDamascus’ original organizational schema of one hundred chap- TheSumma Halensis:Sources and Context,ed. Lydia Schumacher (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020). Formoreonthe theology of the Summa,see Lydia Schumacher, Early Franciscan Theology: Be- tween Authority and Innovation (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2019). Saint John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa:Versions of Burgundio and Cerbanus, ed. Eligius M. Buy- taert (StBonaventure: FranciscanInstitute, 1955). On the use of De fide orthordoxa by Peter Lombard,see J. de Ghellinck, Le Mouvementthéologique du XIIe siècle. Sa préparation lointaine avant et autour de Pierre Lombard, ses rapports avec les initia- tives des canonistes.Études,recherches et documents (Bruges: Éditions De Temple, 1948), pp. 374– 415; E. Bertola, ‘Le citazionidiGiovanni Damasceno nel primo librodelle Sentenze lombardiane,’ in Pier Lombardo 1(1957), pp. 2–17. RiccardoSaccenti, Conservare la retta volontà: L’atto morale nelle dottrine di Filippo il Cancellieree UgodiSaint-Cher (1225–1235) (Bologna: Società editriceilMulino), p. 55. Eligius M. Buytaert attributes the partitioning of the text to Philipthe Chancellor.See his ‘Introduc- tion,’ in De Fide Orthodoxa:Versions of Burgundio and Cerbanus,XXI. The studyofLottinconcerning the influenceofthe psychology of the human action of the Damascene on the theology of the 13th century shows in fact that Philip is the first author to make extensive use of the contents of the De fide orthodoxa. See his section on ‘La psychologie de l’actehumain chez Saint Jean Damascene et les théolgiens du XIII siècle occidental,’ in Psychologie et morale,vol. 1, pp. 400 –1, 405–10. Introduction 3 ters.⁹ Through these divisions, Damascus was pressed into the service and even the style of earlyLatinscholasticism and was presented as anew and keyresource to facilitate effortsincreasingly to systematize theology. Although the Damascene became amajor authority alongsideAugustine – though perhaps not equal in weight – duringthis period, he was not the onlysource of great significance.The lingering influenceofJohn Scotus Eriugena (815–77), whose work had been condemned for pantheism in 1225,remained in certain ways,although it was channelled through other sources. Moreover,the Halensianau- thors wereamong the first to popularize the work of Anselm of Canterbury (1033/34– 1109), which had been largely neglected in the century previous.¹⁰ Another key au- thority for the Summa was the 12th-century School of St Victor – not onlyHugh (1096–1141)but especiallyRichard (d. 1173). As is well-known, the scholastic method of argumentationwhich was employed in the recently-founded universities as well as pre-dating them, involved marshalling quotations from authorities for and against aparticular opinion, seeking to reconcile them and indeeddrawing on authorities again to resolve anyoutstanding tensions or objections between them. Forthe modernreader,the use of this method can give the impression that earlyscholastic authors did little but rehearse the arguments of ear- lier thinkers.This, however,could not be further from the truth. As numerous studies have borne out,scholastic authors oftentook quotations out of context in order to give them anew meaning which fit the arguments they themselveswanted to devel- op. This wasnot amatter of academic malpractice but was standard operating pro- cedure at atime when thinking for oneself or advancing arguments of one’sown re- quired doing so in relation to pointsofcontact with prior tradition.¹¹ When we consider scholasticarguments in this light,they are completelyrecon- figured: we can begin to see how deeplypersonal arguments, or arguments consis- tent with the values of the Franciscan order,for instance, wereadvanced through the guise of authorities who stood for acause with which scholars wishedtoassoci- Eligius M. Buytaert, ‘Introduction,’ in De Fide Orthodoxa:Versions of Burgundio and Cerbanus, XXXV–XXXVI: ‘The oldest codethat certifies the version of Burgundio, the Vaticanus latinus 313 (late 12th century),