The Legacy of Early Franciscan Thought Veröffentlichungen des Grabmann-Institutes zur Erforschung der mittelalterlichen Theologie und Philosophie Münchener Universitätsschriften Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät Founded by Michael Schmaus †, Werner Dettloff † and Richard Heinzmann Continued in collaboration with Ulrich Horst Edited by Isabelle Mandrella and Martin Thurner Volume 67 The Legacy of Early Franciscan Thought Edited by Lydia Schumacher ISBN 978-3-11-068241-0 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-068482-7 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-068488-9 ISSN 0580-2091 DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110684827 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. For details go to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Library of Congress Control Number: 2020944940 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Lydia Schumacher, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Contents Acknowledgements IX Lydia Schumacher and Simon Maria Kopf A Guide to Citing the Summa Halensis XI Abbreviations XIII Lydia Schumacher Introduction 1 Part I: Philosophy and Theology Cecilia Trifogli The Creation of Matter in the Summa Halensis 15 Magdalena Bieniak The Soul-Body Union in the Summa Halensis 37 Anna-Katharina Strohschneider The Summa Halensis on Theology and the Sciences: The Influence of Aristotle and Avicenna 49 Tiziana Suarez-Nani On Divine Immensity and Infinity in Relation to Space and Time: The Crossroad of the Summa Halensis 71 Simon Maria Kopf Providence in the Summa Halensis: Between Authority and Innovation 89 Oleg Bychkov Suspended Beauty? The Mystery of Aesthetic Experience in the Summa Halensis 111 Lydia Schumacher Free Will in the Summa Halensis 129 Nathalie Gorochov Odo Rigaldus at the University of Paris ( c. 1220 – 48) 151 Alexander Fidora The Talmud in the Summa Halensis 169 Part II: The Legacy of the Summa Halensis Jacob W. Wood It ’ s Not Just about Anselm: Aquinas ’ ST Ia, q. 2, ar. 1 and Early Franciscan Illumination Theory 185 Theo Kobusch The Possible and the Impossible: Potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata Under Close Scrutiny 207 Richard Cross The Metaphysics of the Incarnation in the Summa Halensis and its Place in the Later History of Christology 221 Andrew V. Rosato The Passions of the Will and the Passion of Christ in Franciscan Theology from the Summa Halensis to Duns Scotus 239 Mary Beth Ingham, CSJ Franciscan Identity, Poverty and the Rational Will: From Summa Halensis to John Duns Scotus 257 Volker Leppin What is Later Franciscan Theology? Ockham and the Early Franciscans 281 José Meirinhos Intellectus agens triplex distinguitur: Early Franciscans and Avicenna in Petrus Hispanus ’ Theory of the Agent Intellect in the Scientia libri de anima 297 William J. Short, OFM Alexander of Hales in the Book of Conformities of Bartholomew of Pisa 323 William J. Courtenay Gabriel Biel and the Summa Halensis 339 Riccardo Saccenti The Reception of the Summa Halensis in the Manuscript Tradition until 1450 353 VI Contents Oliver Davies Science, Philosophy and the Authority of the Early Franciscan Summa Halensis: Learning from the Past for the Sake of the Future 373 Contributor Biographies 399 Index 405 Contents VII Acknowledgements This volume contains some of the proceedings from a series of conferences held in 2019 and 2020, in Oxford and London, which received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union ’ s Horizon 2020 research and in- novation programme (grant agreement 714427: ‘ Authority and Innovation in Early Franciscan Thought ’ ). Although my primary institutional debt is to the ERC, I wish to express my thanks first and foremost to the colleagues who contributed to this vol- ume, some of whom are specialists in later Franciscan thought or in other aspects of scholasticism, who were willing to sacrifice precious research time to engage in the experiment of investigating links to the Summa Halensis , which was a text familiar to some but new to others. The contributors have done a remarkable service to me and to our research team, and I believe, to scholarship in general, in testing a hypothesis concerning those links which, thanks to their expertise and intellectual generosity, turned out to have more weight than I originally anticipated. I have been grateful for the opportunity to get to know not only contributors to the volumes but also the postdoctoral scholars working on the project in this phase, Simon Kopf, Riccardo Saccenti, Anna-Katharina Strohschneider, and Mark Thakkar, each of whom is not only a brilliant and accomplished scholar in their own right but also an enthusiastic and committed contributor to the project and simply a lot of fun to work with and a pleasure to know. As we drew this volume together for publication, I had the tremen- dously good fortune of finding Frazer MacDiarmid, Clarendon Doctoral Scholar in theology at Oxford, as a research assistant on the project, and the work could not have been placed in better hands. It is thanks to Frazer that the volume exists in the impeccably copy-edited format that it does today – and to me that any errors of any kind remain. OpenAccess. © 2021 , published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110684827-001 Lydia Schumacher and Simon Maria Kopf A Guide to Citing the Summa Halensis When citing the Quaracchi edition of the Franciscan Fathers, we suggest and use in this volume the following form as a standardized way of citing the Summa Halensis: Alexander of Hales, Doctoris irrefragabilis Alexandri de Hales Ordinis minorum Summa theologica ( SH ), 4 vols (Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1924 – 48), III, In2, Tr2, S2, Q1, Ti1, C7, Ar3, Pr1, Pa2 (n. 162), Solutio, p. 179. The relevant text divisions of the Quaracchi edition include, in the following order: Vol Volume ( tomus ) P Part ( pars ) In Inquiry ( inquisitio ) Tr Tract ( tractatus ) S Section ( sectio ) Q Question ( quaestio ) Ti Title ( titulus ) D Distinction ( distinctio ) M Member ( membrum ) C Chapter ( caput ) Ar Article ( articulus ) Pr Problem ( problema ) Pa Particle ( particula ) (n[n].) Paragraph number[s] A further specification of the thus determined entity (to be cited as given in the edi- tion) might, at this point, include: [arg.] Objections Respondeo/Solutio Answer (Sed) Contra On the Contrary Ad obiecta Answers to Objections p[p]. page number[s]. The second instance of citation should read as follows (including all relevant text di- visions): SH III, In2, Tr2, S2, Q1, Ti1, C7, Ar3, Pr1, Pa2 (n. 162), Solutio, p. 179. Note that according to our proposal the number after SH indicates the volume num- ber ( tomus ) of the Quaracchi edition – and not the book ( liber ) of the Summa Halen- sis. Hence SH I refers to Book 1, SH II to Book 2.1, SH III to Book 2.2, and SH IV to OpenAccess. © 2021 Lydia Schumacher and Simon Maria Kopf, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110684827-002 Book 3, respectively. The unedited Book 4, which is not part of the Quaracchi edition, will be cited, with reference to the respective edition, as SH Bk IV. Where it would not lead to confusion, a shorthand could be used for further ci- tations: SH III (n. 162), p. 179. Please note that all translations of the Summa Halensis and other texts belong to the author, unless otherwise noted. XII Lydia Schumacher and Simon Maria Kopf Abbreviations AF Analecta Franciscana Ar/ar. article ( articulus ) BFr Bullarium Franciscanum Bk./bk. book ( liber ) C/c./ch. chapter ( caput ) CCSL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina (1953 – ) CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (1866 – ) D/d. distinction ( distinctio ) De cons. phil. Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae De corrept. et grat. Augustine, De correptione et gratia De fid. orth. John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa De grat. et lib. arbit. Bernard of Clairvaux, De gratia et libero arbitrio disp. disputation DN De Divinis Nominibus of Pseudo-Dionysius Glossa Alexander of Hales, Glossa in quatuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi In/in. inquiry ( inquisitio ) In Sent. Sentences commentary (Aquinas, Bonaventure, etc.) LCL Loeb Classical Library M/m. member ( membrum ) n[n]. paragraph number[s] P/pt. part ( pars ) Pa/pa. particular ( particula ) PL Patrologia Latina Pr/pr. problem ( problema ) Q/q. question ( quaestio ) QD Alexander of Hales, Quaestiones disputatae ‘ antequam esset frater ’ S/s. section ( sectio ) SC Sources Chrétiennes Sent. Sentences of Peter Lombard SH Summa Halensis Soph. Elen. Aristotle, De Sophisticis Elenchis ( On Sophistical Refutations ) ST Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas STh Albert the Great, Summa Theologica Ti/ti. title ( titulus ) Tr/tr. tract ( tractatus ) trans. translation Vol. volume ( tomus ) OpenAccess. © 2021 , published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110684827-003 Lydia Schumacher Introduction For those schooled in the historiography of the Franciscan intellectual tradition, a volume on the legacy of early Franciscan thought, that is, the work of the scholars who founded this tradition in the decades between around 1220 – 50, may seem un- usual in its focus. Certainly, the later Franciscan tradition, from John Duns Scotus (1265/66 – 1308) onwards, enjoys a significant legacy, which is celebrated by some and loathed by others. On some views, this legacy stretched not only through the later Middle Ages but even into modernity. ¹ In laying the foundations for future de- velopments in intellectual history, however, later Franciscans are widely supposed to have broken with their Franciscan predecessors, most famously Bonaventure (1221 – 74), who codified the findings of his teachers, including Alexander of Hales ( c. 1185 – 1245) and John of La Rochelle (1200 – 45). Such early 13th-century Franciscans were supposedly preoccupied with preserv- ing the longstanding intellectual tradition of Augustine in the face of the rising pop- ularity of Aristotle ’ s recently-recovered major works. ² Despite their best attempts, their formulations eventually proved outdated and even Franciscans, not just Aqui- nas, turned in a more Aristotelian direction, albeit in their own way 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 key continuities between early and later Franciscan thinkers, which transcend their allegiances to sometimes differing authorities. Some of these efforts have turned on illustrating that there is more than meets the eye to Hans Blumenberg, The Legitimacy of the Modern Age (Cambridge: MIT, 1985); Olivier Boulnois, Être et representation: Une généalogie de la métaphysique moderne à l ’ époque de Duns Scot (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1999); Louis Dupré, Passage to Modernity: Essays in the Hermeneutics of Na- ture and Culture (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 zur Charakteristik der neueren und neuesten Scholastik (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1918) was among the first to label early Franciscans ‘ neo-Augustinians ’ . Etienne Gil- son followed suit in his voluminous works, including his History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York: Random House, 1955), as did other leading medievalists like Bernard Vogt, in ‘ Der Ursprung und 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 S Bonaven- 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 licet iam invadente. Quare et merito fundamentum Scholae au- gustino-franciscanae saec. XIII communiter salutatur. ’ Idem, ‘ The History of the Problem of the 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 Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110684827-004 early not to mention later Franciscan appeals to authorities such as Augustine. In a previous volume for this same series with De Gruyter, The Summa Halensis: Sources and Context , ³ numerous specialists in the medieval and Franciscan tradition joined forces to nuance scholarly understanding of how the early Franciscan tradition drew on authoritative sources, in the Summa which was in fact the product of the co-op- eration of the founders of the early Franciscan school, above all, Alexander of Hales and John of La Rochelle, but not excluding Odo Rigaldus (1200 – 75) and potentially Bonaventure. This Summa , one of the first and ‘ flagship ’ systematic theologies of uni- versity scholasticism, was also the charter text for the early Franciscan tradition. ⁴ The sources of this monumental work include not only Augustine but also the Bible; the 5/6th century author, Pseudo-Dionysius, whose works grew in popularity during the 12th century; and the Greek Father John of Damascus (676 – 749), whose De fide orthodoxa ⁵ had been translated in the same century by Burgundio of Pisa and was initially employed in a limited way in Peter Lombard ’ s Sentences ( c. 1150), which became the standard textbook of theology in the early universities founded around the turn of the 13th century. ⁶ As Saccenti has shown, theologians of the early 13th century, not least early Franciscans, started to engage with the whole of the Damascene ’ s work, 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 themes were treated lent itself to the eventual division of the work – probably by Philip the Chancellor (1160 – 1236) – according to 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 ’ s translation do not present the work in terms of this four-fold division but according to Damascus ’ original organizational schema of one hundred chap- The Summa Halensis: Sources and Context , ed. Lydia Schumacher (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020). For more on the 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 (St Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute, 1955). On the use of De fide orthordoxa by Peter Lombard, see J. de Ghellinck, Le Mouvement théologique 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 citazioni di Giovanni Damasceno nel primo libro delle Sentenze lombardiane, ’ in Pier Lombardo 1 (1957), pp. 2 – 17. Riccardo Saccenti, Conservare la retta volontà: L ’ atto morale nelle dottrine di Filippo il Cancelliere e Ugo di Saint-Cher (1225 – 1235) (Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino), p. 55. Eligius M. Buytaert attributes the partitioning of the text to Philip the Chancellor. See his ‘ Introduc- tion, ’ in De Fide Orthodoxa: Versions of Burgundio and Cerbanus , XXI. The study of Lottin concerning the influence of the 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 ’ acte humain chez Saint Jean Damascene et les théolgiens du XIII siècle occidental, ’ in Psychologie et morale , vol. 1, pp. 400 – 1, 405 – 10. 2 Lydia Schumacher ters. ⁹ Through these divisions, Damascus was pressed into the service and even the style of early Latin scholasticism and was presented as a new and key resource to facilitate efforts increasingly to systematize theology. Although the Damascene became a major authority alongside Augustine – though perhaps not equal in weight – during this period, he was not the only source of great significance. The lingering influence of John 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 Halensian au- thors were among the first to popularize the work of Anselm of Canterbury (1033/34 – 1109), which had been largely neglected in the century previous. ¹ ⁰ Another key au- thority for the Summa was the 12th-century School of St Victor – not only Hugh (1096 – 1141) but especially Richard (d. 1173). As is well-known, the scholastic method of argumentation which was employed in the recently-founded universities as well as pre-dating them, involved marshalling quotations from authorities for and against a particular opinion, seeking to reconcile them and indeed drawing on authorities again to resolve any outstanding tensions or objections between them. For the modern reader, the use of this method can give the impression that early scholastic 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 often took quotations out of context in order to give them a new meaning which fit the arguments they themselves wanted to devel- op. This was not a matter of academic malpractice but was standard operating pro- cedure at a time when thinking for oneself or advancing arguments of one ’ s own re- quired doing so in relation to points of contact with prior tradition. ¹¹ When we consider scholastic arguments in this light, they are completely recon- figured: we can begin to see how deeply personal arguments, or arguments consis- tent with the values of the Franciscan order, for instance, were advanced through the guise of authorities who stood for a cause with which scholars wished to associ- Eligius M. Buytaert, ‘ Introduction, ’ in De Fide Orthodoxa: Versions of Burgundio and Cerbanus , XXXV – XXXVI: ‘ The oldest code that certifies the version of Burgundio, the Vaticanus latinus 313 (late 12th century), does not present the division into four books but only the partition of the text into 100 chapters, according to the original organization given to the work by Damascene. ’ Scott Matthews, Reason, Community, and Religious Tradition: Anselm ’ s Argument and the Friars (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001); V. Doucet, Prolegomena in Librum III (Quarrachi, 1948), VII. Michael Rob- son, ‘ Anselm ’ s Influence on the Soteriology of Alexander of Hales: The Cur Deus Homo in the Com- mentary on the Sentences, ’ in Cur Deus Homo: Atti del Congresso Anselmiano Internationale , eds. Paul Gilbert, Helmut Kohl, Elmar Salmann (Rome: Pontificio Ateneo S Anselmo, 1999), pp. 191 – 219. On this, see Marcia L. Colish, ‘ The Sentence Collection and the Education of Professional Theo- logians in the Twelfth Century, ’ in The Intellectual Climate of the Early University: Essays in Honor of Otto Grundler (Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, 1997), p. 11; Mary Carruthers, The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 235; Jacques Bougerol, ‘ The Church Fathers and Auctoritates, ’ in The Reception of the Church Fa- thers in the West, ed. Irena Backus (Leiden: Brill, 1996), p. 334. Introduction 3 ate themselves. In the case of Augustine, this was the longstanding Christian tradi- tion and indeed Christian orthodoxy. As noted above, the older literature on medie- val thought often paints this as having come into tension around the turn of the 13th century with the newly translated major works of Aristotle ’ s philosophy. ¹² But the sit- uation is rather more nuanced than this. As some contributions to the Sources and Context volume illustrate, scholars working in the first half of the 13th century approached Aristotle rather timidly, due to perceived problems with the translations, and with a decided bias towards reading him as compatible with Neo-Platonism, which was attributable to the circu- lation of spurious works like the Liber de causis , which was attributed to Aristotle but which Aquinas in 1268 identified as an amalgam of ideas from the Neo-Platonists Plotinus and Porphyry. This bias inclined early scholastics warmly to receive the major works of the Is- lamic philosopher, Avicenna (980 – 1037), whose monumental Book of the Cure had been published in Latin by 1168 in an impeccable translation. ¹³ Although Avicenna, following many earlier Greek and Arabic commentators on Aristotle, regarded the Greek philosopher as compatible with Neo-Platonism, his brand of Platonic-Aristote- lianism was ultimately unique and highly innovative. This is something early scho- lastics could not help but find attractive. Furthermore, the Neo-Platonic leanings of Avicenna rendered him amenable to projection on to the thought of Augustine, to say nothing of Aristotle, both of whom were interpreted as relatively harmonious sources, albeit with different major areas of philosophical interest. ¹ ⁴ In sum, Avicenna proved a perfect resource not only for interpreting the still-dubious Aristotle but also for doing so in a decid- edly religious or broadly ‘ Augustinian ’ way that nonetheless allowed Latin thinkers to introduce a level of philosophical sophistication into their thinking that exceeded their abilities previously. In examining the Summa Halensis with these and other crucial contextual mat- ters in mind, the Sources and Context volume contributed to deconstructing the over- simplified notion of early Franciscans as relatively unoriginal ‘ systematizers ’ of Au- gustine. It highlights all the ways they used authorities creatively, sometimes even manipulatively and highly unfaithfully, to develop an intellectual system all their own, which rose to and indeed epitomized the high scholastic standards of the See for example Etienne Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (London: Sheed and Ward, 1955). Amos Bertolacci, ‘ A Community of Translators: The Latin Medieval Versions of Avicenna ’ s Book of the Cure, ’ in Communities of Learning: Networks and the Shaping of Intellectual Identity in Europe 1100 – 1500 , eds. Constant J. Mews and John N. Crossley (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011). Amos Bertolacci, ‘ On the Latin Reception of Avicenna ’ s Metaphysics before Albertus Magnus: An Attempt at Periodization, ’ in The Arabic, Hebrew and Latin Reception of Avicenna ’ s Metaphysics , eds. Dag Nikolaus Hasse and Amos Bertolacci (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), p. 213; Dag. N. Hasse, Avicenna ’ s De Anima in the Latin West (London: The Warburg Institute, 2000), p. 226. 4 Lydia Schumacher day. The second volume, The Summa Halensis: Doctrines and Debates, took this proj- ect further by examining some of the major theological questions that the Summa addresses, for example, on how to know and name God or to prove his existence, as well as its treatment of the nature of predestination and providence , the doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, sin, grace, law, confession, Eucharist, prayer, and even the sanctification of Mary. ¹ ⁵ In each case, close attention was paid to the actual argu- ments presented through the mouthpiece of authorities. What emerged as a conse- quence was a deeper understanding of the respects in which early Franciscan thought paved new theological ground and indeed anticipated some of the famous arguments of later Franciscans who supposedly departed from their predecessors ’ ‘ mere ’ Augustinianism. The present volume represents a natural progression in this line of inquiry. As the title conveys, the purpose of the volume is not only to explore in more detail some of the innovations of the Summa Halensis in philosophy and theology and to highlight continuities, despite differences, between early Franciscans and the succes- sors who received their initial output. That is to say, the goal is to elucidate the re- ception and legacy of the Summa Halensis to later Franciscan and scholastic thought. The first part of the volume, on the philosophy and theology of the Summa, kicks off with a study by Cecilia Trifogli of what is arguably most fundamental in any meta- physical system, namely, matter. This is one area where early Franciscans were influ- enced by Avicenna ’ s position according to which a kind of ‘ prime matter ’ exists, even though it is not detectable until it becomes subject to form. This was a very ‘ positive ’ way of rendering matter in comparison with Aristotle, for example, and indeed Augustine, who saw matter not so much as the ‘ stuff ’ from which things are formed as the sheer potential for formation that exists when there is simply nothing. Trifogli pursues two specific questions the Summa considers about the creation of matter, namely, whether it is created or eternally existent – a question which would become a serious subject of debate later in the century – and whether it is initially created unformed or whether it is created together with a form, as indeed it is, as noted above. In an important development of her analysis, Trifogli illustrates precisely the ways and extent to which the Summa anticipates the views of Duns Sco- tus and the ways in which he surpasses his predecessors. From matter, the volume turns to the question of the specifically human matter, as it were, that subsists in the body-soul union. Magdalena Bieniak expands her ex- tensive research on this topic to show how the Summa Halensis codified and devel- oped a form of body-soul substance dualism, inspired by Avicenna, that was popular at the time and would become a hallmark of the later Franciscan school. By contrast to some earlier contemporaries, the Summist followed John of La Rochelle, who him- self built on an insight from the Dominican Hugh of St Cher ( c. 1200 – 63), in arguing The Summa Halensis: Doctrines and Debates , ed. Lydia Schumacher (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020). Introduction 5