Early Franciscan theology exerted an important influence but remains insufficiently known. This chapter treats of English theologians Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon, and the work attributed to Alexander of Hales and his circle, the Summa Halensis. It discusses topics such as the Trinity, salvation and the nature of theological science.

Chapter 2 examines the reception of Aristotle’s action theory from the 1220s to 1277 and its influence on novel theories of free will developed in this period. It shows that the reception of Aristotle led to a “psychological turn”: instead of assuming the existence of free will, theologians began to argue for it by clarifying the nature of intellect and will, in which free will is grounded. The chapter canvasses the theories of free will in broad strokes from William of Auxerre to Bonaventure, and in more detail regarding Thomas Aquinas and Siger of Brabant, whose views will provoke strong reactions. Following Aristotle closely, Aquinas understands choices as determined by the practical deliberation that precedes them; one chooses as one judges worth choosing, and one can choose otherwise only because deliberation allows one to judge otherwise. Appealing to the authority of Avicenna, Siger argues that what causes the will’s acts does so necessarily.

Chapter 2 explores how Franciscan theologians understood the similarities and differences between animals and humans. The Summa Halensis most frequently stressed clear difference and a strong boundary. Similarities were recognized, however, especially in relation to the corporeal. The Summa was not consistent in its approach to these similarities: sometimes they were simply natural features posing no moral or intellectual challenges, whereas on other occasions they were dangerously deceptive and symbolic of human sin. Bonaventure also accepted that in many respects the bodies of humans and animals were the same. Beyond this, however, he was not struck by much in the way of similarity. He took it for granted that humans were the most perfect animals, unique amongst animals in their possession of reason. Made in the image of God, humans related to God very differently from animals. Animals served humans, answering to their bodily and even emotional needs. Bearing symbolic meaning, they were God’s tools. Bonaventure did not see any of the similarities that underpinned more complex understandings in the work of others. For Bonaventure, the boundary between humans and animals was always clear-cut.