The evolution of the Rule of St Francis of Assisi and the tensions that accompanied its preparation and confirmation by Honorius iii on 29 November 1223 are reflected in the order's rich hagiographical tradition. The scruples felt by an unnamed novice and by a friar named Richer about the possession of a psalter and other books feature in the Compilatio Assisiensis, which depicts the founder as a tenacious defender of his vision and insights. While the saint reiterated the spirit of the Rule, the years following his death created a vacuum that the ministers-provincial and general were unable to fill with any authority. This diffidence was reflected in the decision of the general chapter of 1230 to seek the guidance of Gregory ix on the interpretation of the Rule. The pope responded with Quo elongati on 28 September 1230, an interpretation that paved the way for further comment by groups of friars and individuals.

The questions raised by the first generations are set forth in two volumes published by the Franciscan Institute at St Bonaventure's University. The first book, edited by David Flood ofm, contains the group of commentaries compiled between 1241/2 and 1283. The Parisian masters examined the application of the Rule to the changing circumstances of the expanding order that was already established throughout the Latin Church and was active in mission territories. They upheld the saint's teaching regarding dispensations from the papal court and they articulated the friars' misgivings, while acknowledging some areas where reform was required. They signalled their intentions by citing both Gregory ix's Quo elongati and Francis's Testament in the first chapter. The polemical tone, defending the order against its increasingly vocal critics, was a significant topic in this text. It is even more pronounced in the commentary by Hugh of Digne, a friar from Provence, writing in the later 1250s. The prologue to this commentary affirms that Hugh had no intention of making use of the controversial dispensations that had been granted to the friars. Aware that some friars disputed passages from the Rule, Hugh travelled to Assisi to consult the regula bullata. He also examined the testimony of St Francis's close companions and consulted friars renowned for their wisdom and holiness of life; some of these had known the founder (pp. 42, 118, 143). Hugh frequently invoked the moral and spiritual authority of the fratres antiqui, who understood the Rule and how it should shape various areas of mendicant life. The development of conventual complexes was discouraged and Hugh urged the friars to build on a modest scale with timber and mud rather than stone.

The example of the fratres antiqui chastised contemporaries who had accepted relaxations. David of Augsburg (†1272), who had accompanied Berthold of Regensburg on his preaching tours, was often invited to expound the Rule to novices and the illiterate friars. There was, he maintained, a three-fold reason for the divine institution of the order: first, it was a port of salvation for those escaping the shipwreck of the world; secondly, it was a school that encouraged the diligent study of the virtues; and thirdly, the friars should edify people by preaching doctrine, giving good example and offering intercession for their neighbours. David relied on the accounts of the older friars who were witnesses to how the Rule was observed in the lifetime of the founder. John of Wales, too, wrote for the junior members of the order and explained terms for them. Those in search of relaxation found little comfort in this exposition from this prominent Parisian scholar, who argued that the Rule was divinely inspired and should be kept in an appropriate manner. John recommended that Francis's words should not be diluted (pp. 218–24). His account of the order's mission of preaching was set forth in chapter ix, where he reminded his confrères that the founder wished himself and the friars to be of use rather than to focus on themselves alone. The credibility of their preaching was to be enhanced by their good relations with the local bishop. Preachers were to be approved by the minister-general and their words should be carefully measured. They were to resemble the Apostles in their preaching. The welfare of souls was the main purpose of the office of preaching rather than an ostentatious display of erudition; friars were admonished to address vices and virtues. Sermons were to be brief in imitation of the Son of God (pp. 248–50).

The publication of the second volume of early commentaries, with material by John Pecham and Peter Olivi, is eagerly awaited. Meanwhile, the third volume, edited by David Burr, is devoted to the exposition by Angelo Clareno. This is preceded by a lengthy introduction on Angelo's life, the corpus of his writings, the commentary on the Rule and a substantial bibliography. It is by far the fullest of the treatments and it is compiled by a former member of the order, who was living under the authority of a Benedictine abbot of Subiaco. Ample space is accorded to his use of the Regula non bullata and Angelo's extensive knowledge of Greek patristic sources, which are quoted copiously in this commentary, written about 1321/22. Angelo voices the tradition that the confirmation of the Rule was announced by Innocent iii during the Fourth Lateran Council (pp. 3, 94). He went much further than the earlier commentators in his assertion that the founder foresaw many of the abuses that had subsequently tainted the order's good reputation. Particular invective was reserved for the decision to focus on urban centres at the expense of life in the hermitages, excesses in buildings and the multiplication of the schools, especially under the administration of Crescentius da Iesi, minister-general from 1244 to 1247, when Aristotelian materials were introduced. The accumulation of books, circulating in ever greater numbers, was a cause for concern in reforming circles. Towards the end of the commentary Peter Olivi emerges with greater frequency as an authority on the Franciscan cosmos.

Typographical errors are a rarity in these two attractive volumes. Exceptions are ‘need great care less [lest] they lack the discipline’ (i. 218) ‘cwhat’ (iii.1). Commentaries on the Rule reflect the history of the order and the friars' desire to be faithful to the heritage of il poverello. These two volumes, edited by scholars deeply immersed in Franciscan literature of the thirteenth century, will be warmly welcomed by students of the order.