St. Anselm (c. 1033/4-1109) was a Benedictine monk, abbot, writer, and Archbishop of Canterbury (1093-1109).
He was born at Aosta, Upper Burgundy. In 1060 he entered the monastery of Bec, Normandy, helped make it a leading institute of learning, and was elected abbot after eighteen years.
Following the Norman Conquest, Anselm was obliged to visit the estates in England that had been donated to Bec and was eventually made Archbishop of Canterbury. His episcopacy was not a peaceful one. He clashed with the crown in the Investiture Controversy and was exiled twice.
However, Anselm is remembered today mainly for his writings which, pioneered and developed the nascent medieval scholasticism. Philosophers continue to ponder the argument for God’s existence that he proposes in his Proslogion: if God is that than which nothing greater can be thought, then God must exist. Theologians continue to discuss his explanation of the motives for Christ’s Incarnation and death on the cross.
Five Books for Catholics may receive a commission from qualifyng purchases made using the affliate links in this post.
What is most striking about St. Anselm as a monk and bishop? He is a very interesting figure because he has so many features. While Prior, he wrote works for his monks. He continued to write when abbot and even as Archbishop of Canterbury. He was a good philosopher and a great theologian. He was very involved in both monastic life and the life of the Church. He also had to deal with headaches and difficulties with the kings of England.
What is most striking about St. Anselm as a theologian? In many cases, he tries to explain as much as he can through philosophy alone. For example, in the Monologion, he claims that he will not talk about Christ himself. Moreover, he uses ‘God’ only in the first and last chapters. Otherwise, he speaks of the supreme essence. He claims to be doing the same sort of thing in Cur Deus homo: he attempts to answer a question through reason rather than through faith.
But of course, the Proslogion is all about faith seeking understanding. It is very much dedicated to the faith. His shorter works, On Free Choice of the Will and On the Truth draw on Scripture.
However, in De concordia (The Harmony of the Foreknowledge, the Predestination, and the Grace of God with Free Choice) he concludes that in the end all is grace. He wants to open up the world to God’s free creation by basing himself not just on metaphysical arguments, but on God’s love for humanity.
Although St. Anselm distinguishes faith from reason, he probably would never have considered himself a philosopher or writer of philosophical works. Nevertheless, he is widely studied by philosophers, both believers and non-believers. Is it appropriate or reductive to read him from a purely philosophical standpoint? You are right. It is reductive to read him in that way. Even if you read theMonologion, around Chapter 28 he talks about the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Those are personal names. You cannot deal with the Trinity just in terms of understanding, memory, and love, as Augustine sometimes does. It is too narrow to read Anselm as just a philosopher. He certainly has other interests.
"In his prayers and meditations, such as the opening prayer of the Proslogion, Anselm is not at all scholastic, but is concerned with loving Christ and the existential problem of how to get back home."
Who were the main influences on St. Anselm’s thought? St. Augustine is his favourite thinker and main influence. At the beginning of the Monologion, he contends that if he makes too many claims from reason about the Trinity, then we should take a look at Augustine's On the Trinity. Of course, at the end of On the Trinity, Augustine points out that nothing can really explain the Trinity, no matter how much we try to provide answers based on examples from our life. That is Augustine's position. By the end of Anselm's life, it is his, too. Thomas Aquinas, who claims that there are not any philosophical reasons per se for the Incarnation or the Trinity, is also in that tradition. So is Boethius to some degree.
In explaining eternity, Anselm uses some language that harkens back to Boethius. However, Boethius’ On the Consolation of Philosophyis mostly a philosophical work, whereas Anselm goes way beyond philosophical theology.
St. Anselm stands at the bridge between monastic theology from the Middle Ages and the nascent scholastic movement. Did he lay the groundwork for medieval scholasticism? He did. In his Monologion, he recognises that it is quite hard to follow his long drawn-out arguments, of which there are also quite a lot in Cur Deus homo, and keep them all in mind. There are so many of these arguments piled upon each other. This analytic style aims at showing how each point makes sense and then leads to another one. So, yes, he lays the groundwork for medieval scholasticism.
He is of two minds to this approach, just as Augustine may have been, as well. Augustine’s On Free Choice of the Willand On the Trinityare more philosophical and analytic, but his Confessions is much more existential and phenomenological. In his prayers and meditations, such as the opening prayer of the Proslogion, Anselm is not at all scholastic, but is concerned with loving Christ and the existential problem of how to get back home. So, Anselm is really on the cusp of the two movements, monasticism and scholasticism. He never gives up the deep spiritual love of God that guides him in the Proslogion.
"For I do not seek to understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand. For I believe even this: that unless I believe, I shall not understand." St. Anselm, Proslogion
What drew you to study St. Anselm? Many things. I wrote my dissertation on Thomas Aquinas but had read Anselm in graduate school. Much of my writing has been on Aquinas and Augustine. However, when I came to St. Anselm College, Anselm seemed an important element to add to my life. Then I was asked to be Director of the Institute for St. Anselm Studies.
I have written a number of papers on Anselm but never a whole book.
Anselm is a brilliant mind for his combination of analytic depth, love, and commitment.
He is very clear at making his points. However, sometimes he finds it hard to hold the whole argument together because it is strung out. That is why he wanted to find a simpler argument with the Proslogion.
1-2
That brings us to the first book on your list Anselm’s Monologion. He opens with various arguments for God’s existence. From the results of those arguments, he proceeds to work out and justify the various divine attributes. What are Anselm’s main contributions in this work? The opening two arguments are standard Platonic ones.
The first holds that if there are many different things in the world that are good, they all share something in common, and so there must be a transcendent good.
The second argument is that, if things are good to a greater or lesser degree, then there must be a standard of goodness to which they all refer. Thomas Aquinas picks up this second argument.
Following from these arguments, Anselm considers what a free creation would be like. It is creation from nothing. This does not mean ‘not from anything’ nor ‘from something that is called nothing’ but with no priority. Creation is free. If creation is the source of all truth, then truth is also free. Anselm gets into this in De veritate.
Anselm was not entirely satisfied with the Monologion, as you mentioned,and sought a single argument from which he could work out and justify God’s various attributes. His demonstration was later called the ontological argument, though the fittingness of that name is dubious. What is the Proslogion’s argument for God’s existence and does it work? He starts off with faith and states, “We believe that you are that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Some take this as a first premise. However, if you leave belief out for a second, which is not what Anselm is doing, then the second premise is, “It is greater to exist in reality and the mind than just in the mind.” Therefore, God exists in reality.
In many ways, this is very strong as a logical argument. Thomas Aquinas disagrees with it. In his view, it contains four terms rather than three. It starts with the idea of God rather than with experience of the world and inferring God’s existence from that experience of the world. Hence, it can only yield conclusions about the idea of God.
Anselm justifies his main argument in his Reply to Gaunilo in a way that I believe would probably satisfy Thomas Aquinas. His basic argument is based on the same insight as the arguments from the Monologion. It is based on the idea of good. Our search for the good means that whenever we recognise that something is missing in a thing or our account of it, then we have not reached God. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. If we recognize that we do not have the whole truth or that we are not perfectly happy, then there is always something more that is calling us forth as we try to understand God.
Anselm’s contemporary, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers wrote a critique of the Proslogion’s argument for the existence of God. The gist of his objection is that thinking of the most perfect kind of island does not necessitate the existence of such an island. Similarly, the concept of ‘that than which no greater thing can be conceived’ does not necessarily entail the actual existence of that thing. Does Gaunilo debunk the argument of the Proslogion? In the end he does not, or at least Anselm has a good reply to his objections.
Regarding the example of the perfect island, Anselm insists that his argument works only for that than which nothing greater can be conceived. It only works for God. The best island does not have every perfection but only the perfections of an island. The only being that could have all perfections is God, the transcendent source of all things.
Gaunilo’s other objection is that you cannot come to a conception of that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Going back to the foundations of his Monologion, Anselm argues that we can come to such a conclusion from our experience of how some things in the world are greater or lesser in their goodness than others.
I do not know whether St. Thomas was aware of this reply, but it hearkens back to something with which he would agree. In demonstrating God’s existence, we start with things, not with a mere idea.
Subsequently, Anselm’s argument in the Proslogion was called the ontological argument. Is that an appropriate name for his argument?No. It is not meant to be an a priori argument. First, it is not just a philosophical argument. Anselm starts off by stating, “We believe…” He is committed to the faith. Second, his argument is really an argument toward the good and the greatest good. It is not just about a logical conviction that something abstract exists. It is about how our whole lives are dedicated to reaching out toward that which is most perfect. We know that we have not attained it because we understand that we are unhappy. If you know that you are unhappy, you know something about happiness. Anselm’s argument is about our ongoing search for God rather than being, as in Descartes’ argument, a convenient summary of the existence of God as an abstract reality.
One of the intended addressees of Anselm’s arguments for God’s existence is the person described in Psalm 14:1: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” We tend to imagine that there were not many actual atheists in Anselm’s day. Are Anselm’s arguments meant to shake people out of indifference and practical atheism, or to confirm believers in their faith? In the Proslogion, he certainly claims that his intention is to confirm us in our faith. However, in both the Monologion and Cur Deus homo, he makes an effort to provide arguments based on reason so as to reach out to unbelievers and show them that it is reasonable to believe.
As he explains at the beginning of Cur Deus homo, unbelievers think that it is irrational and unfitting for God to suffer. Anselm wants to turn that objection around and show that there are the reasons why this is the only way in which we can be saved and attain the happiness that all of us, even the pagans, desire.
3-5
Along with the Proslogion, Anselm’s most celebrated work is Cur Deus homo? In it, he explains why it was fitting for Christ to become man and redeem us through his death on the cross. For Anselm, what was the motive for Christ’s Incarnation and death on the cross? Did Jesus need to ransom us? Did he need to vanquish the devil and his hold over us? Did he need to satisfy God’s wrath by suffering in our stead? Was he accomplishing some other work?
This post is for paying subscribers only
Sign up now and upgrade your account to read the post and get access to the full library of posts for paying subscribers only.
