Hubbry Logo
Anselm of CanterburyAnselm of CanterburyMain
Open search
Anselm of Canterbury
Community hub
Anselm of Canterbury
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Anselm of Canterbury
Anselm of Canterbury
from Wikipedia

Anselm of Canterbury OSB (/ˈænsɛlm/; 1033/4–1109), also known as Anselm of Aosta (French: Anselme d'Aoste, Italian: Anselmo d'Aosta) after his birthplace and Anselm of Bec (French: Anselme du Bec) after his monastery, was an Italian[4] Benedictine monk, abbot, philosopher, and theologian of the Catholic Church, who served as Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109.

Key Information

As Archbishop of Canterbury, he defended the church's interests in England amid the Investiture Controversy. For his resistance to the English kings William II and Henry I, he was exiled twice: once from 1097 to 1100 and then from 1105 to 1107. While in exile, he helped guide the Greek Catholic bishops of southern Italy to adopt Roman Rites at the Council of Bari. He worked for the primacy of Canterbury over the Archbishop of York and over the bishops of Wales, and at his death he appeared to have been successful; however, Pope Paschal II later reversed the papal decisions on the matter and restored York's earlier status.

Beginning at Bec, Anselm composed dialogues and treatises with a rational and philosophical approach, which have sometimes caused him to be credited as the founder of Scholasticism. Despite his lack of recognition in this field in his own time, Anselm is now famous as the originator of the ontological argument for the existence of God and of the satisfaction theory of atonement.

After his death, Anselm was canonized as a saint; his feast day is 21 April. He was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by a papal bull of Pope Clement XI in 1720.

Biography

[edit]

A plaque commemorating the supposed birthplace of Anselm in Anselm street, Aosta, Italy (The identification may be spurious.)[5]

Family

[edit]

Anselm was born in or around Aosta in Upper Burgundy sometime between April 1033 and April 1034.[6] The area now forms part of the Republic of Italy, but Aosta had been part of the post-Carolingian Kingdom of Burgundy until the death of the childless Rudolph III in 1032.[7] The Emperor Conrad II and Odo II, Count of Blois then went to war over the succession. Humbert the White-Handed, Count of Maurienne, so distinguished himself that he was granted a new county carved out of the secular holdings of the bishop of Aosta. Humbert's son Otto was subsequently permitted to inherit the extensive March of Susa through his wife Adelaide[8] in preference to her uncle's families, who had supported the effort to establish an independent Kingdom of Italy under William V, Duke of Aquitaine. Otto and Adelaide's unified lands[9] then controlled the most important passes in the Western Alps and formed the county of Savoy whose dynasty would later rule the kingdoms of Sardinia and Italy.[10][11]

Records during this period are scanty, but both sides of Anselm's immediate family appear to have been dispossessed by these decisions[12] in favour of their extended relations.[13] His father Gundulph[14] or Gundulf[15] or Gondulphe[16] was a Lombard noble,[17] probably one of Adelaide's Arduinici uncles or cousins;[18] his mother Ermenberge[16] was almost certainly the granddaughter of Conrad the Peaceful, related both to the Anselmid bishops of Aosta and to the heirs of Henry II who had been passed over in favour of Conrad.[18] The marriage was thus probably arranged for political reasons but proved ineffective in opposing Conrad after his successful annexation of Burgundy on 1 August 1034.[19] (Bishop Burchard subsequently revolted against imperial control but was defeated and was ultimately translated to the diocese of Lyon.) Ermenberge appears to have been the wealthier partner in the marriage. Gundulph moved to his wife's town,[7] where she held a palace, most likely near the cathedral, along with a villa in the valley.[20] Anselm's father is sometimes described as having a harsh and violent temper[14] but contemporary accounts merely portray him as having been overgenerous or careless with his wealth;[21] Meanwhile, Anselm's mother Ermenberge, patient and devoutly religious,[14] made up for her husband's faults by her prudent management of the family estates.[21] In later life, there are records of three relations who visited Bec: Folceraldus, Haimo, and Rainaldus. The first repeatedly attempted to exploit Anselm's renown, but was rebuffed since he already had his ties to another monastery, whereas Anselm's attempts to persuade the other two to join the Bec community were unsuccessful.[22]

Early life

[edit]
Monument to St Anselm in Aosta, Xavier de Maistre street

At the age of fifteen, Anselm felt the call to enter a monastery but, failing to obtain his father's consent, he was refused by the abbot.[23] The illness he then suffered has been considered by some a psychosomatic effect of his disappointment,[14] but upon his recovery he gave up his studies and for a time lived a carefree life.[14]

Following the death of his mother, probably at the birth of his sister Richera,[24] Anselm's father repented his own earlier lifestyle but professed his new faith with a severity that the boy found likewise unbearable.[25] When Gundulph entered a monastery,[26] Anselm, at age 23,[27] left home with a single attendant,[14] crossed the Alps, and wandered through Burgundy and France for three years.[23][a] His countryman Lanfranc of Pavia was then prior of the Benedictine abbey of Bec in Normandy. Attracted by Lanfranc's reputation, Anselm reached Normandy in 1059.[14] After spending some time in Avranches, he returned the next year. His father having died, he consulted with Lanfranc as to whether to return to his estates and employ their income in providing alms for the poor or to renounce them, becoming a hermit or a monk at Bec or Cluny.[28] Given what he saw as his own conflict of interest, Lanfranc sent Anselm to Maurilius, the archbishop of Rouen, who convinced him to enter Bec as a novice at the age of 27.[23] Probably in his first year, he wrote his first work on philosophy, a treatment of Latin paradoxes called the Grammarian.[29] Over the next decade, the Rule of Saint Benedict reshaped his thought.[30]

Abbot of Bec

[edit]

Early years

[edit]
Bec Abbey in Normandy

Three years later, in 1063, Duke William II summoned Lanfranc to serve as the abbot of his new abbey of St Stephen at Caen[14] and the monks of Bec, despite the initial hesitation of some on account of his youth,[23] elected Anselm prior.[31] A notable opponent was a young monk named Osborne. Anselm overcame his hostility first by praising, indulging, and privileging him in all things despite his hostility and then, when his affection and trust were gained, gradually withdrawing all preference until he upheld the strictest obedience.[32] Along similar lines, he remonstrated with a neighbouring abbot who complained that his charges were incorrigible despite being beaten "night and day".[33] After fifteen years, in 1078, Anselm was unanimously elected as Bec's abbot following the death of its founder,[34] the warrior-monk Herluin.[14] He was blessed as abbot by Gilbert d'Arques, Bishop of Évreux, on 22 February 1079.[35]

Under Anselm's direction, Bec became the foremost seat of learning in Europe,[14] attracting students from France, Italy, and elsewhere.[36] During this time, he wrote the Monologion and Proslogion.[14] He then composed a series of dialogues on the nature of truth, free will,[14] and the fall of Satan.[29] When the nominalist Roscelin attempted to appeal to the authority of Lanfranc and Anselm at his trial for the heresy of tritheism at Soissons in 1092,[37] Anselm composed the first draft of De Fide Trinitatis as a rebuttal and as a defence of Trinitarianism and universals.[38] The fame of the monastery grew not only from his intellectual achievements, however, but also from his good example[28] and his loving, kindly method of discipline,[14] particularly with the younger monks.[23] There was also admiration for his spirited defence of the abbey's independence from lay and archiepiscopal control, especially in the face of Robert de Beaumont, Earl of Leicester and the new Archbishop of Rouen, William Bona Anima.[39]

In England

[edit]
A cross at Bec Abbey commemorating the connection between it and Canterbury. Lanfranc, Anselm, and Theobald were all priors at Bec before serving as primates in England.

Following the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, devoted lords had given the abbey extensive lands across the Channel.[14] Anselm occasionally visited to oversee the monastery's property, to wait upon his sovereign William I of England (formerly Duke William II of Normandy),[40] and to visit Lanfranc, who had been installed as archbishop of Canterbury in 1070.[41] He was respected by William I[42] and the good impression he made while in Canterbury made him the favourite of its cathedral chapter as a future successor to Lanfranc.[14] Instead, upon the archbishop's death in 1089, King William II—William Rufus or William the Red—refused the appointment of any successor and appropriated the see's lands and revenues for himself.[14] Fearing the difficulties that would attend being named to the position in opposition to the king, Anselm avoided journeying to England during this time.[14] The gravely ill Hugh, Earl of Chester, finally lured him over with three pressing messages in 1092,[43] seeking advice on how best to handle the establishment of the new monastery of St Werburgh at Chester.[23] Hugh had recovered by the time of Anselm's arrival,[23] and Anselm was occupied four[14] or five months organizing the new community.[23] He then travelled to his former pupil Gilbert Crispin, abbot of Westminster, and waited, apparently delayed by the need to assemble the donors of Bec's new lands in order to obtain royal approval of the grants.[44]

A 19th-century portrayal of Anselm being dragged to the cathedral by the English bishops

At Christmas, William II pledged by the Holy Face of Lucca that neither Anselm nor any other would sit at Canterbury while he lived[45] but in March he fell seriously ill at Alveston. Believing his sinful behavior was responsible,[46] he summoned Anselm to hear his confession and administer last rites.[44] He published a proclamation releasing his captives, discharging his debts, and promising to henceforth govern according to the law.[23] On 6 March 1093, he further nominated Anselm to fill the vacancy at Canterbury; the clerics gathered at court acclaiming him, forcing the crozier into his hands, and bodily carrying him to a nearby church amid a Te Deum.[47] Anselm tried to refuse on the grounds of age and ill-health for months[41] and the monks of Bec refused to give him permission to leave them.[48] Negotiations were handled by the recently restored Bishop William of Durham and Robert, count of Meulan.[49] On 24 August, Anselm gave King William the conditions under which he would accept the position, which amounted to the agenda of the Gregorian Reform: the king would have to return the Catholic Church lands which had been seized, accept his spiritual counsel, and forswear Antipope Clement III in favour of Urban II.[50] William Rufus was exceedingly reluctant to accept these conditions: he consented only to the first[51] and, a few days afterwards, reneged on that, suspending preparations for Anselm's investiture.[citation needed] Public pressure forced William to return to Anselm and in the end they settled on a partial return of Canterbury's lands as his own concession.[52] Anselm received dispensation from his duties in Normandy,[14] did homage to William, and—on 25 September 1093—was enthroned at Canterbury Cathedral.[53] The same day, William II finally returned the lands of the see.[51]

From the mid-8th century, it had become the custom that metropolitan bishops could not be consecrated without a woollen pallium given or sent by the pope himself.[54] Anselm insisted that he journey to Rome for this purpose but William would not permit it. Amid the Investiture Controversy, Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV had deposed each other twice; bishops loyal to Henry finally elected Guibert, archbishop of Ravenna, as a second pope. In France, Philip I had recognized Gregory and his successors Victor III and Urban II, but Guibert (as "Clement III") held Rome after 1084.[55] William had not chosen a side and maintained his right to prevent the acknowledgement of either pope by an English subject prior to his choice.[56] In the end, a ceremony was held to consecrate Anselm as archbishop on 4 December, without the pallium.[51]

Archbishop of Canterbury

[edit]

As archbishop, Anselm maintained his monastic ideals, including stewardship, prudence, and proper instruction, prayer and contemplation.[57] Anselm advocated for reform and interests of Canterbury.[58] As such, he repeatedly pressed the English monarchy for support of the reform agenda.[59] His principled opposition to royal prerogatives over the Catholic Church, meanwhile, twice led to his exile from England.[60]

The traditional view of historians has been to see Anselm as aligned with the papacy against lay authority and Anselm's term in office as the English theatre of the Investiture Controversy begun by Pope Gregory VII and the emperor Henry IV.[60] By the end of his life, he had proven successful, having freed Canterbury from submission to the English king,[61] received papal recognition of the submission of wayward York[62] and the Welsh bishops, and gained strong authority over the Irish bishops.[63] He died before the Canterbury–York dispute was definitively settled, however, and Pope Honorius II finally found in favour of York instead.[64]

Canterbury Cathedral following Ernulf and Conrad's expansions[65]

Although the work was largely handled by Christ Church's priors Ernulf (1096–1107) and Conrad (1108–1126), Anselm's episcopate also saw the expansion of Canterbury Cathedral from Lanfranc's initial plans.[66] The eastern end was demolished and an expanded choir placed over a large and well-decorated crypt, doubling the cathedral's length.[67] The new choir formed a church unto itself with its own transepts and a semicircular ambulatory opening into three chapels.[68]

Conflicts with William Rufus

[edit]

Anselm's vision was of a Catholic Church with its own internal authority, which clashed with William II's desire for royal control over both church and State.[59] One of Anselm's first conflicts with William came in the month he was consecrated. William II was preparing to wrest Normandy from his elder brother, Robert II, and needed funds.[69] Anselm was among those expected to pay him. He offered £500 but William refused, encouraged by his courtiers to insist on £1000 as a kind of annates for Anselm's elevation to archbishop. Anselm not only refused, he further pressed the king to fill England's other vacant positions, permit bishops to meet freely in councils, and to allow Anselm to resume enforcement of canon law, particularly against incestuous marriages,[23] until he was ordered to silence.[70] When a group of bishops subsequently suggested that William might now settle for the original sum, Anselm replied that he had already given the money to the poor and "that he disdained to purchase his master's favour as he would a horse or ass".[37] The king being told this, he replied Anselm's blessing for his invasion would not be needed as "I hated him before, I hate him now, and shall hate him still more hereafter".[70] Withdrawing to Canterbury, Anselm began work on the Cur Deus Homo.[37]

"Anselm Assuming the Pallium in Canterbury Cathedral" from E. M. Wilmot-Buxton's 1915 Anselm[71]

Upon William's return, Anselm insisted that he travel to the court of Urban II to secure the pallium that legitimized his office.[37] On 25 February 1095, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of England met in a council at Rockingham to discuss the issue. The next day, William ordered the bishops not to treat Anselm as their primate or as Canterbury's archbishop, as he openly adhered to Urban. The bishops sided with the king, the Bishop of Durham presenting his case[72] and even advising William to depose and exile Anselm.[73] The nobles siding with Anselm, the conference ended in deadlock and the matter was postponed. Immediately following this, William secretly sent William Warelwast and Gerard to Italy,[58] prevailing on Urban to send a legate bearing Canterbury's pallium.[74] Walter, bishop of Albano, was chosen and negotiated in secret with William's representative, the Bishop of Durham.[75] The king agreed to publicly support Urban's cause in exchange for acknowledgement of his rights to accept no legates without invitation and to block clerics from receiving or obeying papal letters without his approval. William's greatest desire was for Anselm to be removed from office. Walter said that "there was good reason to expect a successful issue in accordance with the king's wishes" but, upon William's open acknowledgement of Urban as pope, Walter refused to depose the archbishop.[76] William then tried to sell the pallium to others, failed,[77] tried to extract a payment from Anselm for the pallium, but was again refused. William then tried to personally bestow the pallium to Anselm, an act connoting the church's subservience to the throne, and was again refused.[78] In the end, the pallium was laid on the altar at Canterbury, whence Anselm took it on 10 June 1095.[78]

The First Crusade was declared at the Council of Clermont in November.[b] Despite his service for the king which earned him rough treatment from Anselm's biographer Eadmer,[80][81] upon the grave illness of the Bishop of Durham in December, Anselm journeyed to console and bless him on his deathbed.[82] Over the next two years, William opposed several of Anselm's efforts at reform—including his right to convene a council[42]—but no overt dispute is known. However, in 1094, the Welsh had begun to recover their lands from the Marcher Lords and William's 1095 invasion had accomplished little; two larger forays were made in 1097 against Cadwgan in Powys and Gruffudd in Gwynedd. These were also unsuccessful and William was compelled to erect a series of border fortresses.[83] He charged Anselm with having given him insufficient knights for the campaign and tried to fine him.[84] In the face of William's refusal to fulfill his promise of church reform, Anselm resolved to proceed to Rome—where an army of French crusaders had finally installed Urban—in order to seek the counsel of the pope.[59] William again denied him permission. The negotiations ended with Anselm being "given the choice of exile or total submission": if he left, William declared he would seize Canterbury and never again receive Anselm as archbishop; if he were to stay, William would impose his fine and force him to swear never again to appeal to the papacy.[85]

First exile

[edit]
Romanelli's c. 1640 Meeting of Countess Matilda and Anselm of Canterbury in the Presence of Pope Urban II

Anselm chose to depart in October 1097.[59] Although Anselm retained his nominal title, William immediately seized the revenues of his bishopric and retained them til death.[86] From Lyon, Anselm wrote to Urban, requesting that he be permitted to resign his office. Urban refused but commissioned him to prepare a defence of the Western doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit against representatives from the Greek Church.[87] Anselm arrived in Rome by April[87] and, according to his biographer Eadmer, lived beside the pope during the Siege of Capua in May.[88] Count Roger's Saracen troops supposedly offered him food and other gifts but the count actively resisted the clerics' attempts to convert them to Catholicism.[88]

At the Council of Bari in October, Anselm delivered his defence of the Filioque and the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist before 185 bishops.[89] Although this is sometimes portrayed as a failed ecumenical dialogue, it is more likely that the "Greeks" present were the local bishops of Southern Italy,[90] some of whom had been ruled by Constantinople as recently as 1071.[89] The formal acts of the council have been lost and Eadmer's account of Anselm's speech principally consists of descriptions of the bishops' vestments, but Anselm later collected his arguments on the topic as De Processione Spiritus Sancti.[90] Under pressure from their Norman lords, the Italian Greeks seem to have accepted papal supremacy and Anselm's theology.[90] The council also condemned William II. Eadmer credited Anselm with restraining the pope from excommunicating him,[87] although others attribute Urban's politic nature.[91]

Anselm was present in a seat of honour at the Easter Council at St Peter's in Rome the next year.[92] There, amid an outcry to address Anselm's situation, Urban renewed bans on lay investiture and on clerics doing homage.[93] Anselm departed the next day, first for Schiavi—where he completed his work Cur Deus Homo—and then for Lyon.[91][94]

Conflicts with Henry I

[edit]
The life of St Anselm told in 16 medallions in a stained-glass window in Quimper Cathedral, Brittany, in France

William Rufus was killed hunting in the New Forest on 2 August 1100. His brother Henry was present and moved quickly to secure the throne before the return of his elder brother Robert, Duke of Normandy, from the First Crusade. Henry invited Anselm to return, pledging in his letter to submit himself to the archbishop's counsel.[95] The cleric's support of Robert would have caused great trouble but Anselm returned before establishing any other terms than those offered by Henry.[96] Once in England, Anselm was ordered by Henry to do homage for his Canterbury estates[97] and to receive his investiture by ring and crozier anew.[98] Despite having done so under William, the bishop now refused to violate canon law. Henry for his part refused to relinquish a right possessed by his predecessors and even sent an embassy to Pope Paschal II to present his case.[91] Paschal reaffirmed Urban's bans to that mission and the one that followed it.[91]

Meanwhile, Anselm publicly supported Henry against the claims and threatened invasion of his brother Robert Curthose. Anselm wooed wavering barons to the king's cause, emphasizing the religious nature of their oaths and duty of loyalty;[99] he supported the deposition of Ranulf Flambard, the disloyal new bishop of Durham;[100] and he threatened Robert with excommunication.[101] The lack of popular support greeting his invasion near Portsmouth compelled Robert to accept the Treaty of Alton instead, renouncing his claims for an annual payment of 3000 marks.

Anselm held a council at Lambeth Palace which found that Henry's beloved Matilda had not technically become a nun and was thus eligible to wed and become queen.[102] On Michaelmas in 1102, Anselm was finally able to convene a general church council at London, establishing the Gregorian Reform within England. The council prohibited marriage, concubinage, and drunkenness to all those in holy orders,[103] condemned sodomy[104] and simony,[101] and regulated clerical dress.[101] Anselm also obtained a resolution against the British slave trade.[105] Henry supported Anselm's reforms and his authority over the English Church but continued to assert his own authority over Anselm. Upon their return, the three bishops he had dispatched on his second delegation to the pope claimed—in defiance of Paschal's sealed letter to Anselm, his public acts, and the testimony of the two monks who had accompanied them—that the pontiff had been receptive to Henry's counsel and secretly approved of Anselm's submission to the crown.[106] In 1103, then, Anselm consented to journey himself to Rome, along with the king's envoy William Warelwast.[107] Anselm supposedly travelled in order to argue the king's case for a dispensation[108] but, in response to this third mission, Paschal fully excommunicated the bishops who had accepted investment from Henry, though sparing the king himself.[91]

Second exile

[edit]

After this ruling, Anselm received a letter forbidding his return and withdrew to Lyon to await Paschal's response.[91] On 26 March 1105, Paschal again excommunicated prelates who had accepted investment from Henry and the advisors responsible, this time including Robert de Beaumont, Henry's chief advisor.[109] He further finally threatened Henry with the same;[110] in April, Anselm sent messages to the king directly[111] and through his sister Adela expressing his own willingness to excommunicate Henry.[91] This was probably a negotiation tactic[112] but it came at a critical period in Henry's reign[91] and it worked: a meeting was arranged and a compromise concluded at L'Aigle on 22 July 1105. Henry would forsake lay investiture if Anselm obtained Paschal's permission for clerics to do homage for their lands;[113][114] Henry's bishops'[91] and counsellors' excommunications were to be lifted provided they advise him to obey the papacy (Anselm performed this act on his own authority and later had to answer for it to Paschal);[113] the revenues of Canterbury would be returned to the archbishop; and priests would no longer be permitted to marry.[114] Anselm insisted on the agreement's ratification by the pope before he would consent to return to England, but wrote to Paschal in favour of the deal, arguing that Henry's forsaking of lay investiture was a greater victory than the matter of homage.[115] On 23 March 1106, Paschal wrote Anselm accepting the terms established at L'Aigle, although both clerics saw this as a temporary compromise and intended to continue pressing for reforms,[116] including the ending of homage to lay authorities.[117]

Even after this, Anselm refused to return to England.[118] Henry travelled to Bec and met with him on 15 August 1106. Henry was forced to make further concessions. He restored to Canterbury all the churches that had been seized by William or during Anselm's exile, promising that nothing more would be taken from them and even providing Anselm with a security payment.[citation needed] Henry had initially taxed married clergy and, when their situation had been outlawed, had made up the lost revenue by controversially extending the tax over all Churchmen.[119] He now agreed that any prelate who had paid this would be exempt from taxation for three years.[citation needed] These compromises on Henry's part strengthened the rights of the church against the king. Anselm returned to England before the new year.[91]

Final years

[edit]
The Altar of St Anselm in his chapel at Canterbury Cathedral. It was constructed by English sculptor Stephen Cox from Aosta marble donated by its regional government[120] and consecrated on 21 April 2006 at a ceremony including the Bishop of Aosta and the Abbot of Bec.[121] The location of Anselm's relics, however, remains uncertain.

In 1107, the Concordat of London formalized the agreements between the king and archbishop,[61] Henry formally renounced the right of English kings to invest the bishops of the church.[91] The remaining two years of Anselm's life were spent in the duties of his archbishopric.[91] He succeeded in getting Paschal to send the pallium for the archbishop of York to Canterbury so that future archbishops-elect would have to profess obedience before receiving it.[62] The incumbent archbishop Thomas II had received his own pallium directly and insisted on York's independence. From his deathbed, Anselm anathematized all who failed to recognize Canterbury's primacy over all the English Church. This ultimately forced Henry to order Thomas to confess his obedience to Anselm's successor.[63] On his deathbed, he announced himself content, except that he had a treatise in mind on the origin of the soul and did not know, once he was gone, if another was likely to compose it.[122]

He died on Holy Wednesday, 21 April 1109.[108] His remains were translated to Canterbury Cathedral[123] and laid at the head of Lanfranc at his initial resting place to the south of the Altar of the Holy Trinity (now St Thomas's Chapel).[126] During the church's reconstruction after the disastrous fire of the 1170s, his remains were relocated,[126] although it is now uncertain where.

On 23 December 1752, Archbishop Herring was contacted by Count Perron, the Sardinian ambassador, on behalf of King Charles Emmanuel, who requested permission to translate Anselm's relics to Italy.[127] (Charles had been duke of Aosta during his minority.) Herring ordered his dean to look into the matter, saying that while "the parting with the rotten Remains of a Rebel to his King, a Slave to the Popedom, and an Enemy to the married Clergy (all this Anselm was)" would be no great matter, he likewise "should make no Conscience of palming on the Simpletons any other old Bishop with the Name of Anselm".[129] The ambassador insisted on witnessing the excavation, however,[131] and resistance on the part of the prebendaries seems to have quieted the matter.[124] They considered the state of the cathedral's crypts would have offended the sensibilities of a Catholic and that it was probable that Anselm had been removed to near the altar of SS Peter and Paul, whose side chapel to the right (i.e., south) of the high altar took Anselm's name following his canonization. At that time, his relics would presumably have been placed in a shrine and its contents "disposed of" during the Reformation.[126] The ambassador's own investigation was of the opinion that Anselm's body had been confused with Archbishop Theobald's and likely remained entombed near the altar of the Virgin Mary,[133] but in the uncertainty nothing further seems to have been done then or when inquiries were renewed in 1841.[135]

Writings

[edit]
A late 16th-century engraving of Anselm

Anselm has been called "the most luminous and penetrating intellect between St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas"[108] and "the father of scholasticism",[38] Scotus Erigena having employed more mysticism in his arguments.[91] Anselm's works are considered philosophical as well as theological since they endeavour to render Christian tenets of faith, traditionally taken as a revealed truth, as a rational system.[136] Anselm also studiously analyzed the language used in his subjects, carefully distinguishing the meaning of the terms employed from the verbal forms, which he found at times wholly inadequate.[137] His worldview was broadly Neoplatonic, as it was reconciled with Christianity in the works of St Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius,[3][c] with his understanding of Aristotelian logic gathered from the works of Boethius.[139][140][38] He or the thinkers in northern France who shortly followed him—including Abelard, William of Conches, and Gilbert of Poitiers—inaugurated "one of the most brilliant periods of Western philosophy", innovating logic, semantics, ethics, metaphysics, and other areas of philosophical theology.[141]

Anselm held that faith necessarily precedes reason, but that reason can expand upon faith:[142] "And I do not seek to understand that I may believe but believe that I might understand. For this too I believe since, unless I first believe, I shall not understand."[d][143] This is possibly drawn from Tractate XXIX of St Augustine's Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John: regarding John 7:14–18, Augustine counseled "Do not seek to understand in order to believe but believe that thou may understand".[144] Anselm rephrased the idea repeatedly[e] and Thomas Williams (SEP 2007) considered that his aptest motto was the original title of the Proslogion, "faith seeking understanding", which intended "an active love of God seeking a deeper knowledge of God."[145] Once the faith is held fast, however, he argued an attempt must be made to demonstrate its truth by means of reason: "To me, it seems to be negligence if, after confirmation in the faith, we do not study to understand that which we believe."[f][143] Merely rational proofs are always, however, to be tested by scripture[146][147] and he employs Biblical passages and "what we believe" (quod credimus) at times to raise problems or to present erroneous understandings, whose inconsistencies are then resolved by reason.[148]

Stylistically, Anselm's treatises take two basic forms, dialogues and sustained meditations.[148] In both, he strove to state the rational grounds for central aspects of Christian doctrines as a pedagogical exercise for his initial audience of fellow monks and correspondents.[148] The subjects of Anselm's works were sometimes dictated by contemporary events, such as his speech at the Council of Bari or the need to refute his association with the thinking of Roscelin, but he intended for his books to form a unity, with his letters and latter works advising the reader to consult his other books for the arguments supporting various points in his reasoning.[149] It seems to have been a recurring problem that early drafts of his works were copied and circulated without his permission.[148]

A mid-17th century engraving of Anselm

While at Bec, Anselm composed:[29]

While archbishop of Canterbury, he composed:[29]

The illuminated beginning of an 11th-century manuscript of the Monologion

Monologion

[edit]

The Monologion (Latin: Monologium, "Monologue"), originally entitled A Monologue on the Reason for Faith (Monoloquium de Ratione Fidei)[150][g] and sometimes also known as An Example of Meditation on the Reason for Faith (Exemplum Meditandi de Ratione Fidei),[152][h] was written in 1075 and 1076.[29] It follows St Augustine to such an extent that Gibson argues neither Boethius nor Anselm state anything which was not already dealt with in greater detail by Augustine's De Trinitate;[154] Anselm even acknowledges his debt to that work in the Monologion's prologue.[155] However, he takes pains to present his reasons for belief in God without appeal to scriptural or patristic authority,[156] using new and bold arguments.[157] He attributes this style—and the book's existence—to the requests of his fellow monks that "nothing whatsoever in these matters should be made convincing by the authority of Scripture, but whatsoever... the necessity of reason would concisely prove".[158]

In the first chapter, Anselm begins with a statement that anyone should be able to convince themselves of the existence of God through reason alone "if he is even moderately intelligent".[159] He argues that many different things are known as "good", in many varying kinds and degrees. These must be understood as being judged relative to a single attribute of goodness.[160] He then argues that goodness is itself very good and, further, is good through itself. As such, it must be the highest good and, further, "that which is supremely good is also supremely great. There is, therefore, some one thing that is supremely good and supremely great—in other words, supreme among all existing things."[161] Chapter 2 follows a similar argument, while Chapter 3 argues that the "best and greatest and supreme among all existing things" must be responsible for the existence of all other things.[161] Chapter 4 argues that there must be the highest level of dignity among existing things and that the highest level must have a single member. "Therefore, there is a certain nature or substance or essence who through himself is good and great and through himself is what he is; through whom exists whatever truly is good or great or anything at all; and who is the supreme good, the supreme great thing, the supreme being or subsistent, that is, supreme among all existing things."[161] The remaining chapters of the book are devoted to consideration of the attributes necessary to such a being.[161] The Euthyphro dilemma, although not addressed by that name, is dealt with as a false dichotomy.[162] God is taken to neither conform to nor invent the moral order but to embody it:[162] in each case of his attributes, "God having that attribute is precisely that attribute itself".[163]

A letter survives of Anselm responding to Lanfranc's criticism of the work. The elder cleric took exception to its lack of appeals to scripture and authority.[155] The preface of the Proslogion records his own dissatisfaction with the Monologion's arguments, since they are rooted in a posteriori evidence and inductive reasoning.[157]

Proslogion

[edit]

The Proslogion (Latin: Proslogium, "Discourse"), originally entitled Faith Seeking Understanding (Fides Quaerens Intellectum) and then An Address on God's Existence (Alloquium de Dei Existentia),[150][164][i] was written over the next two years (1077–1078).[29] It is written in the form of an extended direct address to God.[148] It grew out of his dissatisfaction with the Monologion's interlinking and contingent arguments.[148] His "single argument that needed nothing but itself alone for proof, that would by itself be enough to show that God really exists"[165] is commonly[j] taken to be merely the second chapter of the work. In it, Anselm reasoned that even atheists can imagine the greatest being, having such attributes that nothing greater could exist (id quo nihil maius cogitari possit).[108] However, if such a being's attributes did not include existence, a still greater being could be imagined: one with all of the attributes of the first and existence. Therefore, the truly greatest possible being must necessarily exist. Further, this necessarily-existing greatest being must be God, who therefore necessarily exists.[157] This reasoning was known to the Scholastics as "Anselm's argument" (ratio Anselmi) but it became known as the ontological argument for the existence of God following Kant's treatment of it.[165][k]

A 12th-century illumination from the Meditations of St. Anselm

More probably, Anselm intended his "single argument" to include most of the rest of the work as well,[148] wherein he establishes the attributes of God and their compatibility with one another. Continuing to construct a being greater than which nothing else can be conceived, Anselm proposes such a being must be "just, truthful, happy, and whatever it is better to be than not to be".[168] Chapter 6 specifically enumerates the additional qualities of awareness, omnipotence, mercifulness, impassibility (inability to suffer),[167] and immateriality;[169] Chapter 11, self-existent,[169] wisdom, goodness, happiness, and permanence; and Chapter 18, unity.[167] Anselm addresses the question-begging nature of "greatness" in this formula partially by appeal to intuition and partially by independent consideration of the attributes being examined.[169] The incompatibility of, e.g., omnipotence, justness, and mercifulness are addressed in the abstract by reason, although Anselm concedes that specific acts of God are a matter of revelation beyond the scope of reasoning.[170] At one point during the 15th chapter, he reaches the conclusion that God is "not only that than which nothing greater can be thought but something greater than can be thought".[148] In any case, God's unity is such that all of his attributes are to be understood as facets of a single nature: "all of them are one and each of them is entirely what [God is] and what the other[s] are".[171] This is then used to argue for the triune nature of the God, Jesus, and "the one love common to [God] and [his] Son, that is, the Holy Spirit who proceeds from both".[172] The last three chapters are a digression on what God's goodness might entail.[148] Extracts from the work were later compiled under the name Meditations or The Manual of St Austin.[23]

Responsio

[edit]

The argument presented in the Proslogion has rarely seemed satisfactory[157][l] and was swiftly opposed by Gaunilo, a monk from the abbey of Marmoutier in Tours.[176] His book "for the fool" (Liber pro Insipiente)[m] argues that we cannot arbitrarily pass from idea to reality[157] (de posse ad esse not fit illatio).[38] The most famous of Gaunilo's objections is a parody of Anselm's argument involving an island greater than which nothing can be conceived.[165] Since we can conceive of such an island, it exists in our understanding and so must exist in reality. This is, however, absurd, since its shore might arbitrarily be increased and in any case varies with the tide.

Anselm's reply (Responsio) or apology (Liber Apologeticus)[157] does not address this argument directly, which has led Klima,[179] Grzesik,[38] and others to construct replies for him and led Wolterstorff[180] and others to conclude that Gaunilo's attack is definitive.[165] Anselm, however, considered that Gaunilo had misunderstood his argument.[165][176] In each of Gaunilo's four arguments, he takes Anselm's description of "that than which nothing greater can be thought" to be equivalent to "that which is greater than everything else that can be thought".[176] Anselm countered that anything which does not actually exist is necessarily excluded from his reasoning and anything which might or probably does not exist is likewise aside the point. The Proslogion had already stated "anything else whatsoever other than [God] can be thought not to exist".[181] The Proslogion's argument concerns and can only concern the single greatest entity out of all existing things. That entity both must exist and must be God.[165]

Dialogues

[edit]
MS Auct. D2. 6
An illuminated archbishop—presumably Anselm—from a 12th-century edition of his Meditations

All of Anselm's dialogues take the form of a lesson between a gifted and inquisitive student and a knowledgeable teacher. Except for in Cur Deus Homo, the student is not identified but the teacher is always recognizably Anselm himself.[148]

Anselm's De Grammatico ("On the Grammarian"), of uncertain date,[n] deals with eliminating various paradoxes arising from the grammar of Latin nouns and adjectives[152] by examining the syllogisms involved to ensure the terms in the premises agree in meaning and not merely expression.[183] The treatment shows a clear debt to Boethius's treatment of Aristotle.[139]

Between 1080 and 1086, while still at Bec, Anselm composed the dialogues De Veritate ("On Truth"), De Libertate Arbitrii ("On the Freedom of Choice"), and De Casu Diaboli ("On the Devil's Fall").[29] De Veritate is concerned not merely with the truth of statements but with correctness in will, action, and essence as well.[184] Correctness in such matters is understood as doing what a thing ought or was designed to do.[184] Anselm employs Aristotelian logic to affirm the existence of an absolute truth of which all other truth forms separate kinds. He identifies this absolute truth with God, who therefore forms the fundamental principle both in the existence of things and the correctness of thought.[157] As a corollary, he affirms that "everything that is, is rightly".[186] De Libertate Arbitrii elaborates Anselm's reasoning on correctness with regard to free will. He does not consider this a capacity to sin but a capacity to do good for its own sake (as opposed to owing to coercion or for self-interest).[184] God and the good angels therefore have free will despite being incapable of sinning; similarly, the non-coercive aspect of free will enabled man and the rebel angels to sin, despite this not being a necessary element of free will itself.[187] In De Casu Diaboli, Anselm further considers the case of the fallen angels, which serves to discuss the case of rational agents in general.[188] The teacher argues that there are two forms of good—justice (justicia) and benefit (commodum)—and two forms of evil: injustice and harm (incommodum). All rational beings seek benefit and shun harm on their own account but independent choice permits them to abandon bounds imposed by justice.[188] Some angels chose their own happiness in preference to justice and were punished by God for their injustice with less happiness. The angels who upheld justice were rewarded with such happiness that they are now incapable of sin, there being no happiness left for them to seek in opposition to the bounds of justice.[187] Humans, meanwhile, retain the theoretical capacity to will justly but, owing to the Fall, they are incapable of doing so in practice except by divine grace.[189]

The beginning of the Cur Deus Homo's prologue, from a 12th-century manuscript held at Lambeth Palace

Cur Deus Homo

[edit]

Cur Deus Homo ("Why God was a Man") was written from 1095 to 1098 once Anselm was already archbishop of Canterbury[29] as a response for requests to discuss the Incarnation.[190] It takes the form of a dialogue between Anselm and Boso, one of his students.[191] Its core is a purely rational argument for the necessity of the Christian mystery of atonement, the belief that Jesus's crucifixion was necessary to atone for mankind's sin. Anselm argues that, owing to the Fall and mankind's fallen nature ever since, humanity has offended God. Divine justice demands restitution for sin but human beings are incapable of providing it, as all the actions of men are already obligated to the furtherance of God's glory.[192] Further, God's infinite justice demands infinite restitution for the impairment of his infinite dignity.[189] The enormity of the offence led Anselm to reject personal acts of atonement, even Peter Damian's flagellation, as inadequate[193] and ultimately vain.[194] Instead, full recompense could only be made by God, which His infinite mercy inclines Him to provide. Atonement for humanity, however, could only be made through the figure of Jesus, as a sinless being both fully divine and fully human.[190] Taking it upon himself to offer his own life on our behalf, his crucifixion accrues infinite worth, more than redeeming mankind and permitting it to enjoy a just will in accord with its intended nature.[189] This interpretation is notable for permitting divine justice and mercy to be entirely compatible[160] and has exercised immense influence over church doctrine,[157][195] largely supplanting the earlier theory developed by Origen and Gregory of Nyssa[108] that had focused primarily on Satan's power over fallen man.[157] Cur Deus Homo is often accounted Anselm's greatest work,[108] but the legalist and amoral nature of the argument, along with its neglect of the individuals actually being redeemed, has been criticized both by comparison with the treatment by Abelard[157] and for its subsequent development in Protestant theology.[196]

The first page of a 12th-century manuscript of the De Concordia

Other works

[edit]

Anselm's De Fide Trinitatis et de Incarnatione Verbi Contra Blasphemias Ruzelini ("On Faith in the Trinity and on the Incarnation of the Word Against the Blasphemies of Roscelin"),[38] also known as Epistolae de Incarnatione Verbi ("Letters on the Incarnation of the Word"),[29] was written in two drafts in 1092 and 1094.[38] It defended Lanfranc and Anselm from association with the supposedly tritheist heresy espoused by Roscelin of Compiègne, as well as arguing in favour of Trinitarianism and universals.

De Conceptu Virginali et de Originali Peccato ("On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin") was written in 1099.[29] He claimed to have written it out of a desire to expand on an aspect of Cur Deus Homo for his student and friend Boso and takes the form of Anselm's half of a conversation with him.[148] Although Anselm denied belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception,[197] his thinking laid two principles which formed the groundwork for that dogma's development. The first is that it was proper that Mary should be so pure that—apart from God—no purer being could be imagined. The second was his treatment of original sin. Earlier theologians had held that it was transmitted from generation to generation by the sinful nature of sex. As in his earlier works, Anselm instead held that Adam's sin was borne by his descendants through the change in human nature which occurred during the Fall. Parents were unable to establish a just nature in their children which they had never had themselves.[198] This would subsequently be addressed in Mary's case by dogma surrounding the circumstances of her own birth.

De Processione Spiritus Sancti Contra Graecos ("On the Procession of the Holy Spirit Against the Greeks"),[164] written in 1102,[29] is a recapitulation of Anselm's treatment of the subject at the Council of Bari.[90] He discussed the Trinity first by stating that human beings could not know God from Himself but only from analogy. The analogy that he used was the self-consciousness of man. The peculiar double nature of consciousness, memory, and intelligence represents the relation of the Father to the Son. The mutual love of these two (memory and intelligence), proceeding from the relation they hold to one another, symbolizes the Holy Spirit.[157]

De Concordia Praescientiae et Praedestinationis et Gratiae Dei cum Libero Arbitrio ("On the Harmony of Foreknowledge and Predestination and the Grace of God with Free Choice") was written from 1107 to 1108.[29] Like the De Conceptu Virginali, it takes the form of a single narrator in a dialogue, offering presumable objections from the other side.[148] Its treatment of free will relies on Anselm's earlier works, but goes into greater detail as to the ways in which there is no actual incompatibility or paradox created by the divine attributes.[149] In its 5th chapter, Anselm reprises his consideration of eternity from the Monologion. "Although nothing is there except what is present, it is not the temporal present, like ours, but rather the eternal, within which all times altogether are contained. If in a certain way, the present time contains every place and all the things that are in any place, likewise, every time is encompassed in the eternal present, and everything that is in any time."[200] It is an overarching present, all beheld at once by God, thus permitting both his "foreknowledge" and genuine free choice on the part of mankind.[201]

Fragments survive of the work Anselm left unfinished at his death, which would have been a dialogue concerning certain pairs of opposites, including ability/inability, possibility/impossibility, and necessity/freedom.[202] It is thus sometimes cited under the name De Potestate et Impotentia, Possibilitate et Impossibilitate, Necessitate et Libertate.[38] Another work, probably left unfinished by Anselm and subsequently revised and expanded, was De Humanis Moribus per Similitudines ("On Mankind's Morals, Told Through Likenesses") or De Similitudinibus ("On Likenesses").[203] A collection of his sayings (Dicta Anselmi) was compiled, probably by the monk Alexander.[204] He also composed prayers to various saints.[17]

Anselm wrote nearly 500 surviving letters (Epistolae) to clerics, monks, relatives, and others,[205] the earliest being those written to the Norman monks who followed Lanfranc to England in 1070.[17] Southern asserts that all of Anselm's letters "even the most intimate" are statements of his religious beliefs, consciously composed so as to be read by many others.[206] His long letters to Waltram, bishop of Naumberg in Germany (Epistolae ad Walerannum) De Sacrificio Azymi et Fermentati ("On Unleavened and Leavened Sacrifice") and De Sacramentis Ecclesiae ("On the Church's Sacraments") were both written between 1106 and 1107 and are sometimes bound as separate books.[29] Although he seldom asked others to pray for him, two of his letters to hermits do so, "evidence of his belief in their spiritual prowess".[207] His letters of guidance—one to Hugh, a hermit near Caen, and two to a community of lay nuns—endorse their lives as a refuge from the difficulties of the political world with which Anselm had to contend.[207]

Many of Anselm's letters contain passionate expressions of attachment and affection, often addressed "to the beloved lover" (dilecto dilectori). While there is wide agreement that Anselm was personally committed to the monastic ideal of celibacy, some academics such as McGuire[208] and Boswell[209] have characterized these writings as expressions of a homosexual inclination.[210] The general view, expressed by Olsen[211] and Southern, sees the expressions as representing a "wholly spiritual" affection "nourished by an incorporeal ideal".[212]

Legacy

[edit]
A 12th-century illumination of Eadmer composing Anselm's biography

Two biographies of Anselm were written shortly after his death by his chaplain and secretary Eadmer (Vita et Conversatione Anselmi Cantuariensis) and the monk Alexander (Ex Dictis Beati Anselmi).[28] Eadmer also detailed Anselm's struggles with the English monarchs in his history (Historia Novorum). Another was compiled about fifty years later by John of Salisbury at the behest of Thomas Becket.[205] The historians William of Malmesbury, Orderic Vitalis, and Matthew Paris all left full accounts of his struggles against the second and third Norman kings.[205]

Anselm's students included Eadmer, Alexander, Gilbert Crispin, Honorius Augustodunensis, and Anselm of Laon. His works were copied and disseminated in his lifetime and exercised an influence on the Scholastics, including Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham.[140] His thoughts have guided much subsequent discussion on the procession of the Holy Spirit and the atonement. His work also anticipates much of the later controversies over free will and predestination.[56] An extensive debate occurred—primarily among French scholars—in the early 1930s about "nature and possibility" of Christian philosophy, which drew strongly on Anselm's work.[140]

Modern scholarship remains sharply divided over the nature of Anselm's episcopal leadership. Some, including Fröhlich[213] and Schmitt,[214] argue for Anselm's attempts to manage his reputation as a devout scholar and cleric, minimizing the worldly conflicts he found himself forced into.[214] Vaughn[215] and others argue that the "carefully nurtured image of simple holiness and profound thinking" was precisely employed as a tool by an adept, disingenuous political operator,[214] while the traditional view of the pious and reluctant church leader recorded by Eadmer—one who genuinely "nursed a deep-seated horror of worldly advancement"—is upheld by Southern[216] among others.[207][214]

A 19th-century stained-glass window depicting Anselm as archbishop, with his pallium and crozier

Veneration

[edit]
Becca di Nona south of Aosta, the site of a supposed mystical vision during Anselm's childhood[217]

Anselm's hagiography records that, when a child, he had a miraculous vision of God on the summit of the Becca di Nona near his home, with God asking his name, his home, and his quest before sharing bread with him. Anselm then slept, awoke, returned to Aosta, and then retraced his steps before returning to speak to his mother.[217]

Anselm's canonization was requested of Pope Alexander III by Thomas Becket at the Council of Tours in 1163.[205] He may have been formally canonized before Becket's murder in 1170: no record of this has survived but he was subsequently listed among the saints at Canterbury and elsewhere.[citation needed] It is usually reckoned, however, that his cult was only formally sanctioned by Pope Alexander VI in 1494[91][218] or 1497[133] at the request of Archbishop Morton.[133] His feast day is commemorated on the day of his death, 21 April, by the Catholic Church, much of the Anglican Communion,[28] and some forms of High Church Lutheranism.[citation needed] The location of his relics is uncertain. His most common attribute is a ship, representing the spiritual independence of the church.[citation needed]

Sant'Anselmo in Rome, the seat of the Abbot Primate of the Benedictine Confederation

Anselm was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pope Clement XI in 1720;[23] he is known as the doctor magnificus ("Magnificent Doctor")[38] or the doctor Marianus ("Marian doctor").[219] A chapel of Canterbury Cathedral south of the high altar is dedicated to him; it includes a modern stained-glass representation of the saint, flanked by his mentor Lanfranc and his steward Baldwin and by kings William II and Henry I.[220][221] The Pontifical Atheneum of St. Anselm, named in his honor, was established in Rome by Pope Leo XIII in 1887. The adjacent Sant'Anselmo all'Aventino, the seat of the Abbot Primate of the Federation of Black Monks (all the monks under the Rule of St Benedict except the Cistercians and the Trappists), was dedicated to him in 1900. 800 years after his death, on 21 April 1909, Pope Pius X issued the encyclical "Communium Rerum" praising Anselm, his ecclesiastical career, and his writings. In the United States, the Saint Anselm Abbey and its associated college are located in New Hampshire; they held a celebration in 2009 commemorating the 900th anniversary of Anselm's death. In 2015, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, created the Community of Saint Anselm, an Anglican religious order that resides at Lambeth Palace and is devoted to "prayer and service to the poor".[222]

Anselm is remembered in the Church of England and the Episcopal Church on 21 April.[223][224]

Editions of Anselm's works

[edit]
  • Gerberon, Gabriel (1675), Sancti Anselmi ex Beccensi Abbate Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera, nec non Eadmeri Monachi Cantuariensis Historia Novorum, et Alia Opuscula [The Works of St Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury and Former Abbot of Bec, and the History of New Things and Other Minor Works of Eadmer, monk of Canterbury] (in Latin), Paris: Louis Billaine & Jean du Puis (2d ed. published by François Montalant in 1721; republished with errors by Jacques Paul Migne as Vols. CLVIII & CLIX of the 2nd series of his Patrologia Latina in 1853 & 1854)
  • Ubaghs, Gerard Casimir [Gerardus Casimirus] (1854), De la Connaissance de Dieu, ou Monologue et Prosloge avec ses Appendices, de Saint Anselme, Archevêque de Cantorbéry et Docteur de l'Église [On Knowing God, or the Monologue and Proslogue with their Appendices, by Saint Anselme, Archbishop of Canterbury and Doctor of the Church] (in Latin and French), Louvain: Vanlinthout & Cie
  • Ragey, Philibert (1883), Mariale seu Liber precum Metricarum ad Beatam Virginem Mariam Quotidie Dicendarum (in Latin), London: Burns & Oates
  • Deane, Sidney Norton (1903), St. Anselm: Proslogium, Monologium, an Appendix in Behalf of the Fool by Gaunilon, and Cur Deus Homo with an Introduction, Bibliography, and Reprints of the Opinions of Leading Philosophers and Writers on the Ontological Argument, Chicago: Open Court Publishing Co. (Republished and expanded as St. Anselm: Basic Writings in 1962)
  • Webb, Clement Charles Julian (1903), The Devotions of Saint Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury, London: Methuen & Co. (Translating the Proslogion, the "Meditations", and some prayers and letters)
  • Schmitt, Franz Sales [Franciscus Salesius] (1936), "Ein neues unvollendetes Werk des heilige Anselm von Canterbury [A New Unfinished Work by St Anselm of Canterbury]", Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters [Contributions on the History of the Philosophy and Theology of the Middle Ages], Vol. XXXIII, No. 3 (in Latin and German), Munster: Aschendorf, pp. 22–43
  • Henry, Desmond Paul (1964), The De Grammatico of St Anselm (in Latin and English), South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press
  • Charlesworth, Maxwell John (1965), St. Anselm's Proslogion (in Latin and English), South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press
  • Schmitt, Franz Sales [Franciscus Salesius] (1968), S. Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera Omnia [The Complete Works of St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury] (in Latin), Stuttgart: Friedrich Fromann Verlag
  • Southern, Richard W.; et al. (1969), Memorials of St. Anselm (in Latin and English), Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • Ward, Benedicta (1973), The Prayers and Meditations of Saint Anselm, New York: Penguin Books
  • Hopkins, Jasper; et al. (1976), Anselm of Canterbury, Edwin Mellen (A reprint of earlier separate translations; republished by Arthur J. Banning Press as The Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Anselm of Canterbury in 2000) (Hopkins's translations available here [1].)
  • Fröhlich, Walter (1990–1994), The Letters of Saint Anselm of Canterbury (in Latin and English), Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications
  • Davies, Brian; et al. (1998), Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • Williams, Thomas (2007), Anselm: Basic Writings, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing (A reprint of earlier separate translations)

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ Church Pension Fund (2010), p. [page needed].
  2. ^ "Notable Lutheran Saints". Resurrectionpeople.org. Archived from the original on 16 May 2019. Retrieved 16 July 2019.
  3. ^ a b Charlesworth (2003), pp. 23–24.
  4. ^ "Saint Anselm of Canterbury". Britannica.com. Retrieved 24 November 2018.
  5. ^ Rule (1883), p. 2–3.
  6. ^ Rule (1883), p. 1–2.
  7. ^ a b Southern (1990), p. 7.
  8. ^ Previté-Orton (1912), p. 155.
  9. ^ Kirsch (1911).
  10. ^ Mack Smith (1989), p. [page needed].
  11. ^ Villari (1911), pp. 254–257.
  12. ^ Rule (1883), p. 1–4.
  13. ^ Southern (1990), p. 8.
  14. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s EB (1878), p. 91.
  15. ^ a b Robson (1996).
  16. ^ a b Rivolin (2009).
  17. ^ a b c Cross & Livingstone (2005), p. 73.
  18. ^ a b Rule (1883), p. 1.
  19. ^ Rule (1883), p. 2.
  20. ^ Rule (1883), p. 4–7.
  21. ^ a b Rule (1883), p. 7–8.
  22. ^ Southern (1990), p. 9.
  23. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Butler (1864).
  24. ^ Wilmot-Buxton (1915), Ch. 3.
  25. ^ Rambler (1853), p. 365–366.
  26. ^ Rambler (1853), p. 366.
  27. ^ Charlesworth (2003), p. 9.
  28. ^ a b c d Sadler (2006), §1.
  29. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n SEP (2007), §1.
  30. ^ Southern (1990), p. 32.
  31. ^ Charlesworth (2003), p. 10.
  32. ^ Rambler (1853), pp. 366–367.
  33. ^ Rambler (1853), p. 367–368.
  34. ^ Rambler (1853), p. 368.
  35. ^ Vaughn (1975), p. 282.
  36. ^ Charlesworth (2003), p. 15.
  37. ^ a b c d Rambler (1853), p. 483.
  38. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Grzesik (2000).
  39. ^ Vaughn (1975), p. 281.
  40. ^ Rambler (1853), p. 369.
  41. ^ a b Charlesworth (2003), p. 16.
  42. ^ a b Cross & Livingstone (2005), p. 74.
  43. ^ Rambler (1853), p. 370.
  44. ^ a b Southern (1990), p. 189.
  45. ^ Rambler (1853), p. 371.
  46. ^ Barlow (1983), pp. 298–299.
  47. ^ Southern (1990), p. 189–190.
  48. ^ Southern (1990), p. 191–192.
  49. ^ Barlow (1983), p. 306.
  50. ^ Vaughn (1974), p. 246.
  51. ^ a b c Vaughn (1975), p. 286.
  52. ^ Vaughn (1974), p. 248.
  53. ^ Charlesworth (2003), p. 17.
  54. ^ Boniface (747), Letter to Cuthbert.
  55. ^ Hayes (1911), p. 683.
  56. ^ a b Kent (1907).
  57. ^ Vaughn (1988), p. 218.
  58. ^ a b Vaughn (1978), p. 357.
  59. ^ a b c d Vaughn (1975), p. 293.
  60. ^ a b EB (1878), pp. 91–92.
  61. ^ a b Vaughn (1980), p. 82.
  62. ^ a b Vaughn (1980), p. 83.
  63. ^ a b Vaughn (1975), p. 298.
  64. ^ Duggan (1965), pp. 98–99.
  65. ^ Willis (1845), p. 38.
  66. ^ Willis (1845), pp. 17–18.
  67. ^ Cook (1949), p. 49.
  68. ^ Willis (1845), pp. 45–47.
  69. ^ Vaughn (1975), p. 287.
  70. ^ a b Rambler (1853), p. 482.
  71. ^ Wilmot-Buxton (1915), p. 136.
  72. ^ Powell & al. (1968), p. 52.
  73. ^ Vaughn (1987), pp. 182–185.
  74. ^ Vaughn (1975), p. 289.
  75. ^ Cantor (1958), p. 92.
  76. ^ Barlow (1983), pp. 342–344.
  77. ^ Davies (1874), p. 73.
  78. ^ a b Rambler (1853), p. 485.
  79. ^ Southern (1990), p. 169.
  80. ^ Cantor (1958), p. 97.
  81. ^ Vaughn (1987), p. 188.
  82. ^ Vaughn (1987), p. 194.
  83. ^ Potter (2009), p. 47.
  84. ^ Vaughn (1975), p. 291.
  85. ^ Vaughn (1975), p. 292.
  86. ^ Vaughn (1978), p. 360.
  87. ^ a b c Southern (1990), p. 279.
  88. ^ a b Southern (1963).
  89. ^ a b Kidd (1927), pp. 252–3.
  90. ^ a b c d Fortescue (1907), p. 203.
  91. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o EB (1878), p. 92.
  92. ^ Southern (1990), p. 280.
  93. ^ Southern (1990), p. 281.
  94. ^ Sharpe (2009).
  95. ^ Vaughn (1980), p. 63.
  96. ^ Southern (1990), p. 291.
  97. ^ Hollister (1983), p. 120.
  98. ^ Vaughn (1980), p. 67.
  99. ^ Hollister (2003), pp. 137–138.
  100. ^ Hollister (2003), pp. 135–136.
  101. ^ a b c Vaughn (1975), p. 295.
  102. ^ Hollister (2003), pp. 128–129.
  103. ^ Partner (1973), pp. 467–475, 468.
  104. ^ Boswell (1980), p. 215.
  105. ^ Crawley (1910).
  106. ^ Rambler (1853), p. 489–91.
  107. ^ Vaughn (1980), p. 71.
  108. ^ a b c d e f Cross & Livingstone (2005), p. 74.
  109. ^ Vaughn (1980), p. 74.
  110. ^ Charlesworth (2003), pp. 19–20.
  111. ^ Rambler (1853), p. 496–97.
  112. ^ Vaughn (1980), p. 75.
  113. ^ a b Vaughn (1978), p. 367.
  114. ^ a b Vaughn (1980), p. 76.
  115. ^ Vaughn (1980), p. 77.
  116. ^ Rambler (1853), p. 497–98.
  117. ^ Vaughn (1975), pp. 296–297.
  118. ^ Vaughn (1980), p. 80.
  119. ^ Vaughn (1975), p. 297.
  120. ^ Cross, Michael, "Altar in St Anselm Chapel", Canterbury Historical and Archaeological Society, retrieved 30 June 2015
  121. ^ "St Anselm's Chapel Altar", Waymarking, Seattle: Groundspeak, 28 April 2012, retrieved 30 June 2015
  122. ^ Rambler (1853), p. 498.
  123. ^ Willis (1845), p. 46.
  124. ^ a b Ollard & al. (1931), App. D, p. 21.
  125. ^ HMC (1901), p. 227–228.
  126. ^ a b c A letter of 9 January 1753 by "S.S." (probably Samuel Shuckford but possibly Samuel Stedman)[124] to Thomas Herring.[125]
  127. ^ Ollard & al. (1931), App. D, p. 20.
  128. ^ HMC (1901), p. 226.
  129. ^ A letter of 23 December 1752 by Thomas Herring to John Lynch.[128]
  130. ^ HMC (1901), p. 227.
  131. ^ A letter of 6 January 1753 by Thomas Herring to John Lynch.[130]
  132. ^ HMC (1901), p. 229–230.
  133. ^ a b c A letter of 31 March 1753 by P. Bradley to Count Perron.[132]
  134. ^ HMC (1901), p. 230–231.
  135. ^ A letter of 16 August 1841 by Lord Bolton, possibly to W. R. Lyall.[134]
  136. ^ Davies & Leftow (2004), p. 2.
  137. ^ Sadler (2006), Introduction.
  138. ^ a b Marenbon (2005), p. 170.
  139. ^ a b Logan (2009), p. 14.
  140. ^ a b c Sadler (2006), §2.
  141. ^ Marenbon (2005), p. 169–170.
  142. ^ Hollister (1982), p. 302.
  143. ^ a b Chisholm (1911), p. 82.
  144. ^ Schaff (2005).
  145. ^ SEP (2007).
  146. ^ Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo, Vol. I, §2.
  147. ^ Anselm of Canterbury, De Fide Trinitatis, §2.
  148. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Sadler (2006), §3.
  149. ^ a b Davies & Leftow (2004), p. 201.
  150. ^ a b c Logan (2009), p. 85.
  151. ^ Anselm of Canterbury, Letters, No. 109.
  152. ^ a b Luscombe (1997), p. 44.
  153. ^ Logan (2009), p. 86.
  154. ^ Gibson (1981), p. 214.
  155. ^ a b Logan (2009), p. 21.
  156. ^ Logan (2009), p. 21–22.
  157. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k EB (1878), p. 93.
  158. ^ Anselm of Canterbury, Monologion, p. 7, translated by Sadler.[148]
  159. ^ SEP (2007), §2.1.
  160. ^ a b Sadler (2006), loc. ??.
  161. ^ a b c d SEP (2007), §2.2.
  162. ^ a b Rogers (2008), p. 8.
  163. ^ Sadler (2006), §6.
  164. ^ a b Forshall (1840), p. 74.
  165. ^ a b c d e f g h SEP (2007), §2.3.
  166. ^ McEvoy (1994).
  167. ^ a b c d e f Sadler (2006), §4.
  168. ^ Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, p. 104, translated by Sadler.[167]
  169. ^ a b c SEP (2007), §3.1.
  170. ^ SEP (2007), §3.2.
  171. ^ Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, p. 115, translated by Sadler.[167]
  172. ^ Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, p. 117, translated by Sadler.[167]
  173. ^ Oppenheimer & Zalta (1991).
  174. ^ Oppenheimer & Zalta (2007).
  175. ^ Oppenheimer & Zalta (2011).
  176. ^ a b c Sadler (2006), §5.
  177. ^ Psalm 14:1.
  178. ^ Psalm 53:1.
  179. ^ Klima (2000).
  180. ^ Wolterstorff (1993).
  181. ^ Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, p. 103, translated by Sadler.[167]
  182. ^ Southern (1990), p. 65.
  183. ^ Sadler (2006), §8.
  184. ^ a b c SEP (2007), §4.1.
  185. ^ Sadler (2006), §9.
  186. ^ Anselm of Canterbury, De Veritate, p. 185, translated by Sadler.[185]
  187. ^ a b SEP (2007), §4.2.
  188. ^ a b Sadler (2006), §11.
  189. ^ a b c SEP (2007), §4.3.
  190. ^ a b Sadler (2006), §7.
  191. ^ Sadler (2006), §3 & 7.
  192. ^ Chisholm (1911), p. 83.
  193. ^ Fulton (2002), p. 176.
  194. ^ Fulton (2002), p. 178.
  195. ^ Foley (1909).
  196. ^ Foley (1909), pp. 256–7.
  197. ^ Janaro (2006), p. 51.
  198. ^ Janaro (2006), p. 52.
  199. ^ Sadler (2006), §12.
  200. ^ Anselm of Canterbury, De Concordia, p. 254, translated by Sadler.[199]
  201. ^ Holland (2012), p. 43.
  202. ^ Sadler (2006), §13.
  203. ^ Dinkova-Bruun (2015), p. 85.
  204. ^ Sadler (2006), §14.
  205. ^ a b c d Rambler (1853), p. 361.
  206. ^ Southern (1990), p. 396.
  207. ^ a b c Hughes-Edwards (2012), p. 19.
  208. ^ McGuire (1985).
  209. ^ Boswell (1980), pp. 218–219.
  210. ^ Doe (2000), p. 18.
  211. ^ Olsen (1988).
  212. ^ Southern (1990), p. 157.
  213. ^ Fröhlich (1990), pp. 37–52.
  214. ^ a b c d Gale (2010).
  215. ^ Vaughn (1987).
  216. ^ Southern (1990), pp. 459–481.
  217. ^ a b Rule (1883), p. 12–14.
  218. ^ Southern (1990), p. xxix.
  219. ^ Jackson (1909).
  220. ^ "The Stained Glass of Canterbury, Modern Edition", A Clerk of Oxford, 27 April 2011, retrieved 29 June 2015
  221. ^ Thistleton, Alan, "St Anselm Window", Canterbury Historical and Archaeological Society, retrieved 30 June 2015
  222. ^ Lodge, Carey (18 September 2015). "Archbishop Welby launches monastic community at Lambeth Palace". Christian Today. Retrieved 5 April 2016.
  223. ^ "The Calendar". The Church of England. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
  224. ^ Protestant Episcopal Church (2019), p. [page needed].

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033 – 21 April 1109) was an Italian Benedictine monk, abbot, philosopher, and theologian who served as Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 until his death. Born in Aosta in the Burgundian Kingdom (now Italy), he entered the Abbey of Bec in Normandy around 1060, rising to prior in 1063 and abbot in 1078, where he composed major works blending faith and reason. As archbishop, he defended papal authority against English monarchs William II and Henry I in the investiture controversy, enduring two exiles to assert church independence from secular control over bishop appointments and revenues. His enduring philosophical legacy includes the ontological argument in the Proslogion (1077–1078), which seeks to demonstrate God's existence a priori by defining God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" and arguing that such a being must exist in reality. Theologically, Anselm advanced the satisfaction theory of atonement in Cur Deus Homo (1094–1098), contending that human sin offended God's infinite honor, requiring Christ's voluntary death as infinite satisfaction to restore cosmic order rather than mere punishment. These innovations laid groundwork for scholasticism, emphasizing rational inquiry within faith, and earned him recognition as a Doctor of the Church in 1720.

Early Life

Birth and Family Background

Anselm was born around 1033 in , a town in the kingdom of situated in the western along the Italian side of the border, now part of modern . The precise date remains uncertain due to limited contemporary records, though estimates place it between April 1033 and April 1034 based on later biographical accounts. Aosta at the time was a culturally Lombard region under Burgundian rule, with strategic importance due to its Alpine passes and proximity to the emerging influence of the . He was the eldest child of a noble family of some and local standing. His father, Gundulf, originated from Lombard stock and had acquired citizenship in , managing family estates with a focus on worldly pursuits rather than . Anselm's mother, Ermenberga, hailed from an established Burgundian lineage, providing a of religious devotion in the household; she instilled early moral and spiritual influences on her son before her death during his adolescence. The family's may have linked them to regional magnates like the Savoy dynasty, though direct evidence is sparse and derived primarily from Anselm's biographer Eadmer, whose Vita Anselmi draws on personal recollections but reflects hagiographic tendencies common in medieval saints' lives. This background of mixed Lombard-Burgundian heritage and modest feudal holdings shaped Anselm's early exposure to both secular ambitions and monastic ideals, amid the feudal fragmentation of 11th-century .

Education and Monastic Formation

Anselm received his early education in , , where he was born around 1033 into a noble Lombard family. His mother provided him with a foundation in Christian and basic learning, supplemented by instruction from local clerics, fostering his precocious intellectual abilities; by , he demonstrated proficiency in Latin and dialectical reasoning. At age fifteen, Anselm sought admission to a local , drawn by a nascent , but his father's opposition thwarted this, leading to a period of worldly dissipation involving and secular pursuits that left him spiritually unfulfilled and physically weakened by illness. Following his mother's death and estrangement from his father around 1056, Anselm departed , embarking on travels through and northern in search of spiritual renewal. In 1059, he arrived in , initially studying briefly at the cathedral school in before being drawn to the Abbey of Bec, renowned for its emerging intellectual center under Prior of . At Bec, Anselm audited Lanfranc's lectures on and for about a year, benefiting from the prior's rigorous pedagogical methods that emphasized logical analysis and scriptural , which aligned with and advanced Anselm's prior self-taught inclinations. In 1060, at approximately age 27, Anselm committed to monastic life by entering Bec as a under Herluin, adopting the Benedictine Rule with its emphases on ora et labora—prayer, manual labor, and communal stability—which disciplined his contemplative tendencies. His rapid assimilation into the community's spiritual rhythm, coupled with exceptional piety and scholarly insight, marked his formation; he soon assisted in teaching novices, integrating monastic humility with dialectical inquiry. By 1063, following Lanfranc's departure to become abbot of Saint-Étienne in , Anselm succeeded him as prior, a role that intensified his responsibilities in guiding the brethren's intellectual and moral development while deepening his own synthesis of faith and reason.

Career at Bec

Entry and Rise at Bec Abbey

Anselm arrived in in 1059 and entered the Benedictine monastery of Bec as a the following year, attracted by the renown of its prior, of , a fellow Italian scholar noted for his expertise in and . Having left amid familial tensions after his mother's death, Anselm had wandered through and before settling on monastic life at Bec, where the abbey's emerging intellectual center aligned with his pursuit of learning and spiritual discipline. Under Abbot Herluin, the founder, and Prior , Bec was rapidly gaining prominence as a hub for advanced studies, which drew ambitious minds like Anselm, then aged about 27. In 1063, following Lanfranc's appointment as abbot of in , Anselm was elected prior of Bec despite initial resistance from some senior monks who questioned his youth and relative inexperience. As prior, he assumed responsibility for the monastery's , instructing novices and monks in , , and scripture, which expanded enrollment and elevated Bec's status as Europe's leading center of learning by the late . His approach combined rigorous intellectual inquiry with monastic , fostering an environment where dialectical reasoning served rather than supplanting it, and he began composing meditative works that reflected his deepening thought. Anselm's election as abbot in 1078, upon Herluin's death, marked the culmination of his rise at Bec, with the community unanimously choosing him for his proven leadership and spiritual insight, though he accepted only after papal intervention resolved his reluctance. Under his abbacy, Bec's influence extended across and , acquiring lands and drawing students from afar, while Anselm balanced administrative duties with theological writing, including early drafts of treatises like the Monologion. His tenure solidified Bec's role in scholastic development, emphasizing reason's harmony with .

Abbotship and Reforms

Upon the death of Abbot Herluin in 1078, the monks of Bec elected Anselm as his successor, though he accepted the position with characteristic reluctance, preferring the contemplative life of a simple monk. He served as abbot until 1093, when he was called to the archbishopric of Canterbury. Anselm's leadership emphasized compassionate governance over rigid enforcement of the Benedictine rule, moderating its demands to safeguard ' welfare and prevent undue burdens from manual labor or excessive austerity. He acted as both "father and mother" to the community, tending personally to the sick and healthy alike, correcting faults through gentle persuasion rather than severity, and fostering spiritual depth through example and sympathetic guidance. This approach, drawn from his prior experience since 1063, prioritized interior formation and intellectual pursuit, aligning with Bec's emerging reputation as a hub for theological inquiry under the prior influences of and Herluin. Administratively, Anselm demonstrated prudence by traveling to in 1079 to inspect and secure the abbey's distant holdings, including dependent priories, thereby ensuring their effective management amid Norman-English cross-Channel ties. His tenure sustained Bec's expansion as a model of reformed , where disciplined and study supplanted harsher ascetic practices, attracting novices and solidifying the abbey's influence in ecclesiastical reform movements. These efforts not only preserved communal harmony but also laid groundwork for Anselm's later confrontations with secular authority as .

Intellectual Environment and Early Writings

The intellectual environment at Bec Abbey during Anselm's residence combined Benedictine monastic discipline with rigorous study, elevated by the influence of , who introduced advanced dialectical methods from after joining in 1042. Under Lanfranc's priorate (1045–1063), Bec emerged as a hub for theological and philosophical inquiry, attracting scholars and emphasizing scriptural alongside logic, though subordinated to and monastic rather than pursued for mere curiosity. Anselm, arriving as a in 1060, thrived in this setting, where his prior duties from 1063 onward involved teaching monks through meditative reasoning, shifting focus inward to form the community's spiritual intellect over external schooling. Anselm's early writings, produced primarily between 1070 and 1078 as prior and shortly after becoming abbot in 1078, reflect this milieu's synthesis of prayerful contemplation and rational argumentation, aiming to elucidate faith through understanding (fides quaerens intellectum). The Monologion (c. 1076), composed at the monks' request, develops proofs for God's existence, attributes, and the Trinity via a stepwise ascent from created goods to the uncreated source, eschewing scriptural authority to demonstrate reason's compatibility with revelation. This was followed by the Proslogion (1077–1078), a shorter solitary meditation featuring the ontological argument: that God, as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," must exist in reality, not merely in thought, since existence enhances greatness. Additional early works include philosophical dialogues such as De grammatico (likely pre-1070), exploring universals through linguistic analysis in a monastic context, and Monologion-era treatises on truth and , all framed dialectically yet rooted in devotional practice. These texts, circulated in manuscripts among Bec's , established Anselm's method of a priori reasoning from self-evident premises, influencing subsequent while maintaining theological primacy, as evidenced by their integration into liturgical and communal reflection rather than detached speculation.

Archbishopric of Canterbury

Appointment and Initial Challenges

The Archbishopric of Canterbury fell vacant following the death of on May 24, 1089, with King William II exploiting the position by appropriating its revenues for four years rather than appointing a successor. In early 1093, after suffering a severe illness that prompted vows of reform, William yielded to pressure from English bishops and barons to nominate Anselm, the of Bec, as archbishop. Anselm, aged 60, resisted the appointment strenuously, citing his advanced age, poor health, unsuitability for administrative duties, and awareness of William's irreligious and tyrannical tendencies, which he feared would compromise ecclesiastical liberty. Despite his protests—even requiring physical at the king's bedside—the bishops proceeded with a canonical election, and Anselm was consecrated on December 4, 1093, by , . Post-consecration challenges emerged swiftly as demanded repayment of vacancy revenues and feudal relief for the restoration of temporal possessions, viewing the archbishopric as a under royal dominion. Anselm surrendered some accumulated funds from his abbacy but refused payments implying or subordination of spiritual authority to secular control, prioritizing canonical independence over royal . He further insisted on journeying to to receive the directly from —the pontiff he recognized amid the ongoing schism—rather than through William's favored , setting the stage for disputes over and .

Conflicts with William II Rufus

Upon his consecration as on 4 December 1093, Anselm immediately faced resistance from William II regarding the restoration of ecclesiastical lands and revenues seized by during the see's prolonged vacancy since Lanfranc's in 1089. Anselm conditioned his acceptance of the office on the full restitution of these properties without financial compensation to the king, viewing such payments as simoniacal; William initially relented but later demanded 500 marks annually from church income, which Anselm refused, asserting the church's fiscal independence. Tensions escalated over the , the woolen vestment symbolizing metropolitan authority, which Anselm insisted must be obtained directly from in rather than delivered by royal proxy, as proposed in 1095 to retain control. At the Easter in in 1095, Anselm sought permission to travel to for consultation on these matters and to receive the , but demanded feudal homage from Anselm for his lands, which the archbishop rejected as it would subordinate spiritual authority to secular power and violate his oath of to the pope. The standoff intensified at the council in early 1095, where 's barons and bishops pressured Anselm to compromise, but he maintained that homage was due only for temporal possessions, not the archiepiscopal ring and staff representing , leading William to confiscate Canterbury's estates and revenues. Anselm appealed to Urban II, who excommunicated obstructing English prelates except William himself pending further judgment, heightening the rift. These disputes, rooted in the broader , reflected William's exploitation of church vacancies for revenue—evident in his retention of Canterbury's income for four years—and Anselm's principled defense of , as chronicled in Eadmer's Historia Novorum in Anglia, a primary account from Anselm's disciple that portrays as tyrannical toward the church. By October 1097, with papal support affirming his position, Anselm departed for without royal consent, entering as William seized remaining church assets and forbade his return, a ban that persisted until Rufus's in August 1100. Throughout, Anselm's resistance avoided direct confrontation while upholding canonical reforms against royal encroachments, contrasting Rufus's policies of heavy taxation and clerical appointments favoring loyalty over merit.

First Exile and Papal Alignment

Tensions between Anselm and King William II Rufus intensified after the of Rockingham on March 11, 1095, where Anselm refused to compromise his allegiance to by swearing an unqualified oath of that would subordinate authority to the crown. William demanded Anselm provide knights for a campaign in without papal consent and sought feudal homage that conflicted with Anselm's view of church independence, rooted in opposition to lay investiture and . In October 1097, Anselm departed for without royal permission to seek counsel from Urban II on these matters, prompting William to confiscate the revenues and properties of the see of Canterbury upon his exit. During his exile from 1097 to 1100, Anselm resided primarily in , where he received support from Urban II, who affirmed his stance against royal interference in ecclesiastical affairs as part of the broader Gregorian reforms emphasizing . At the Council of in 1098, Anselm presented his grievances to the and defended the Western doctrine against Eastern Orthodox objections, further solidifying his alignment with the Roman pontiff. Urban II urged Anselm not to yield to William's demands, viewing them as encroachments on the church's liberty, though the pope avoided direct confrontation with the king to prevent schism in . Anselm's correspondence during this period, including letters to Urban and cardinals, articulated his principled resistance, arguing that bishops owed spiritual obedience to the pope rather than secular lords. Anselm remained barred from England until William's death in a hunting accident on August 2, 1100, after which Henry I invited his return, though initial reconciliation was tentative. This first exile underscored Anselm's commitment to papal authority over national monarchs in matters of faith and church governance, influencing subsequent negotiations.

Relations with Henry I

Upon the death of William II on August 2, 1100, Henry I ascended the English throne and promptly invited the exiled Anselm to return, promising the restoration of properties and revenues seized by his predecessor. Anselm arrived in in September 1100, initially fostering a cooperative relationship; he participated in the coronation-related ceremonies and supported Henry's legitimacy against rival claimant , while Henry confirmed Anselm's authority over the English church. This phase marked a temporary alignment, with Anselm advising on reforms and Henry benefiting from the archbishop's moral prestige amid consolidation of power. Tensions emerged in 1101 over the issue of lay and episcopal homage, central to the broader movement. Henry demanded that Anselm perform homage for the temporalities of as a feudal , per Norman custom, and sought to continue the practice of investing bishops with ring and crosier—symbols of spiritual authority. Anselm, adhering to papal prohibitions under , refused, insisting that such acts compromised ecclesiastical independence; he traveled to the papal court in 1103 for clarification, where Paschal explicitly banned homage to lay rulers and investiture by secular hands. Henry, viewing this as encroachment on royal prerogatives, forbade Anselm's return, initiating the archbishop's second exile from April 1103 to August 1106. During exile, Anselm resided primarily in Lyons, corresponding with papal legates and resisting Henry's overtures for compromise, while the king faced threats of excommunication. Negotiations intensified in 1105–1106, involving intermediaries like Queen Matilda, who mediated a meeting at ; Henry conceded partial ground but initially demanded full submission. The dispute resolved in 1107 through the of (or Westminster agreement), wherein Henry renounced investiture with ring and crosier for English bishoprics (retaining it in until 1109), allowing bishops to perform homage for temporal lands only after consecration; Anselm returned, performing homage accordingly and resuming duties without further major rift. This settlement, while not fully aligning with papal ideals, preserved Anselm's principles and strengthened church autonomy in , averting .

Second Exile and Resolution

Upon his return to England in September 1100 following the death of William II, Anselm initially cooperated with the new king, Henry I, by participating in the coronation charter that promised reforms, including the restoration of church lands seized by William. However, tensions escalated over the issue of lay , where Henry demanded that Anselm perform homage for the temporalities of the archbishopric, a feudal implying recognition of royal authority over appointments. Anselm refused, citing papal prohibitions against such oaths for bishops, first decreed under and reaffirmed by Urban's successor, Paschal II, who viewed lay investiture as simoniacal interference undermining clerical independence. In April 1103, Anselm departed for to consult Paschal II directly on the matter, marking the onset of his second exile on 27 April. The pope condemned lay investiture and forbade Anselm from compromising or returning without royal renunciation of the practice, leading Anselm to remain abroad rather than violate papal directives. He resided primarily in Lyons, from where he continued theological work and corresponded with supporters, while Henry confiscated Canterbury's revenues and pressured Anselm through intermediaries, including threats of deposition. Negotiations intensified in 1105–1106, with Henry dispatching envoys such as , , to , but Paschal II upheld his stance, even threatening to excommunicate Henry. Facing financial strain from ongoing wars and the need for stability, Henry relented by late 1106, agreeing to forgo with ring and crosier while retaining the right to homage for temporal possessions after canonical election. Anselm returned to in early 1106, and the compromise was formalized at the Synod of Westminster in 1107, where bishops confirmed the separation of spiritual from secular homage, averting broader without fully conceding to Gregorian reforms. This resolution preserved Anselm's adherence to papal while allowing Henry practical control over church revenues, reflecting pragmatic mutual accommodation amid the Controversy's European tensions.

Final Years and Death

Following his second from April 1103 to August 1106, Anselm met King Henry I at Bec Abbey on 15 August 1106, where a compromise was reached allowing the restoration of his ecclesiastical temporalities and partial resolution of disputes over lay investiture. Henry conceded to papal authority in certain matters, enabling Anselm's reinvestment as upon his return to later that year. The reconciliation culminated at the Synod of Westminster in 1107, where Henry formally renounced the practice of lay investiture for bishops and abbots in England, marking a significant step toward separating royal and papal influences in church appointments, though full alignment with Rome's decrees awaited later developments. Anselm then focused on administering the Archdiocese of Canterbury, implementing monastic reforms, and engaging in theological composition, including Epistola de sacrificio azymi et fermentati and De sacramentis ecclesiae around 1106–1107, followed by De concordia praescientiae et gratiae et hominis libertatis in 1107–1108. Anselm's health, long frail, declined further in his final years amid these duties. He died on 21 April 1109——in , surrounded by monks; according to his biographer Eadmer, he refused , insisting he had no sin to confess, and commended his soul to before passing peacefully. He was buried in , where his tomb remains.

Methodological Foundations

Faith Seeking Understanding

Anselm's methodological motto, ("faith seeking understanding"), originates as the subtitle of his , composed around 1077–1078 during his time as of Bec. In the work's prooemium, Anselm describes his intellectual struggle to find a unified rational on God's attributes that satisfies the believer's desire for deeper insight, stating that he sought "some one which should suffice to prove that truly exists, that he is the highest good... and whatever else we believe concerning the divine substance." This reflects his commitment to rational exploration grounded in prior belief, distinguishing his approach from purely speculative . The core formula appears explicitly in Proslogion chapter 1: "Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed . Nam et hoc credo, quia nisi credidero, non intelligam" ("For I do not seek to understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe: that unless I believed, I should not understand"). Anselm adapts 7:9 from the ("If you will not believe, you shall not understand") and echoes Augustine's crede ut intelligas, positioning as the necessary precondition for genuine comprehension of divine truths. Without faith's assent to , reason falters in grasping realities like God's or nature, as belief rectifies the intellect's limitations stemming from and finitude. This principle structures Anselm's broader oeuvre, where dialectical reasoning elucidates accepted doctrines rather than establishing them evidentially from neutral premises. In works like the Monologion (1076), he ascends from created goods to the divine source via cumulative arguments, assuming faith's framework to avoid circularity. Similarly, in Cur Deus Homo (1098), rational necessity clarifies the Incarnation's fittingness for , resolving how divine justice and mercy coexist without contradicting scripture. Anselm insists that such inquiry perfects by rendering it intellectually satisfying, yet remains subordinate to it, rejecting any subordination of belief to autonomous reason. Embedded in Benedictine monasticism, Anselm's method integrates lectio divina—scriptural meditation—with logical analysis, fostering understanding as an act of contemplative ascent toward God. He critiques overly literal or dialectical excesses that undermine mystery, advocating a balanced via media where reason serves faith's illumination without presuming to exhaust divine incomprehensibility. This approach influenced subsequent theologians, though later scholastics like adapted it toward more demonstrative . Anselm's insistence on faith's primacy underscores a causal realism: true of transcendent requires graced to align the mind with objective truth beyond empirical grasp.

Rational Dialectic and Monastic Prayer

Anselm developed his within the Benedictine monastic tradition at the Abbey of Bec, where he entered in 1060, became prior in 1063, and abbot in 1078, integrating logical with the contemplative practices of and scriptural meditation. This approach contrasted with earlier monastic reservations toward dialectic, as seen in Lanfranc's cautious use of dialectical reasons subordinated to , yet Anselm advanced it as a means to deepen through reason, famously encapsulated in his principle of —faith seeking understanding. At Bec, Anselm taught monks via dialogue and , fostering a that emphasized alongside monastic discipline, laying groundwork for scholastic methods while maintaining as the orienting force. His dialectical method manifested in works like the Monologion (c. 1076), a solitary reflection employing cumulative rational arguments from self-evident truths to demonstrate 's , unity, and attributes, composed in the style of monastic meditation without reliance on scriptural authority. Similarly, the (c. 1077–1078) originated as a ful exercise, structured as a personal address to where Anselm seeks to understand the divine essence through reason alone, beginning with the fool's denial of and proceeding via the . These treatises exemplify how Anselm viewed rational as an extension of , transforming abstract reasoning into a devotional ascent toward intellectual vision of , distinct from mere scholastic debate by its introspective, prayer-saturated character. Anselm's collection of Prayers and Meditations (c. 1070s), including devotions to Mary, saints, and on human sinfulness, further illustrates this synthesis, blending affective piety with dialectical precision to evoke compunction and rational insight, intended for private monastic or lay use to stir deeper prayer. Composed amid Bec's emphasis on and communal prayer, these texts employ rhetorical questions and logical progressions akin to his philosophical dialogues, underscoring Anselm's conviction that true understanding arises from reason illuminated by within a life of monastic prayer, rather than detached speculation. This integration preserved monastic spirituality against emerging , prioritizing from faith's certainties to avoid , as Anselm critiqued overly dialectical approaches divorced from .

Philosophical Arguments for God

Monologion: Cumulative Rational Proofs

The Monologion, composed by Anselm around 1075–1076 while prior at the Abbey of Bec, presents a series of interconnected rational arguments for the existence and attributes of , derived solely from philosophical reasoning without reliance on scriptural . Intended as a meditative exercise for monastic brethren, the work unfolds across 80 chapters in a cumulative manner, where each builds upon the preceding ones to ascend from observable degrees of goodness and being to the necessity of a singular supreme reality. Anselm employs dialectical method to demonstrate that contingent goods and existents participate in an ultimate source that possesses these perfections inherently and independently. The foundational proof begins in Chapter 1 with the observation that all good things are good not in isolation but through some greater good, implying a hierarchy that terminates in a single, supremely good being good through itself alone. This supreme good is further identified as supremely great, as any lesser goodness would contradict its primacy. Anselm argues that just as multiple goods converge on one source, so too do all existing things depend on a single self-existent reality, which exists independently and causes all others to exist (Chapters 2–3). This establishes God as the "highest nature," the unparticipated source of existence, goodness, and greatness, without composition or dependency. Subsequent chapters extend this cumulatively: the supreme being must be eternal and incorporeal, as temporality or materiality would introduce contingency (Chapters 5–14); it encompasses all perfections such as justice and truth in unity (Chapters 15–28); and it possesses an eternal Word or expression of itself, hinting at Trinitarian structure through rational necessity (Chapters 29–38). Anselm's proofs thus form a chain: from participatory goodness to self-sufficient existence, then to divine simplicity and immutability, culminating in a rationally compelled monotheistic ontology. Critics note the Platonic-Augustinian influence, yet the arguments' strength lies in their a priori coherence, presupposing no faith premises.

Proslogion: Ontological Argument and Its Logic

The (Latin for "Address" or "Discourse"), written by Anselm circa 1077–1078 during his tenure as abbot of Bec-Hellouin, constitutes a meditative fused with rational inquiry aimed at demonstrating 's through a singular, unified proof rather than the cumulative arguments of the preceding Monologion. Anselm sought therein to contemplate divine attributes while furnishing believers with an intellectual tool against denial of , invoking Psalm 14:1 ("The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'") to frame the discussion. In Chapter 2, Anselm posits that even the fool who denies God's existence comprehends the notion of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (id quo maius cogitari nequit or aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari possit), establishing that this concept exists at minimum in the intellect (in intellectu). He contends that to exist both in the intellect and in reality (in re) surpasses existing solely in the intellect, as actual existence augments perfection. Assuming this supreme being exists only mentally yields a contradiction: one could then conceive a greater entity possessing real existence, violating the definition of maximal greatness. Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, the being must exist in reality as well as intellect. The argument's logic hinges on four core premises:
  • God is defined exhaustively as the maximally great conceivable being, where "greatness" encompasses all perfections.
  • Conceptual understanding of this being is possible and thus present in the mind.
  • Real-world existence predicates greater perfection than mere mental existence for any conceivable entity.
  • No contradiction arises in predicating existence of this being, unlike contingent objects where imagination outstrips reality.
Chapter 3 extends this to necessary existence: the being cannot be conceived as non-existent, for that would permit conceiving its absence, implying a greater (eternally necessary) alternative and again contradicting maximal greatness. Anselm thereby deduces not mere contingent existence but an unavoidable, eternal reality inherent to the concept itself, framing the proof as a priori deduction from rather than empirical . This structure underscores Anselm's method of "faith seeking understanding," wherein rational necessity illuminates prior belief without foundational .

Theological Doctrines

Satisfaction Theory of Atonement in Cur Deus Homo

In Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man), composed between 1094 and 1098, Anselm articulates the satisfaction theory of atonement through a dialectical dialogue between himself and his monk-disciple Boso, aiming to demonstrate rationally the necessity and fittingness of the Incarnation without presupposing scriptural authority. The core premise posits that human sin constitutes an infinite offense against God's supreme honor and justice, creating a disorder in the cosmic order that demands reparation proportional to the infinite dignity of the offended party. Anselm rejects earlier atonement models, such as the ransom-to-the-devil theory prevalent in patristic thought, as incompatible with divine omnipotence and wisdom, arguing that God would not owe satisfaction to a creature like Satan. Instead, satisfaction must restore the violated order through an act of obedience exceeding the debt incurred by sin. Book I systematically establishes the impossibility of human salvation without divine intervention, emphasizing that God's justice precludes arbitrary forgiveness, as remitting sin unpaid would imply either caprice or deficiency in divine order. Finite humans, bound by original sin inherited from Adam, lack the capacity to render infinite satisfaction, while eternal punishment would negate God's merciful intent to save the elect; thus, the rational necessity emerges for God to assume human nature to bridge the gap. Anselm employs analogical reasoning from human justice—where offenses against a lord's honor require amends greater than the injury—to scale this to divine infinitude, though he grounds the concept in scriptural notions of debt and honor rather than strictly feudal customs. In Book II, Anselm explains the mechanism of satisfaction through Christ's dual nature: as sinless man, Jesus voluntarily undergoes death—a penalty reserved for sin—offering obedience that, by virtue of his divine personhood, possesses infinite meritorious value surpassing humanity's collective debt. This superabundant satisfaction, not punitive substitution but restorative restitution, merits grace for believers, reconciling divine mercy and justice without coercion or transaction, as the merit flows from Christ's filial relation to the Father. Anselm insists this act upholds God's immutability, with salvation as gratuitous gift rather than earned quid pro quo, countering objections that it implies necessity overriding divine will. The theory thus integrates atonement with Anselm's broader ontological framework, where sin disrupts being's rational harmony, restored only by the God-man's perfect act.

Free Will, Sin, and Divine Justice

Anselm defines (libertas arbitrii) not as the mere ability to choose between alternatives, including , but as "the power of preserving the rectitude of the will for the sake of that rectitude itself," emphasizing the capacity to uphold moral uprightness independently of external compulsion or reward. This conception, articulated in De Libero Arbitrio (c. 1080–1086), distinguishes true from mere contingency, arguing that even unfallen rational beings like angels possess without the possibility of sinning against their nature once confirmed in righteousness; the ability to , therefore, pertains to a defective use of will rather than its essence. Anselm maintains this libertarian framework, where agents act voluntarily yet are causally responsible for their choices, as endows creatures with the rational capacity to will rightly or wrongly without determining the outcome. Sin, for Anselm, constitutes a privation of rectitude in the will—a self-inflicted turning away from (iustitia), defined as "uprightness of the will preserved for its own sake," toward self-preferential goods that one ought not to will. In De Casu Diaboli (c. 1080–1090), he applies this to the devil's primordial fall, explaining that the angel by freely willing supremacy over God—a good it lacked and had no right to claim—despite possessing full knowledge of divine order and no external ; this act was not caused by any prior but arose from the will's desertion of rectitude for its own sake. Humans similarly through free choice, inheriting a propensity from Adam's fall that impairs but does not eliminate volitional responsibility, rendering all postlapsarian acts culpable unless aided by grace. Divine justice demands that sin, as a violation of 's honor and cosmic order, incur either or satisfaction, for cannot remit the arbitrarily without contradicting his immutable rectitude, which forbids both unmerited impunity and disproportionate penalty. In Cur Deus Homo (1094–1098), Anselm argues that human creates an infinite offense against divine majesty, unpayable by finite creatures, necessitating Christ's and voluntary satisfaction to restore equilibrium—fulfilling through supererogatory obedience while enabling , as 's foreknowledge preserves human without predetermining . This framework reconciles with divine foreordination in De Concordia Praescientiae et Praedestinationis et Gratiae Dei cum Libero Arbitrio (c. 1100), where grace perfects rather than overrides the will, ensuring that the persevere in rectitude without , while the reprobate's remains their own voluntary defection.

Christological Dialogues

Anselm articulated key aspects of Christology through treatises employing dialectical reasoning, often in dialogical or quasi-dialogical formats, to defend the hypostatic union and the uniqueness of the Son's incarnation against contemporary errors. In the Epistola de Incarnatione Verbi (1094), composed amid reports of Roscelin's nominalist views implying tritheism or confusion of Trinitarian persons, Anselm affirmed that only the Son, the second person of the Trinity, assumed a complete human nature—comprising body and rational soul—into the unity of his divine person, without the Father or Holy Spirit undergoing incarnation. This preserved the immutability of the divine nature and the distinct personal properties within the Godhead, rejecting any interchangeability of persons that would undermine Trinitarian orthodoxy. Anselm's argument hinged on the logical necessity that the assumed humanity lacks a separate human person, ensuring Christ's singular persona subsists in two natures (una persona in duabus naturis), directly echoing the Chalcedonian definition of 451 while applying it rigorously to soteriological implications. Anselm's method in this work relied on first-principles deduction from divine simplicity and personhood: the incarnation could not alter God's essence or properties, so only the Son's eternal relation of generation fitted the assumption of temporality in humanity without implying change in the Father (eternal source) or Spirit (eternal procession). He refuted alternatives like Nestorian division or Monophysite confusion by demonstrating their incompatibility with God's necessary goodness and justice, where the Son's voluntary union rectifies human nature's disorder through perfect obedience. This text marked a revival of precise Chalcedonian exegesis in the Latin West, post-Leo I, by integrating patristic formulas with monastic dialectical prayer. In De Conceptu Virginali et Originali Peccato (c. 1099–1100), Anselm adopted a dialogical to probe the mechanics of Christ's sinless humanity, addressing how the virginal conception enabled full participation in without transmission of . He posited that original sin inheres not in flesh or substance per se but in the disordered will propagated through carnal generation from ; thus, the Holy Spirit's miraculous agency in Mary's womb generated Christ's body directly, bypassing seminal corruption while constituting genuine human descent and with fallen humanity. This ensured Christ's rational and body were consubstantial with humanity yet impeccable, as requires voluntary deviation impossible in the God-man's rectified will. Anselm thereby defended Christ's as intrinsic to his hypostatic identity, not an extrinsic addition, countering adoptionist tendencies by rooting it in the eternal Word's assumption. These explorations complemented Anselm's broader ontological framework, where Christ's person effects redemption precisely because the divine persona elevates human nature to participate in divine rectitude, a causal necessity derived from God's inability to leave sin unrectified or justice unsatisfied. By framing Christology dialectically, Anselm prioritized verifiable logical coherence over speculative symbolism, influencing subsequent scholastic clarifications of the two natures' communication of idioms without mixture or division.

Criticisms and Intellectual Responses

Medieval Objections (Gaunilo and Contemporaries)

Gaunilo, a Benedictine monk at Marmoutiers Abbey near Tours, , authored Liber pro insipiente (On Behalf of the Fool) around 1079, directly critiquing Anselm's from the (c. 1077–1078). In this treatise, Gaunilo assumes the voice of the "fool" from Psalm 53:1 to argue that Anselm equivocates on the notion of a thing existing "in the understanding," asserting that mere conceptual comprehension does not prove actual existence. He maintains that the fool can deny God's existence while grasping the definition of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," as false or non-existent things can still be thought or described without being real. Gaunilo's central objection deploys a substituting a "perfect island" for : if one devises the notion of an than which no greater can be conceived, Anselm's logic would require its real to maximize its greatness, yet no such island is accepted as existing, exposing the argument's invalidity for proving necessary existence from conceivability alone. He elaborates that "if a man should devise the notion of some one , than which no greater can be conceived... it does not follow that the island exists," highlighting how the reasoning could absurdly validate any maximally perfect contingent entity, such as an unsurpassable mountain or palace, without empirical warrant. This analogy underscores Gaunilo's view that Anselm's proof confuses the modalities of conceptual possibility with ontological necessity, applicable to finite, imaginable objects but not demonstrably transferring to an infinite being. Gaunilo further objects that Anselm presupposes what he aims to prove by assuming the fool truly understands God's non-existence as inconceivable, whereas the fool merely rejects the from idea to reality, akin to doubting unverified reports of remote lands despite vivid descriptions. He insists that real requires sensory or testimonial , not deduction from maximal predicates, and warns that Anselm's method risks proving the of chimerical ideals without distinguishing divine necessity from human invention. Contemporary records indicate few other direct objections from Anselm's immediate circle, with Gaunilo's critique standing as the principal early medieval response; later figures like (d. 1274) would raise distinct concerns about faith's primacy over pure reason, but these postdate Anselm's era by over a century. Anselm was pleased to receive such an intelligent critique that he wrote a reply to Gaunilo and specifically instructed that the exchange be appended to future editions of the Proslogion.

Patristic and Scholastic Engagements

drew extensively from patristic sources, particularly , whose works on faith seeking understanding and the shaped Anselm's dialectical method in treatises like the Monologion. While Anselm aligned with patristic emphases on and , his in Cur Deus Homo (c. 1098) represented a departure from earlier ransom or models prevalent in fathers like and , prioritizing instead an objective satisfaction of divine honor disrupted by . This shift invoked feudal analogies but rooted them in patristic notions of as offense against God's infinite , though critics later noted its limited direct patristic precedents beyond Augustine's penal satisfaction motifs. In scholastic engagements, (1225–1274) endorsed Anselm's approach but critiqued the 's for presupposing universal comprehension of God's essence as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," rendering self-evident only in se but not quoad nos without prior empirical knowledge of God's effects. Aquinas thus subordinated it to his five ways, which proceed from observed causation to necessary being, arguing Anselm's a priori deduction risked circularity by assuming the fool's denial stems from misunderstanding rather than rejecting the premise outright. On , Aquinas integrated Anselm's satisfaction framework into a broader scheme where Christ's superabundant obedience merited grace, aligning divine justice with mercy without fully endorsing Anselm's exclusion of devil-ransom elements. John Duns Scotus (c. 1266–1308) built on Anselm's distinctions in De Concordia for his defense of the , employing Anselm's contrast between and original justice to argue Mary's preservation from sin via , while critiquing Anselm's necessity in for undermining divine . Scotus also adapted Anselm's two affections of the will—advantageous and just—to explain moral , positing volition's without Anselm's heavier emphasis on rectitude as non posse peccare post lapsum. William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347) rejected Anselm's ontological proof as invalid, insisting cannot be deduced from mere conceivability without intuitive of singulars, favoring nominalist parsimony over Anselm's realist universals. Ockham engaged Anselm's voluntarism on choice, affirming will's primacy but simplifying it to reject dual affections, arguing manifests in non-acting on inclinations without positing unactualized potencies. Scholastics broadly canonized Anselm's as foundational, with (1079–1142) offering a moral-influence counter emphasizing Christ's example over satisfaction, yet subsequent figures like Aquinas synthesized it into penal-substitutionary elements, ensuring its dominance in medieval despite debates over its patristic fidelity. These engagements highlight Anselm's role as a bridge from patristic meditation to scholastic disputation, where critiques refined rather than discarded his causal logic of divine necessity and human rectitude.

Modern Critiques and Empirical-First-Principles Rebuttals

, in his 1781 , critiqued Anselm's by arguing that existence functions not as a predicate or perfection that enhances a concept's content, but as a precondition for any instantiation of properties; thus, positing a maximally great being in the understanding does not entail its actual existence, as the argument illicitly treats existence as an additive quality rather than a mode of being. later reinforced this in by analyzing existence through , where denoting phrases like "the greatest conceivable being" fail to guarantee reference to a real entity unless empirically or logically necessitated independently of definition. These critiques highlight the argument's detachment from observable reality, as no empirical data—such as cosmological constants or biological complexity—demonstrates a necessary being whose non-existence would constitute a logical impossibility. From first-principles reasoning grounded in causal , Anselm's collapses because conception alone yields no causal mechanism for actualization; everyday shows that defined ideals, like a flawless or machine, remain unrealized without material instantiation, underscoring that maximal conceivability pertains to modal possibility at best, not existential necessity verifiable through deduction from basic axioms of being and non-contradiction. Empirically, the universe's causal chains, traceable via physics to initial conditions without evident intervention by a singular necessary existent, challenge the argument's premise that non-existence would diminish greatness, as quantifiable regularities in , quantum fluctuations, and evolutionary operate sans appeal to an uncaused causer matching Anselm's description. Regarding Anselm's satisfaction theory in (1098), modern critics including feminist theologians contend it anthropomorphizes divine justice through feudal honor codes, portraying as a wrathful overlord exacting infinite penalty for finite human sins, which undermines portrayals of and aligns with coercive violence rather than relational restoration. Process theologians further object that Anselm's framework assumes an atemporal, omnipotent deity whose justice demands vicarious satisfaction, incompatible with a evolving in persuasive relation to creation, rendering the incarnation's necessity logically arbitrary absent scriptural warrant. Empirical-first-principles rebuttals dismantle this by observing human justice systems, where proportional restitution suffices for offenses—finite harms yield finite remedies, as in legal precedents from Hammurabi's Code (c. 1750 BCE) to modern models—without requiring infinite equivalents, falsifying Anselm's escalation of sin's disorder to an ontological debt transcending causal scales. Causally, as satisfaction lacks observable correlates; psychological and sociological data on reconciliation, such as reduced via empathy-based interventions (e.g., 20-30% efficacy in meta-analyses of offender-victim dialogues), align with emergent relational dynamics rather than top-down honor restoration, indicating sin's effects as behavioral patterns amenable to incremental correction, not divine fiat.

Legacy and Influence

Foundations of Scholasticism

Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) established foundational principles of through his methodological innovation of integrating dialectical reason with theological inquiry, earning him recognition as the "father of ." His approach emphasized ("faith seeking understanding"), originally the subtitle of his (c. 1077–1078), which prioritized rational elaboration of Christian beliefs over mere authoritative repetition. This principle guided 's core aim: to use logic and philosophy to clarify and defend faith without undermining its primacy. In the Monologion (completed around 1076), Anselm pioneered a monologic style of argumentation, deriving proofs for God's existence and attributes through a chain of necessary reasons independent of scriptural proof-texts, drawing on Augustinian but advancing toward systematic deduction. This work exemplified early scholastic method by treating theological questions as resolvable via reason, influencing the transition from patristic to in monastic schools like Bec, where Anselm served as prior from 1063 and abbot from 1078. Unlike predecessors reliant on for or , Anselm applied it to metaphysics and , prefiguring the quaestio structure of high . Anselm's (1094–1098) further solidified scholastic foundations by employing dialogic form to rationally justify the and , assuming only premises of to demonstrate their necessity against skeptics. This rational satisfaction theory resolved apparent contradictions between divine and through logical necessity, setting a precedent for scholastic theology's use of to address heresies and unbelief without . His emphasis on reason's subservience to distinguished proto-scholasticism from later , while fostering a tradition of precise conceptual analysis that bridged Carolingian logic and 12th-century university . Anselm's Bec library and teaching attracted students like Eadmer, propagating these methods across .

Impact on Philosophy and Theology

Anselm's methodological principle of —"faith seeking understanding"—established a foundational paradigm for integrating rational inquiry with theological belief, marking the transition toward in medieval thought. This approach, articulated in works like the Monologion (c. 1076) and (1077–1078), emphasized using dialectical reason to elucidate doctrines accepted on faith, influencing the systematic methodology of later scholastics such as (c. 1225–1274). In philosophy, Anselm's in Proslogion II proposed demonstrating God's existence from the concept of a being "than which none greater can be conceived," advancing a priori reasoning in metaphysics and inspiring variants by (1596–1650) and (1646–1716), while prompting critiques from (1724–1804) that shaped modern . This argument's focus on necessary existence highlighted tensions between conceptual analysis and empirical reality, contributing to ongoing debates in about modality and divine attributes. Theologically, Anselm's , developed in (1094–1098), reconceived redemption as Christ's voluntary satisfaction of divine honor offended by human sin, rather than a to the , thereby influencing Western and serving as a precursor to in reformers like (1509–1564). This framework underscored causal relations between sin's infinite debt, divine justice, and Christ's infinite merit, providing a rationally coherent alternative to patristic models and enduring in Catholic and Protestant doctrines.

Contemporary Debates and Verifiable Enduring Insights

Contemporary philosophers continue to engage Anselm's from the , reformulating it in terms to assess whether a maximally great being's necessary follows from its conceptual possibility. Alvin Plantinga's 1974 version posits that if it is possible that a maximally excellent being exists in some , then it exists in all worlds, including the actual one, due to the property of necessary greatness; this has prompted debates over the coherence of maximal excellence and the epistemology of possibility claims, with critics like arguing in 1982 that the premise of possibility begs the question by assuming non-contradiction in divine attributes. Such formalizations highlight Anselm's enduring insight into as a predicate-like , verifiable through logical analysis where denying the consequent leads to performative contradiction in conceiving the divine. In atonement theology, Anselm's satisfaction theory in Cur Deus Homo faces modern critiques for implying a transactional divine that borders on cosmic , as articulated by in 2003, who contrasted it with non-violent models like ; feminist theologians, such as Joanne Carlson Brown in 1989, further object that it perpetuates patriarchal honor codes by requiring Christ's suffering to restore God's equilibrium disrupted by human sin. Responses defend Anselm by emphasizing voluntary satisfaction over coercion, noting that Christ's infinite merit causally rectifies finite human debt without necessitating , as the enables a fitting restoration of order; this counters Nietzsche's 1887 charge of in Christian doctrine by grounding in ontological necessity rather than vindictive psychology. An verifiable insight persists in the theory's causal realism: sin's disorder demands proportional reparation, a principle echoed in legal and economic analogies where unaddressed infractions erode systemic , influencing models in Reformed . Anselm's dictum fides quaerens intellectum—faith seeking understanding—endures as a methodological in of religion, promoting rigorous deduction from accepted premises without empirical deferral, as seen in its application to trinitarian coherence where reason elucidates but does not originate belief. This approach verifies through consistent logical output: Anselm's dialogues demonstrate that apparent contradictions in doctrines like divine foreknowledge and human freedom resolve via precise predication, avoiding equivocation on necessity and contingency, a technique prefiguring scholastic distinctions and modern possible worlds semantics. Debates persist on whether such understanding yields genuine knowledge or mere rationalization, yet its causal emphasis—that intellect illuminates faith's object without supplanting it—remains testable in yielding non-ad hoc resolutions to theological puzzles, as in reconciling immutability with relationality.

Veneration and Historical Reception

Canonization and Liturgical Role

Anselm died on April 21, 1109, and was initially buried in , where veneration of him as a began almost immediately among the local and . Efforts to secure formal papal recognition of his sanctity were initiated by Archbishop in 1162, who petitioned ; a letter from the pope dated June 9, 1163, references this process, though it did not result in immediate . Papal was eventually granted in 1494. In 1720, proclaimed Anselm a , honoring his contributions to . Anselm's liturgical role centers on his feast day, observed on April 21, the anniversary of his death, in both the Roman Catholic and Anglican calendars. In the Catholic Church, it is an optional memorial, with readings and prayers emphasizing his monastic life, defense of ecclesiastical liberty, and intellectual legacy as the "Father of Scholasticism." His relics, housed in Canterbury Cathedral's Trinity Chapel, continue to draw pilgrims, though their survival through the 16th-century English Reformation remains a point of historical interest, with the tomb site preserved as a focal point for devotion. Veneration extends to invocations for theologians and philosophers, reflecting his patronage in these fields.

Cultural and Scholarly Rediscovery

In the early , Anselm's theological writings gained renewed relevance through the work of Johann Adam Möhler, a key figure in the School of , who interpreted Anselm's and philosophical method as adaptable to post-Enlightenment challenges, marking the first systematic recovery of Anselm for modern . This effort aligned with broader Romantic and historical interests in medieval sources, emphasizing Anselm's ("faith seeking understanding") as a bridge between patristic tradition and contemporary needs. The 20th century saw a significant scholarly revival centered on Anselm's Proslogion and the , with philosophers like and reformulating it in terms to address existence as a perfection necessarily instantiated in the greatest conceivable being. Hartshorne's Anselm's Discovery (1965) argued for a "possibility" variant, claiming that if God's existence is even possible, it must be actual, influencing and sparking formal reconstructions that persist in debates over a priori proofs. This revival extended to Anselm's logic, with studies examining his techniques and their underappreciated role in pre-Scholastic reasoning, as detailed in analyses of his reception from 1900 onward. Commemorative efforts, such as the 2009 conference on the 900th anniversary of Anselm's death, underscored his enduring legacy across and , producing collections that reassessed his influence on doctrines and universals amid secular critiques. Culturally, Anselm's meditative prayers inspired 20th-century liturgical revivals, as seen in Romano Guardini's comparisons of 11th- and early 20th-century reforms, where Anselm's devotional style informed efforts to counter modernist fragmentation. These rediscoveries highlight Anselm's texts as preserved artifacts of rational , continually reinterpreted without reliance on empirical concessions to .

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.