Since 1959, when a conference was held to mark nine hundred years after Anselm’s probable arrival at the Abbey of Bec, numerous conferences and colloquia focusing on the thought of Anselm of Canterbury and his context and legacy have been arranged. Until fifteen years ago, a group called the International Anselm Committee was responsible for coordinating these events. As its successor organization, the International Association for Anselm Studies (IAAS) was founded in 2015. The IAAS is also responsible for the Anselm Studies and Texts series published by Brill. Some past conferences were large gatherings with high-profile scholars among the participants, but it has proven difficult to replicate earlier successes. The Association held a conference in 2019 but the one scheduled for 2023 was not held, and the homepage of the Association, at https://anselmstudies.org/, has been down for some years.
This reviewed volume contains twenty-one articles based on papers originally presented at that 2019 conference held at Durham University. With the same title as this volume, it was a modest event with about thirty-five presentations, none of which were keynotes, according to the program available at the time of the conference. While the editors have made a selection, the volume is nevertheless of uneven quality. There are several solid contributions, but several others are problematic in different ways or simply weak. The selected articles have been divided into five sections, primarily according to the primary sources they refer to. In his introduction, co-editor Ian Logan presents the conference’s theme and provides a brief description of each contribution. Some of the articles have been further developed after the conference, with a few taking into account secondary literature published up to 2022. This volume is dedicated to the memory of Richard Campbell and Marcia Colish, who passed away in 2022 and 2024 respectively, during the editing process.
Part 1, “Monologion and Proslogion” (19-213), consists of eight contributions on these two of Anselm’s early works. In chapter 1, Alisa Kunitz-Dick discusses Anselm’s ideas of place (locus) in Monologion 20-23 and Proslogion 13, as well as the potential philosophical and theological influences on Anselm’s views. There is a major misunderstanding here. In Proslogion 13, Anselm points out that when a created spirit “is somewhere whole,” it “can be simultaneously whole somewhere else.” Kunitz-Dick interprets this to mean that angels “can be in two places at once” (29), which leads her to discuss “the multilocality of angels” (33-36). However, Anselm’s remark does not refer to angels, but to the human soul, which is present in different parts of the human body simultaneously (cf. Augustine, De trinitate VI, 6, 8). In chapter 2, Jürgen Ludwig Scherb addresses the question, “Does Anselm define a monotheistic concept of God in his Proslogion?” (39). Scherb approaches this question from various angles, including early medieval and modern views on definitions and defining. The presentation is difficult to follow, and it is not easy to discern what is at stake and what Scherb’s own position is.
The following two chapters deal with issues related to the art of dialectic. In chapter 3, John A. Demetracopoulos offers an analysis of Monologion 1-28 from the point of view that it “constitutes a treatise, so to speak, of the applicability of Aristotle’s Categories to God” (68). In addition to Aristotle’s Categories and Boethius’s commentary on it, Anselm was also influenced by theological works such as Augustine’s De trinitate, Claudianus Mamertus’s De statu animae and Boethius’s De trinitate. This chapter builds upon Demetracopoulos’s unpublished thesis (2001) and also references more recent research. In chapter 4, Jacob Archambault seeks to elucidate the meaning of Anselm’s program expression fides quaerens intellectum (“faith seeking understanding”) by analyzing how the terms intellectus and fides are used in the Boethian sources. While the passages cited by Archambault are interesting and relevant, the meaning of terms such as intellectus, fides, and ratio is more complex than his presentation suggests.
The following two chapters focus on Anselm’s argument for God’s existence in Proslogion 2-4. In chapter 5, Roberto Di Ceglie seeks a middle ground between theological and philosophical interpretations of this argument and, more broadly, of Anselm’s “natural theology.” Di Ceglie seeks to show that, when understood as adhesion of the will to God, faith directs believers toward philosophical activity, provides a criterion for it, and encourages rigorous philosophical thinking. Di Ceglie uses the term unum argumentum, abbreviated UA,to refer to the argument in Proslogion 2-4, which is misleading.In chapter 6, Richard Campbell offers another reinterpretation of the argument in Proslogion 2-3, claiming that it is not an ontological argument but a cosmological argument. This new interpretation has much in common with those presented in Campbell’s two previous books on the Proslogion, and he provides a fuller explanation of it in a third book. [1]
In connection with his argument for God’s existence in the Proslogion, Anselm refers to the “fool” of the Psalms who says in his heart, “There is no God.” In chapter 7, Ian Logan considers questions about atheism in the context of the Proslogion. After clarifying the different meanings of atheism, he considers how it appears in the philosophical sources that Anselm may have been familiar with, and how the passage about the fool was interpreted in exegetical texts. He also contrasts Anselm’s response to the fool with the contemporary critique of the liberal arts by thinkers such as Peter Damian and Lanfranc of Bec. In chapter 8, Michael Vendsel addresses the question of the role of the spiritual senses in the Proslogion. He outlines the history of the spiritual senses from Plato to Origen and goes on to discuss their role in Book X of Augustine’sConfessions in detail. Vendsel argues that the spiritual senses play a comparable role in the Proslogion, with a particular focus on chapters 14, 17, 18 and 24. The chapter is informative, but does not ultimately support the assertion that consideration of spiritual senses is essential to interpreting the text’s main arguments.
Part 2, “The Three Early Dialogues, De Grammatico and De Concordia” (215-327), consists of six contributions (by “early” dialogues are meant De veritate, De libertate arbitrii and De casu diaboli). In chapter 9, Marcia L. Colish discusses Anselm’s understanding of the relation between free will and grace in Book III of De concordia. This part of De concordia is untypical for Anselm in that it includes explicit quotations from the Bible and discussion of their interpretation. To explain this methodological choice, Colish explores how Anselm’s discourse relates to that of John Cassian on the same subject in Collatio 13. In chapter 10, Christian Brouwer elucidates the foundations of Anselm’s ethics by exploring the relations between justice and knowledge. Using scattered elements found in Anselm’s various works, Brouwer demonstrates the importance of this topic to Anselm’s ethics. On the one hand, rational knowledge plays a crucial role in justice. On the other hand, Anselm asserts that humans possess reason in order to be capable of justice (Monologion 68). The contributions by Colish and Brouwer are undoubtedly among the strongest in this volume.
In chapter 11, Montague Brown attempts to reconcile what he perceives as a tension between Anselm’s use of “necessary reasons” and the freedom of both God and rational creatures. Brown’s central claim is that “truth” is “free,” but it is difficult to understand what he means by “truth” here. In chapter 12, Christian Göbel contributes to the ongoing discussion about the nature of Anselm’s ethical thinking. He responds to Katherin Roger’s assertion that Anselm should be considered an Aristotelian eudaemonist rather than a proto-Kantian thinker. Göbel highlights the similarities between Kant, Aristotle, Augustine, and Anselm, and, emphasizing the Augustinian background that Kant and Anselm share, argues that Kant’s ethics actually converge with Christian virtue ethics. Anselm is not so much an Aristotelian eudaemonist as an Augustinian beatitudinist.
In chapter 13, Riccardo Fedriga and Roberto Limonta attempt to combine Anselm’s philosophy of language with his (alleged) ethics of communication. However, the chapter is poorly organized and generally unreliable. One of the authors’ main references is Anselm’s discussion of different types of words in Monologion 10. It is useful to compare their analysis of the passage (291, 297-298) with that offered by Christian Brouwer (234-235). Chapter 14, by Timothy Farrant, focuses on Alexander Neckam’s work De naturis rerum, which was composed around 1200. Farrant aims to elucidate this work by reading it “through the Anselmian Lens of Truth” as set out in De veritate. Although both Anselm and Alexander see their works as pertaining to the study of Scripture, they mean very different things by this. The connection between Alexander and Anselm is only apparent, as Farrant may also have realized.
Part 3, “Cur Deus Homo” (329-399), comprises four contributions. In chapter 15, Bernard van Vreeswijk attempts to clarify how Roman law and Roman rhetorical textbooks form part of the context of Anselm’s Cur Deus homo. However, the evidence he puts forward is rather tenuous. The next two chapters are closely related thematically and highlight aspects of Cur Deus homothat have not received sufficient attention. In chapter 16, Maria Leonor Xavier examines Anselm’s conception of the divine plan for creation, with a particular focus on Cur Deus homo I, 16-18. The history is oriented toward the realization of a heavenly city in which a perfect number of angels and humans will enjoy the presence of God. God’s plan also includes the renewal of the material world and universal rejoicing. In chapter 17, Rachel Cresswell discusses the same chapters of Cur Deus homo, before focusing on what her title describes as “the monk’s angelic vocation.” As fallen angels are replaced by humans, those humans who are to be included in the perfect number must become like the angels who remained faithful. It is mainly monks who can achieve this. Becoming like angels is a central idea in Anselm’s conception of monasticism. (Similar themes are also present in chapter 19, by Alastair Forbes.) In chapter 18, Emery de Gaal asks whether Anselm also had Muslims in mind when he composed Cur Deus homo. He seeks to provide evidence to show that the answer should be affirmative and offers a suggestion as to which Islamic criticisms of Christianity Anselm may have been responding to.
While Parts 1 to 3 focus on Anselm’s treatises, the last two sections turn to his minor writings, works transmitting his oral teachings, and contemporary or near-contemporary historical works and hagiographies. Part 4, “Eadmer and Epistolae” (401-448), includes two contributions that draw on the works of Anselm’s biographer, Eadmer of Canterbury. In chapter 19, Alastair R. E. Forbes examines Anselm’s views on soldiers or knights (milites) and monks, as well as on the right order of society. Forbes takes as his starting point Anselm’s analogy between the court of God and that of princes. He also analyzes how Eadmer used Anselm’s conceptualizations to defend the latter’s actions as archbishop against existing criticism. In chapter 20, Barbara Hargreaves offers an illuminating analysis of the account of Anselm’s death and the events surrounding it in Eadmer’s Vita Anselmi. She compares Eadmer’s narrative with standard monastic death rituals and the death narratives in the Lives ofother twelfth-century monastic saints, highlighting similarities and differences. Part 5, “Addendum” (449-456), comprises chapter 21, in which Hiroko Yamazaki briefly discusses Anselm’s Prayer for Enemies, comparing it to a prayer of the same name written by Anselm’s elder contemporary, John Gualbert.
--------
Note:
1. Richard Campbell, From Belief to Understanding: A Study of Anselm’s “Proslogion” Argument on the Existence of God (Canberra: The Australian National University, 1976);Richard Campbell, Rethinking Anselm’s Arguments: A Vindication of his Proof of the Existence of God (Leiden: Brill, 2018); Richard Campbell, A Cosmological Reformulation of Anselm’s Proof That God Exists. (Leiden: Brill, 2022).