Report by Ian Logan
An audience from across the UK attended the launch of the new book on Anselm, St Anselm of Canterbury and His Legacy, a collection of essays by an international group of Anselm scholars.
The host was Fr Simon Gaine OP, the Regent of Blackfriars. The speakers were the editors of the volume, Dr Giles Gasper, Durham University, author of St Anselm of Canterbury and his Theological Inheritance, and Dr Ian Logan, Blackfriars Hall, Oxford University, author of Reading Anselm’s Proslogion: the history of Anselm’s argument and its significance today.
Fr Simon Gaine OP - Welcome address
Fr Simon spoke of the origins of the volume in the international conference held at Canterbury in 2009 to commemorate the 900th anniversary of Anselm's death. He went on to ask: ‘Who was St Anselm of Canterbury?’ An Italian who became a monk and abbot in Normandy then an archbishop in England. A respected teacher, a defender of church rights, but also a church reformer, a powerful spiritual writer of an influential collection prayers and meditations, a theologian and philosopher of brilliant originality. He left no lasting school of thought in the way that Augustine and Thomas did, but nevertheless his influence has been and continues to be great as the wide-ranging set of essays in this volume indicates. It is this influence, this legacy, that the volume captures.
Anselm has an important place in Christian thought, summed up in the phrase 'Faith seeking understanding' - a phrase he invented and which is always used whenever there is discussion of the relationship of faith and reason. Anselm is one the greatest exponents of the application of reason to faith.
In this set of essays the editors first set out a picture of Anselm, who is 'refracted', as they put, it in the various essays presented in this volume. One of the intentional merits of the volume is that it contains much fresh scholarship from both established and young, up and coming scholars. From this volume, it is clear that Anselm studies are in a vibrant state. Interest in Anselm continues to grow apace. This volume will only serve to facilitate that growth.
Dr Giles Gasper - Anselm and the Bible: Narratives of Exile
Anselm of Canterbury is famous for his insistence that he would establish positions of argument without reference to authorities and to the Bible as seen in the Monologion, Proslogion and Cur Deus Homo. What place then does Anselm give to biblical quotation within his theological scheme?
In his third Prayer to the Virgin Mary Anselm focuses on the role of the Virgin in carrying and bearing the creator of the world. Anselm alludes to the creation of light and the darkness that precedes it in the book of Genesis. To darkness, demons and sin, Mary’s child is the solution and salvation.
The opening chapter of the Proslogion is based around a compelling biblical narrative of exile. The chapter moves through a sequence of quotations from Matthew, Exodus, and Psalms, in which the consequences of the sin of Adam are explored. The desperate state of mankind and the need for grace is evoked. Anselm ends his opening with Genesis 1.27 ‘And God created man to his own image’, to reinforce the point that the image remains, but with a need for God to renew and redeem it. He then invokes Isaiah 7.9 on faith and understanding.
This ‘lyrical’ introduction, to use von Balthasar’s terminology, is important in setting up Anselm’s dialectical argument. Anselm provides biblical support for his statements, occasionally counter-posing the dialectical and the lyrical or biblical. Dialectic identifies what the argument is and how best to address it. The lyrical and biblical provide a reminder of both the reasons why this is beneficial, and of the limitations of human reason.
Dr Ian Logan - Some suggestions concerning the origin of the phrase, ‘than which nothing greater can be thought’
The phrase ‘than which nothing greater can be thought’ is central to Anselm’s argument for God in the Proslogion. Ian suggested that it is possible, even likely, that this phrase was derived by Anselm from the Roman Stoic philosopher, Seneca, who uses the identical phrase in his Natural Questions to describe the magnitude of the world. The fact that the phrase is used by Anselm as he addresses the unbeliever (the ‘fool’ of the Psalms, ‘who says in his heart, There is no God’) supports this view. Anselm was a dialectician, and in dialectical argumentation one of your first tasks is to get your opponent to agree to the terms you are using. In using this term, Anselm is inviting the unbeliever to accept a term an unbeliever uses, which he is therefore unlikely to identify with God as understood in Catholic thought, whose existence Anselm is seeking to prove.
The difficulty with this line of thought is that there are no known extant manuscripts of Seneca’s Natural Questions predating the early 12th century and Anselm wrote the Proslogion in the last quarter of the 11th century. Similar phrases can also be found in Cicero, Augustine and Boethius. However, the fact that Anselm uses exactly the same words as Seneca and that Anselm rarely uses quotations, suggests that this is an explicit quotation from Seneca and is supposed to be recognised as one. As such it throws light on Anselm’s intentions in his little book, the Proslogion, and indicates that Seneca’s work was known prior to the early 12th century.
Announcement
After a stimulating question and answer session, the editors of the volume announced their intention to facilitate the establishing of a society or association for Anselm scholarship and that they are inviting expressions of interest from potential supporters and members.
With this in mind, a one day conference at Blackfriars, Oxford, in 2013 is being planned, followed in 2014 by a full conference.
To notify me of recent publications, forthcoming events or anything of interest to Anselm scholars, please contact me using the form provided:
Showing posts with label Writings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Writings. Show all posts
Saturday, 17 November 2012
Sunday, 18 April 2010
Anselm's Letters to Women
Thanks to Eric Matthews for sending me this link to an on-line edition of Anselm's letters to women. The Latin text is that of Schmitt's Opera Omnia and the English translation is that of Walter Froehlich.
Monday, 5 April 2010
Virgo mundo mirabilis
Translated by Ian Logan from a prayer of St Anselm to Our Lady in the 'Littlemore Anselm', Bodleian Library Ms. Auct. D.2.6.
Prayer to Saint Mary when the mind is beset with fear
Virgin, to the world, venerable,
Mother, to the human race, loveable,
Woman, to the angels, admirable,
Most holy Mary, by whose blessed virginity all chastity is consecrated,
By whose glorious motherhood all birth-giving is saved,
Great lady, to whom the joyful assembly of the just gives thanks,
To whom the terrified crowd of the guilty flees,
To you, Lady, so powerful and merciful,
I, a troubled sinner and undoubtedly more than a sinner, do fly.
Seeing myself, Lady, before the all powerful justice of a severe judge, and considering the unbearable vehemence of his anger,
I think of the enormity of my sins and of the fearsome nature of the torments that I deserve.
Therefore, most clement Lady, troubled as I am by so much horror, terrified by so much dread,
Whose intervention shall I implore more earnestly than that of her whose womb bore the reconciliation of the world?
From where shall I hope more confidently for assistance in necessity than from there where I know to have come forth atonement for the world?
Or whose intercession will obtain mercy for the guilty more easily, than she who nourished him, who is for all and for each the just punisher and the granter of mercy.
For, most blessed one, just as it is impossible that you should forget these merits, so unique to you, so necessary to us,
So, most gentle one, it is incredible that you would not show mercy to us wretched supplicants.
Indeed the world well knows, nor do we, the sinners of the world, allow it to be concealed in any way, O Lady, which son of man or rather the son of which man came to save what was lost.
Do you, then, my Lady, the mother of my hope, forget, out of hatred for me, what is so mercifully announced, so happily divulged to the world, and so lovingly embraced by it?
That good son of man came willingly to save the lost, so can the mother of God not attend to the cries of one who is lost?
That good son of man came to call the sinner to penitence, and does the mother of God despise the one who prays in penitence?
That good God, that gentle man, that merciful son of God, that tender son of man, came to seek the errant sinner, but do you, his good mother, the powerful mother of God, drive away the wretch whilst he prays?
For behold, O human virgin, the divine man was born of you that sinful man might be saved.
Behold in the presence of your good son and in the presence of his good mother, a sinful man confesses and does penance, sighs and prays.
Therefore, I beseech you, good Lord and good Lady,
I beseech you, tender son and tender mother,
I beseech you, by this very truth, by this unique hope of sinners,
That - just as you truly became her son and you his mother that the sinner might be saved - this sinner too may be absolved and cleansed, healed and saved.
May this your sinner prove in himself that truly you became a son and you a mother for the salvation of sinners,
And experience in himself that he belongs to you both.
For when I sinned against the son, I provoked the mother,
Nor did I offend the mother without injuring the son.
What then will you do, O sinner?
To whom will you fly, O sinner?
For who will reconcile me to the son, when the mother is my enemy?
Who will reconcile the mother to me, when the son is angered?
But even if you are both offended in the same way, are you not also both clement?
The guilty man may fly from the just God to the tender mother of the merciful God.
The guilty man may escape from the offended mother to the tender son of the benign mother.
The guilty man may rush from each to the other.
He may throw himself between the tender son and the tender mother.
Tender Lord, spare your mother’s servant.
Tender Lady, spare your son’s servant.
Good son, reconcile your mother to your servant.
Good mother, reconcile your servant to your son.
May I, who throw myself onto such immense tenderness, not throw myself onto such powerful severity.
Good son, good mother, may it not be in vain that I confess this truth about you,
May I not be ashamed for having hoped for this tenderness in you.
For I love the truth which I confess about you,
And I pray for the tenderness, which I hope for in you.
Say, Lord, judge of the world, whom you will spare,
Say, Lady, reconciler of the world, whom you will reconcile,
If you, Lord, should damn this little man, and you, Lady, should turn him away,
He who confesses your goodness with love, and his evil with grief.
If you, Lord, command, and you, Lady, consent
To the torments which torture the sinner, who hates himself and beseeches you,
If hell should consume the guilty man who accuses himself and prays to you;
If the infernal regions should devour the poor man who despairs of himself and hopes in you,
Then, unique Saviour, say whom you will save,
And mother of salvation, say for whom you will pray,
God, who became the son of a woman out of mercy,
Woman, who became the mother of God out of mercy,
Either have mercy on the wretched - You, Lord, by sparing him and you, Lady, by interceding for him -
Or reveal to whom I may flee, who is more merciful,
And show in whom I may put my trust more certainly.
For if, or rather because, my iniquity is so great and my faith so small, my love so tepid, my prayer so insipid, my satisfaction so imperfect,
That I deserve neither the forgiveness of my offences nor the grace of salvation,
It is for this, it is for this very reason that I pray that,
in so far as you see my merits are not enough,
you will not chose to remove your mercies from me.
So I pray, hear me.
I pray that on account of yourselves not on account of me
Through the tenderness which flows forth from you,
Through the power in which you abound,
That I may escape the deserved sorrows of the damned
And enter into the joy of the blessed,
Praising you, God, who are blessed and above all praise for ever and ever.
Amen
Prayer to Saint Mary when the mind is beset with fear
Virgin, to the world, venerable,
Mother, to the human race, loveable,
Woman, to the angels, admirable,
Most holy Mary, by whose blessed virginity all chastity is consecrated,
By whose glorious motherhood all birth-giving is saved,
Great lady, to whom the joyful assembly of the just gives thanks,
To whom the terrified crowd of the guilty flees,
To you, Lady, so powerful and merciful,
I, a troubled sinner and undoubtedly more than a sinner, do fly.
Seeing myself, Lady, before the all powerful justice of a severe judge, and considering the unbearable vehemence of his anger,
I think of the enormity of my sins and of the fearsome nature of the torments that I deserve.
Therefore, most clement Lady, troubled as I am by so much horror, terrified by so much dread,
Whose intervention shall I implore more earnestly than that of her whose womb bore the reconciliation of the world?
From where shall I hope more confidently for assistance in necessity than from there where I know to have come forth atonement for the world?
Or whose intercession will obtain mercy for the guilty more easily, than she who nourished him, who is for all and for each the just punisher and the granter of mercy.
For, most blessed one, just as it is impossible that you should forget these merits, so unique to you, so necessary to us,
So, most gentle one, it is incredible that you would not show mercy to us wretched supplicants.
Indeed the world well knows, nor do we, the sinners of the world, allow it to be concealed in any way, O Lady, which son of man or rather the son of which man came to save what was lost.
Do you, then, my Lady, the mother of my hope, forget, out of hatred for me, what is so mercifully announced, so happily divulged to the world, and so lovingly embraced by it?
That good son of man came willingly to save the lost, so can the mother of God not attend to the cries of one who is lost?
That good son of man came to call the sinner to penitence, and does the mother of God despise the one who prays in penitence?
That good God, that gentle man, that merciful son of God, that tender son of man, came to seek the errant sinner, but do you, his good mother, the powerful mother of God, drive away the wretch whilst he prays?
For behold, O human virgin, the divine man was born of you that sinful man might be saved.
Behold in the presence of your good son and in the presence of his good mother, a sinful man confesses and does penance, sighs and prays.
Therefore, I beseech you, good Lord and good Lady,
I beseech you, tender son and tender mother,
I beseech you, by this very truth, by this unique hope of sinners,
That - just as you truly became her son and you his mother that the sinner might be saved - this sinner too may be absolved and cleansed, healed and saved.
May this your sinner prove in himself that truly you became a son and you a mother for the salvation of sinners,
And experience in himself that he belongs to you both.
For when I sinned against the son, I provoked the mother,
Nor did I offend the mother without injuring the son.
What then will you do, O sinner?
To whom will you fly, O sinner?
For who will reconcile me to the son, when the mother is my enemy?
Who will reconcile the mother to me, when the son is angered?
But even if you are both offended in the same way, are you not also both clement?
The guilty man may fly from the just God to the tender mother of the merciful God.
The guilty man may escape from the offended mother to the tender son of the benign mother.
The guilty man may rush from each to the other.
He may throw himself between the tender son and the tender mother.
Tender Lord, spare your mother’s servant.
Tender Lady, spare your son’s servant.
Good son, reconcile your mother to your servant.
Good mother, reconcile your servant to your son.
May I, who throw myself onto such immense tenderness, not throw myself onto such powerful severity.
Good son, good mother, may it not be in vain that I confess this truth about you,
May I not be ashamed for having hoped for this tenderness in you.
For I love the truth which I confess about you,
And I pray for the tenderness, which I hope for in you.
Say, Lord, judge of the world, whom you will spare,
Say, Lady, reconciler of the world, whom you will reconcile,
If you, Lord, should damn this little man, and you, Lady, should turn him away,
He who confesses your goodness with love, and his evil with grief.
If you, Lord, command, and you, Lady, consent
To the torments which torture the sinner, who hates himself and beseeches you,
If hell should consume the guilty man who accuses himself and prays to you;
If the infernal regions should devour the poor man who despairs of himself and hopes in you,
Then, unique Saviour, say whom you will save,
And mother of salvation, say for whom you will pray,
God, who became the son of a woman out of mercy,
Woman, who became the mother of God out of mercy,
Either have mercy on the wretched - You, Lord, by sparing him and you, Lady, by interceding for him -
Or reveal to whom I may flee, who is more merciful,
And show in whom I may put my trust more certainly.
For if, or rather because, my iniquity is so great and my faith so small, my love so tepid, my prayer so insipid, my satisfaction so imperfect,
That I deserve neither the forgiveness of my offences nor the grace of salvation,
It is for this, it is for this very reason that I pray that,
in so far as you see my merits are not enough,
you will not chose to remove your mercies from me.
So I pray, hear me.
I pray that on account of yourselves not on account of me
Through the tenderness which flows forth from you,
Through the power in which you abound,
That I may escape the deserved sorrows of the damned
And enter into the joy of the blessed,
Praising you, God, who are blessed and above all praise for ever and ever.
Amen
Sunday, 14 March 2010
The most stupid account of Anselm's argument ever?
I must admit that it has never worried me that Anselm refers to the unbeliever as a fool. However, it clearly bothers Richard Dawkins, who thinks it is a 'cheek', and who in a fit of pique (it certainly wasn't a fit of rationality) has chosen to give us his take on Anselm's argument in his book, The God Delusion. Here is Dawkins' account of Anselm's argument.
'Bet you I can prove God exists.'
'Bet you can't.'
'Right then, imagine the most perfect perfect perfect thing possible.'
'Okay, now what?'
'Now, is that perfect perfect perfect thing real? Does it exist?'
'No, it's only in the mind.'
But if it was real it would be even more perfect, because a really really perfect thing would have to be better than a silly old imaginary thing. So I've proved that God exists. Nur Nurny Nur Nur [sic!]. All atheists are fools.'
In the process of writing my book on the Proslogion, I came across hundreds of accounts of Anselm's argument, some more flawed than others, to the most serious and influential of which I tried to respond. Nothing, however, comes close to Dawkins' account in terms of sheer stupidity.
Dawkins is offended aesthetically by Anselm's 'logomachist trickery'. He tells us that he doesn't like Anselm's argument, but is unable to say what, if anything, is actually wrong with it.
Funnily enough Dawkins inserts a footnote in this discussion in which he attacks Antony Flew. It reveals that Dawkins' approach to philosophical matters is that of a gossip columnist, who constantly commits the fallacy of pseudo-refuting description. (A term coined by Flew, as it happens.)
Involved in Dawkins' account is the implication that Anselm was trying to prove that the atheist is a fool. In fact, the description of the fool as an unbeliever in the psalms (13:1 and 52:1) is the trigger for Anselm's search for a rational argument for God, since, if Scripture says that it is foolish (insipiens) to deny God, then this means for Anselm that God's existence must be rationally demonstrable. If that is the case, then through topical analysis he will be able to discover an argument (a middle term) that delivers such a demonstration. Hence, the Proslogion.
'Bet you I can prove God exists.'
'Bet you can't.'
'Right then, imagine the most perfect perfect perfect thing possible.'
'Okay, now what?'
'Now, is that perfect perfect perfect thing real? Does it exist?'
'No, it's only in the mind.'
But if it was real it would be even more perfect, because a really really perfect thing would have to be better than a silly old imaginary thing. So I've proved that God exists. Nur Nurny Nur Nur [sic!]. All atheists are fools.'
In the process of writing my book on the Proslogion, I came across hundreds of accounts of Anselm's argument, some more flawed than others, to the most serious and influential of which I tried to respond. Nothing, however, comes close to Dawkins' account in terms of sheer stupidity.
Dawkins is offended aesthetically by Anselm's 'logomachist trickery'. He tells us that he doesn't like Anselm's argument, but is unable to say what, if anything, is actually wrong with it.
Funnily enough Dawkins inserts a footnote in this discussion in which he attacks Antony Flew. It reveals that Dawkins' approach to philosophical matters is that of a gossip columnist, who constantly commits the fallacy of pseudo-refuting description. (A term coined by Flew, as it happens.)
Involved in Dawkins' account is the implication that Anselm was trying to prove that the atheist is a fool. In fact, the description of the fool as an unbeliever in the psalms (13:1 and 52:1) is the trigger for Anselm's search for a rational argument for God, since, if Scripture says that it is foolish (insipiens) to deny God, then this means for Anselm that God's existence must be rationally demonstrable. If that is the case, then through topical analysis he will be able to discover an argument (a middle term) that delivers such a demonstration. Hence, the Proslogion.
Friday, 11 December 2009
Mistranslations of the Proslogion
One of the most frequently mistranslated passages in Anselm's writings is the following from Proslogion, 4:
'Deus enim est id quo maius cogitari non potest. Quod qui bene intelligit, utique intelligit id ipsum sic esse, ut nec cogitatione queat non esse. Qui ergo intelligit sic esse deum, nequit eum non esse cogitare.'
'For God is that than which a greater cannot be thought. Whoever understands this [i.e. that than which a greater cannot be thought] properly, understands at least that this same thing exists in such a way that not even in thought can it not exist. Therefore, whoever understands that God exists in the same way [i.e. as that than which a greater cannot be thought], cannot think that He does not exist.'
The word 'Quod' is usually left ambiguous. It refers to 'that than which a greater cannot be thought', rather than to the phrase 'God is that than which a greater cannot be thought'.
The phrase 'id ipsum' is commonly translated as 'God' or 'he', suggesting that the translators do not understand the argument at this point. Since this is a summary of Anselm's argument in Proslogion 2-4, that is a problem to say the least.
Interestingly Jasper Hopkins is one translator who recognised this error and amended his earlier translation of this passage (see J. Hopkins & H. Richardson, Anselm of Canterbury, Vol. 1, London 1974, p. 25) in his A New Interpretative Translation of St. Anselm's Monologion and Proslogion, Minneapolis 1986, p. 229.
I have more to say about this in 'Whoever understands this: On translating the Proslogion' in New Blackfriars, 89 (2008) 560-74.
'Deus enim est id quo maius cogitari non potest. Quod qui bene intelligit, utique intelligit id ipsum sic esse, ut nec cogitatione queat non esse. Qui ergo intelligit sic esse deum, nequit eum non esse cogitare.'
'For God is that than which a greater cannot be thought. Whoever understands this [i.e. that than which a greater cannot be thought] properly, understands at least that this same thing exists in such a way that not even in thought can it not exist. Therefore, whoever understands that God exists in the same way [i.e. as that than which a greater cannot be thought], cannot think that He does not exist.'
The word 'Quod' is usually left ambiguous. It refers to 'that than which a greater cannot be thought', rather than to the phrase 'God is that than which a greater cannot be thought'.
The phrase 'id ipsum' is commonly translated as 'God' or 'he', suggesting that the translators do not understand the argument at this point. Since this is a summary of Anselm's argument in Proslogion 2-4, that is a problem to say the least.
Interestingly Jasper Hopkins is one translator who recognised this error and amended his earlier translation of this passage (see J. Hopkins & H. Richardson, Anselm of Canterbury, Vol. 1, London 1974, p. 25) in his A New Interpretative Translation of St. Anselm's Monologion and Proslogion, Minneapolis 1986, p. 229.
I have more to say about this in 'Whoever understands this: On translating the Proslogion' in New Blackfriars, 89 (2008) 560-74.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Closer to Truth, except in the case of Anselm
There is a marvellous resource for those interested in the big questions of philosophy at Closer to Truth. The interviews with philosophers such as Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Peter Van Inwagen and Brian Leftow are particularly fascinating and incredibly informative. Swinburne provides a masterful summary of his cumulative inductive probability argument for God.
Needless to say, there is a particular area that lets the site down. The discussions which deal with the ontological argument do not deal with Anselm's argument, not because those engaged in the discussion think Anselm's argument is different from the ontological argument as they present it, but because they think that their accounts of ontological arguments provide accurate accounts of Anselm's argument. The problem is that they don't.
For Anselm, 'that than which a greater cannot be thought' is the middle term of his argument. (As a dialectician, he thinks ALL logical arguments have middle terms.) The middle term of an argument cannot be replaced by another middle term without changing the argument, unless of course the two terms are synonymous. But the usual suspect, 'perfect being', is not synonymous with 'that than which a greater cannot be thought'. If it were it would be possible to substitute it for 'that than which a greater cannot be thought' in Anselm's argument without changing the argument (by the rule of replacement). But the argument is changed if such a substitution is made. Anselm's proof of the existence of 'that than which a greater cannot be thought' in Proslogion 2, changes if we substitute 'perfect being'. If a perfect being only exists in the understanding, then I can think of something greater, does not deliver what Anselm's argument delivers. One has to make another change to this argument, changing 'greater' to 'more perfect'. We end up with different arguments: one concerning perfection; the other concerning epistemic claims about the greatness of God. This can be seen in the conclusion of Proslogion 15 that 'God is greater than can be thought'. This does not follow from the non-Anselmian version of the argument. However, it does follow from Anselm's version: since God is 'that than which a greater cannot be thought', and since I can think of something greater than Him if He is not greater than can be thought, then He is 'greater than can be thought'. There is no reason to think that this kind of greatness is required in a 'perfect being', and it would not follow in the non-Anselmian version of the argument that it is more perfect to be greater than can be thought.
Anselm invested much effort in discovering his middle term, it seems a unfortunate to discard it with such apparent ease.
Needless to say, there is a particular area that lets the site down. The discussions which deal with the ontological argument do not deal with Anselm's argument, not because those engaged in the discussion think Anselm's argument is different from the ontological argument as they present it, but because they think that their accounts of ontological arguments provide accurate accounts of Anselm's argument. The problem is that they don't.
For Anselm, 'that than which a greater cannot be thought' is the middle term of his argument. (As a dialectician, he thinks ALL logical arguments have middle terms.) The middle term of an argument cannot be replaced by another middle term without changing the argument, unless of course the two terms are synonymous. But the usual suspect, 'perfect being', is not synonymous with 'that than which a greater cannot be thought'. If it were it would be possible to substitute it for 'that than which a greater cannot be thought' in Anselm's argument without changing the argument (by the rule of replacement). But the argument is changed if such a substitution is made. Anselm's proof of the existence of 'that than which a greater cannot be thought' in Proslogion 2, changes if we substitute 'perfect being'. If a perfect being only exists in the understanding, then I can think of something greater, does not deliver what Anselm's argument delivers. One has to make another change to this argument, changing 'greater' to 'more perfect'. We end up with different arguments: one concerning perfection; the other concerning epistemic claims about the greatness of God. This can be seen in the conclusion of Proslogion 15 that 'God is greater than can be thought'. This does not follow from the non-Anselmian version of the argument. However, it does follow from Anselm's version: since God is 'that than which a greater cannot be thought', and since I can think of something greater than Him if He is not greater than can be thought, then He is 'greater than can be thought'. There is no reason to think that this kind of greatness is required in a 'perfect being', and it would not follow in the non-Anselmian version of the argument that it is more perfect to be greater than can be thought.
Anselm invested much effort in discovering his middle term, it seems a unfortunate to discard it with such apparent ease.
Sunday, 21 December 2008
Reading Anselm's Proslogion
Another event in 2009 is the publication of my book, Reading Anselm's Proslogion: The History of Anselm's Argument and its Significance Today, details of which can be found at the website of the publisher, Ashgate.
It is the outcome of my interdisciplinary work on Anselm: palaeography, historical research, theology and philosophy. It contains parallel Latin/English texts of the Proslogion, Pro Insipiente and Responsio. I chose not to use the text of Schmitt's edition (S. Anselmi Opera Omnia), but to produce my own transcription of the text from Ms.Bodley 271, which I have argued has an important place in Anselm Studies. See my article, 'Ms Bodley 271: Establishing the Anselmian Canon?' in The Saint Anselm Journal, Vol 2.1 (Fall 2004) 67-80. It can be downloaded as a pdf file here.
It is the outcome of my interdisciplinary work on Anselm: palaeography, historical research, theology and philosophy. It contains parallel Latin/English texts of the Proslogion, Pro Insipiente and Responsio. I chose not to use the text of Schmitt's edition (S. Anselmi Opera Omnia), but to produce my own transcription of the text from Ms.Bodley 271, which I have argued has an important place in Anselm Studies. See my article, 'Ms Bodley 271: Establishing the Anselmian Canon?' in The Saint Anselm Journal, Vol 2.1 (Fall 2004) 67-80. It can be downloaded as a pdf file here.
Saturday, 12 April 2008
Anselm's Major Writings
Monologion, 1076
A meditation on the essence of the divine and on other subjects bound up with such a meditation, arguing from reason in a non-technical way and not on the basis of scriptural authority (this at the request of his brethren). Anselm’s aim is to be consistent with the Fathers and especially Augustine, but it is noticeable how he does not appeal to them. Rather he asks that what he writes is read in the light of Augustine’s De Trinitate. In the Monologion, Anselm sets out to establish that God exists, that it is he through whom everything exists and that he created everything out of nothing, that He possesses the attributes Christians believe him to have, and even to establish the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.
Proslogion, 1077-78
The Proslogion is arguably Anselm’s most famous work and covers much of the same subject matter as the Monologion, but in a radically different way. Rather than employing the connected chain of arguments of the Monologion, he tries to establish the existence and attributes of God by using a single argument, which is not dependent on any other argument. The orginal title of the work was Fides Quaerens Intellectum (Faith Seeking Understanding). This phrase has become the description for many of the theological enterprise, but it is important to note that Anselm’s work here is primarily philosophical, i.e. an attempt by reason to establish what we believe about God. The Proslogion contains Anselm’s famous description of God as ‘id quo nihil maius cogitari potest’ (‘that than which a greater cannot be thought’). Anselm seeks to prove that if we understand this description we understand that both God’s existence/attributes and God’s being beyond our grasp are entailed in our possession of it as the precondition of our understanding of the description. Much has been written about this argument, virtually all of it failing to do justice to or even to address Anselm’s argument.
De grammatico, 1075-85?
This is the only technical philosophical work of Anselm’s we have other than fragments of works. It addresses the to us rather abstruse question of the way in which words such as albus (white) and grammaticus (literate) can function as both adjectives and nouns, given that logicians and grammarians appear to take different views of the matter.
De veritate, 1080-85
This is the first of three treatises which Anselm classed together as pertaining to the study of Sacred Scripture, taking the form of dialogues between Master and Student. In this first work Anselm addresses the question what is truth, in what it is found and what is justice. Truth is “rectitude perceptible by the mind alone”. Justice is “rectitude of the will preserved for its own sake”.
De libertate arbitrii, 1080-85
In the second treatise Anselm considers the question of free will and its relationship to sin. Free will is “the power of preserving the rectitude of the will for its own sake”, whilst “the power of sinning does not pertain to free will”.
De casu diaboli, 1080-85
In the third and last of the treatises Anselm considers how the devil came to sin given that he was created good by God and experienced God’s presence before he fell. It also contains Anselm’s thoughts on the privative nature of evil.
Epistola de incarnatione verbi, 1092 (1st version); 1094 (final version)
In this work Anselm considers the relations of the persons in the Trinity, arguing against the “heretici dialecticae” (heretics of dialectic) in the person of Roscelin of Compiègne. Building on the ‘faith seeking understanding’ principle of the Proslogion, he argues that if one doesn’t understand Catholic teaching “one should bow one’s head in veneration rather than sound off trumpets”.
Cur deus homo, 1098
Apart from the Proslogion, Cur deus homo, is Anselm’s most important work. In it he sets out again to show “remoto Christo” (without reference to Christ) and “sola ratione” (by reason alone) that the redemption of the human race required the Incarnation of God as man. Here we see how Anselm does not operate within what was to become the standard distinction between philosophy and theology.
De conceptu virginali et originali peccato, 1099-1100
This work follows on from the Cur deus homo and looks at what original sin is and how it came about, and how it was possible for God to assume a sinless human nature. In his desire to maintain consistency Anselm puts forward the unpalatable doctrine that even unbaptised children are condemned.
Meditatio redemptionis humanae, 1099-1100
A meditation on the themes contained in Cur deus homo.
De processione spiritus sancti, 1102
In this work Anselm reiterates and develops the arguments he put forward against the Greeks at the Council of Bari in support of the Catholic doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son.
Epistolae de sacramentis (Epistola de sacrificio azymi et fermentati and Epistola de sacramentis ecclesiae) 1106-1107
These cover questions about the celebration of the Eucharist in particular, which divide East and West. Anselm argues that different practices such as the use of leavened or unleavened bread are legitimate, although the Catholic practice is preferable.
De concordia praescientiae et praedestinationis et gratiae dei cum libero arbitrio, 1107-1108
In his last work Anselm addresses questions which were to arise again and again during the medieval period and beyond. How can divine foreknowledge, predestination and grace be reconciled with human freedom.
In addition to these works we possess a series of prayers and meditations written at various times, fragments of some more technical philosophical writings, and approximately 470 letters.
A meditation on the essence of the divine and on other subjects bound up with such a meditation, arguing from reason in a non-technical way and not on the basis of scriptural authority (this at the request of his brethren). Anselm’s aim is to be consistent with the Fathers and especially Augustine, but it is noticeable how he does not appeal to them. Rather he asks that what he writes is read in the light of Augustine’s De Trinitate. In the Monologion, Anselm sets out to establish that God exists, that it is he through whom everything exists and that he created everything out of nothing, that He possesses the attributes Christians believe him to have, and even to establish the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.
Proslogion, 1077-78
The Proslogion is arguably Anselm’s most famous work and covers much of the same subject matter as the Monologion, but in a radically different way. Rather than employing the connected chain of arguments of the Monologion, he tries to establish the existence and attributes of God by using a single argument, which is not dependent on any other argument. The orginal title of the work was Fides Quaerens Intellectum (Faith Seeking Understanding). This phrase has become the description for many of the theological enterprise, but it is important to note that Anselm’s work here is primarily philosophical, i.e. an attempt by reason to establish what we believe about God. The Proslogion contains Anselm’s famous description of God as ‘id quo nihil maius cogitari potest’ (‘that than which a greater cannot be thought’). Anselm seeks to prove that if we understand this description we understand that both God’s existence/attributes and God’s being beyond our grasp are entailed in our possession of it as the precondition of our understanding of the description. Much has been written about this argument, virtually all of it failing to do justice to or even to address Anselm’s argument.
De grammatico, 1075-85?
This is the only technical philosophical work of Anselm’s we have other than fragments of works. It addresses the to us rather abstruse question of the way in which words such as albus (white) and grammaticus (literate) can function as both adjectives and nouns, given that logicians and grammarians appear to take different views of the matter.
De veritate, 1080-85
This is the first of three treatises which Anselm classed together as pertaining to the study of Sacred Scripture, taking the form of dialogues between Master and Student. In this first work Anselm addresses the question what is truth, in what it is found and what is justice. Truth is “rectitude perceptible by the mind alone”. Justice is “rectitude of the will preserved for its own sake”.
De libertate arbitrii, 1080-85
In the second treatise Anselm considers the question of free will and its relationship to sin. Free will is “the power of preserving the rectitude of the will for its own sake”, whilst “the power of sinning does not pertain to free will”.
De casu diaboli, 1080-85
In the third and last of the treatises Anselm considers how the devil came to sin given that he was created good by God and experienced God’s presence before he fell. It also contains Anselm’s thoughts on the privative nature of evil.
Epistola de incarnatione verbi, 1092 (1st version); 1094 (final version)
In this work Anselm considers the relations of the persons in the Trinity, arguing against the “heretici dialecticae” (heretics of dialectic) in the person of Roscelin of Compiègne. Building on the ‘faith seeking understanding’ principle of the Proslogion, he argues that if one doesn’t understand Catholic teaching “one should bow one’s head in veneration rather than sound off trumpets”.
Cur deus homo, 1098
Apart from the Proslogion, Cur deus homo, is Anselm’s most important work. In it he sets out again to show “remoto Christo” (without reference to Christ) and “sola ratione” (by reason alone) that the redemption of the human race required the Incarnation of God as man. Here we see how Anselm does not operate within what was to become the standard distinction between philosophy and theology.
De conceptu virginali et originali peccato, 1099-1100
This work follows on from the Cur deus homo and looks at what original sin is and how it came about, and how it was possible for God to assume a sinless human nature. In his desire to maintain consistency Anselm puts forward the unpalatable doctrine that even unbaptised children are condemned.
Meditatio redemptionis humanae, 1099-1100
A meditation on the themes contained in Cur deus homo.
De processione spiritus sancti, 1102
In this work Anselm reiterates and develops the arguments he put forward against the Greeks at the Council of Bari in support of the Catholic doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son.
Epistolae de sacramentis (Epistola de sacrificio azymi et fermentati and Epistola de sacramentis ecclesiae) 1106-1107
These cover questions about the celebration of the Eucharist in particular, which divide East and West. Anselm argues that different practices such as the use of leavened or unleavened bread are legitimate, although the Catholic practice is preferable.
De concordia praescientiae et praedestinationis et gratiae dei cum libero arbitrio, 1107-1108
In his last work Anselm addresses questions which were to arise again and again during the medieval period and beyond. How can divine foreknowledge, predestination and grace be reconciled with human freedom.
In addition to these works we possess a series of prayers and meditations written at various times, fragments of some more technical philosophical writings, and approximately 470 letters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
