In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 Introduction The Problem of Anselm The Coincidence of Opposites The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. Bertrand Russell, The Philosophy of Logical Atomism Anselm is an important and early source of two key themes in western thought and spirituality. First, in his development of rational arguments, expressed in long chains of logical inferences and elaborate linguistic analysis, he appears to be the prototype for the model of pure, neutral rationality. The audacity of Anselm’s willingness to submit not just the existence of God but the Incarnation, Virgin birth, and filioque controversy to the bar of reason, seeking necessary and indubitable conclusions is unparalleled. His faith in reason and in the power of words and arguments is seemingly boundless. Second, Anselm is far ahead of his time in creating an intensely personal and passionate spirituality in his prayers, meditations, and letters of spiritual direction. His letters display such emotional anguish at separation from fellow monks that they have been taken as evidence of Anselm’s homosexuality, and his prayers and meditations describe a psyche deeply submerged in conflict and selfloathing . In these writings Anselm does not rely on independent reason but, feeling himself utterly worthless and dependent, throws himself wholly on the mercy of God. At least a century before we see these trends in wider circulation, Anselm focuses on the gruesome details of the crucifixion , takes on the persona of Mary Magdalene, uses female imagery to describe his attachment to Jesus, and throws himself, diseased and wounded, at the feet of Mary. When these elements are placed together in the complete Anselmian 2 The Problem of Anselm corpus, the result for modern readers is a study in contradictions. Anselm , the medieval author who comes closest to the definition of philosopher in modern terms, is also the creator of some of the most emotional, personal, and elaborate prayers of his time, focused not on coolly convincing the intellect but on arousing the passions and will toward love of God. Anselm puts forward modern-sounding descriptions of his projects as the use of “reason alone” to prove the existence of God, the construction of arguments according to the “necessity of reason” “clearly shown in the light of truth,” and the use of “plain reasoning” to show the necessity of the Incarnation.1 These arguments appear to be purely philosophical because they lack of explicit reference to the authority of scripture and tradition and their determined succession of formalizable arguments . The prayers by contrast exhort not, as philosophers are wont, the calming of the passions but rather the stirring up of feelings of love, hope, longing, and sorrow. Even in the more argumentative texts, Anselm moves between similar extremes. On the one hand, Anselm famously describes his argument in the Proslogion as “that single argument which would need nothing else to prove itself than itself alone, and alone would demonstrate that God truly exists.”2 The arguments of the Monologion, Anselm asserts, are meant not only to be independent of revelation but to be beyond the possibility of rejection. Anselm’s ideal argument is one that concludes in such a way, he writes, that its contrary is absurd and can only be rejected by someone who was himself “absurd.”3 That God exists should follow just as light lights, Anselm concludes.4 In the reply to Gaunilo, Anselm claims that for someone to reject his argument amounts to saying that he cannot conceive or understand what he says. “If such a one is found,” Anselm concludes , “not only should his word be rejected but also he himself should be condemned.”5 Cur Deus homo sets for itself a two-part task: first, to prove the impossibility of salvation without Christ, addressed to the infidels who claim the Incarnation is contrary to reason; second, to show by reason how salvation is achieved through the Incarnation.6 Toward the end of the second book, his dialogue partner, Boso, claims that he now understands the whole of the Old and New Testaments, exclaiming, “I receive such confidence from this that I cannot describe the joy with which my heart exults.”7 Yet there are equally compelling passages that seem to contradict 1. Mono. Prol. S I, 7, CDH, Praef. S II, 42. 2. Pros. Prooem., S I, 93. 3. Mono. 4, S I, 17. 4. Mono. 6, S I, 20. 5...

Share