Read part 5 here.
Anselm, then, tells us that he is searching for one notion, in contrast to the many of the Monologion, from which the many things believed of God could be derived. Thus, when Anselm prays ‘Therefore, Lord, who grants intellectus to fides, grant that I may understand that you are, as we believe, and that you are what we believe,’ he is certainly seeking that his faith be deepened by understanding; but his asking for this is simultaneously, and even primarily, his asking God to unravel the core sense (intellectus) of something making secure (faciens fidem), i.e. the notion ‘that than which a greater cannot be thought.’ For this reason, the Proslogion as a whole is a meditation on the substance of something worthy of belief (ratio fidei). The notion ‘that than which a greater cannot be thought’ itself serves as a medium leading to a fuller notion of God, thereby securing the divine attributes understood through this ratio. It is a consequence of this that the work also exhibits the noetic satisfaction of one holding to this faith – faith seeking understanding in the sense commonly understood. Anselm is searching for a single notion or description that can lead to its ground; he is searching for a title or name of God that can bring him closer to seeing God as he truly is. This role is filled by the notion id quo maius cogitari non potest.
Bibliography and Abbreviations
Abelson, Paul. The Seven Liberal Arts: A Study in Mediaeval Culture. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University Press, 1906.
Anselm of Canterbury, Saint. De Grammatico. In Henry 1974: 48-80 [DG].
. Liber apologeticus contra Gaunilonem respondentem pro insipiente. [Resp.]
. Proslogion. [Pros.]
Archambault, Jacob. ‘Aquinas, the A Priori/A Posteriori Distinction, and the Kantian Dependency Thesis.’ Religious Studies 50 (2014): 175-192.
- Lacombe et al., eds. Codices: Pars Prior, ed. Rome: La Libreria dello Stato, 1939. [Aristoteles Latinus]
Barth, Karl. Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellectum. Translated by Ian W. Robertson. London: SCM Press, 1960.
Bekker, Gustav Heinrich. Catalogi Bibliothecarum Antiqui. Bonn: M. Cohen et filium, 1885.
Bencivenga, Ermanno. Logic and Other Nonsense: The Case of Anselm and His God. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Boethius. De Differentiis Topicis. In PL 64, 1173-1216. [BDT]
. In Categorias Aristotelis libri quatuor. In PL 64, 159-254. [BC]
. In Librum Aristotelis De Interpretatione Libri Duo. In PL 64, 293-392. [BDIL]
. In Topica Ciceronis Commentariorum Libri Sex. In PL 64, 1039-1174. [BTC]
. Commentaria In Porphyrium a se translatum. In PL 64, 71-158. [BCP]
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Topica. Edited and translated with an introduction and commentary by Tobias Reinhardt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. [Topica]
Eadmer. Vita Anselmi. In PL 158, 49-118. [VA]
Gasper, Giles. Anselm of Canterbury and his Theological Inheritance. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004.
Gaunilo. Liber pro insipiente adversus S. Anselmi in proslogio ratiocinationem. [Pro Ins.]
Gilson, Etienne. Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages. New York: Scribner, 1951.
Green-Pedersen, Niels J. The Tradition of the Topics in the Middle Ages: Commentaries on Aristotle’s and Boethius’ ‘Topics’. Munich: Philosophia Verlag, 1984.
Henry, Desmond Paul. Commentary on De Grammatico: The Historical-Logical Dimensions of a Dialogue of St. Anselm’s. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1974.
Holopainen, Toivo. ‘Anselm’s Argumentum and the Early Medieval Theory of Argument.’ Vivarium 45 (2007): 1-29.
Klima, Gyula. ‘The Medieval Problem of Universals,’ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 edition). Edited by Edward N. Zalta. URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/universals-medieval/>.
. ‘Two Summulae, Two Ways of Doing Logic: Peter of Spain’s ‘realism’ and John Buridan’s ‘nominalism’.’ in Methods and Methodologies: Aristotelian logic East and West, 500-1500, edited by Margaret Cameron and John Marenbon, 109-126. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
. ‘Saint Anselm’s Proof: A Problem of Reference, Intentional Identity and Mutual Understanding,’ in Medieval Philosophy and Modern Times, edited by G. Hintikka, 69-87. The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2000.
. ‘Ancilla Theologiae vs. Domina Philosophorum: Thomas Aquinas, Latin Averroism, and the Autonomy of Philosophy.’ In What is Philosophy in the Middle Ages? Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Medieval Philosophy, edited by J. Aertsen and A. Speer, 393-402. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998.
Leff, Michael C. ‘Boethius and the History of Medieval Rhetoric.’ Central States Speech Journal 25 (1974): 135-141.
Migne, J. P. (1841-55). Patrologia Latina [PL].
Priscian of Caesarea. Opera. Edited by August Krehl. Leipzig: Weidmann, 1819-20.
Remigius of Auxerre. Commentum in Martianum Capellam, Libri I-II. Edited by Cora E. Lutz. Leiden: Brill, 1962.
Scotus, John Duns. A Treatise on God as First Principle. Translated by A. B. Wolter. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1966.
Southern, R. W.. Saint Anselm and His Biographer: A Study of Monastic Life and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.
Sweeney, Eileen C. Anselm of Canterbury and the Desire for the Word. Washington, DC: CUA Press, 2012.
. ‘Anselm’s ‘Proslogion’: The Desire for the Word.’ The Saint Anselm Journal 1 (2003): 17-31.
Thomas Aquinas (1941). Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars. (Ottawa: Studii Generalis O. Pr.).
 Pros. 2: ‘Ergo, Domine, qui das fidei intellectum, da mihi, ut … intelligam quia es, sicut credimus, et hoc es, quod credimus.’