John T. Slotemaker’s Anselm of Canterbury and the Search for God is an insightful survey of Anselm’s theology and method. Like all volumes in Lexington Books’ Mapping the Tradition series, this volume begins with a close read of one text, in this case the Monologion, before moving to consider the reception history of the author’s theology in light of that text. The result is enlightening and enjoyable.
Noting that the original title included the word meditatio (meditation), Slotemaker insists the Monologion be read as meditation, and he makes a compelling case that the work is rooted in Anselm’s monastic training and prior devotional writings. Though Anselm claims to be writing in such a way that nothing is argued on the basis of scripture, Slotemaker persuasively demonstrates how this does not mean the text is rationalist to the neglect of scripture. For example, Anselm’s treatment of creation is clearly rooted in Genesis 1 and John 1, as is his discussion of the Holy Spirit being “breathed out” (see Genesis 2:7; Job 33:4; Ezekiel 37:4–14). While the Monologion is marked by typical scholastic distinctions—Slotemaker helpfully explores predication secundum substantiam (according to substance) and secundum relativum (according to relation) and divine presence in alio (in a place) and cum alio (with a place), to note only two examples—this scriptural norming indicates that one is not dealing with the parsing of logic alone. In fact, Anselm concludes the Monologion with a distinction between belief as “progress towards” (ad illam) the supreme substance and “progress in” (in illam) the supreme substance. Anselm argues that faith makes union with and progress in God possible, revealing his deeper spiritual purposes.
Turning to the reception history of the ratio Anselmi (the ontological argument) in part 2, Slotemaker helpfully shows how modern debates about the function of the argument are misguided. Where Karl Barth considers the argument as a theological exploration of God as id quo maius cogitari non potest (that than which nothing greater may be thought) not a demonstration, Étienne Gilson disagreed and found in Anselm an attempted demonstration of God’s existence. In contrast, Anselm Stoltz views the argument as a mystical meditation. Slotemaker shows how the artificial distinction between rationalist demonstration, mystical meditation, and theological exploration is a modern construct, one not found in the Monologion; in the Proslogion, which contained the ontological argument; or in the medieval reception of the ratio Anselmi as evident in John Duns Scotus and Robert Holcot. Slotemaker helpfully clarifies the method of faith seeking understanding while dispensing with modern false dichotomies, a significant contribution.
Slotemaker’s analysis of the connection between reason, theology, and mystical experience could serve as an interpretive tool for other major works of Anselm. For example, Anselm’s introductory invocation of the Holy Spirit in On the Procession of the Holy Spirit (§1) displays the devotional nature of his methodology, and his treatment of passages such as Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 11:4; and Ezekiel 36:26–27 (§5) makes explicit the same verses implied in Anselm’s allegedly rationalist treatment of the Spirit in the Monologion. One could deploy Slotemaker’s insights quite effectively across the Anselmian corpus.
Returning to part 1’s treatment of the Monologion, Slotemaker is careful to analyze Anselm’s relationship with earlier work by Augustine, whose De Trinitate Anselm consciously cites as a work further clarifying his positions. Despite considerable overlap, Slotemaker shows substantial differences between Anselm and Augustine. For example, Anselm is broadly apophatic about the meaning of persons, as is Augustine, though both theologians move to offer some tentative definition of the term. Yet, Augustine emphasizes relations, where Anselm focuses on emanations in his doctrine of the Trinity. Similarly, when addressing the vestigium trinitatis (traces of the Trinity in creation), Anselm combines Augustine’s triads of memory/understanding/will and mind/knowledge/love into memory/understanding/love. This analysis is quite helpful, though one may be left wishing for a bit more historical context. While Slotemaker attends to the reception of Augustine (and Nicaea) through Alcuin of York, Theodulf of Orleans, and Ratramnus of Corbie to explain how Anselm’s understanding of the Spirit’s procession from the divine essence differs from Augustine, one suspects a similar genealogy may lie behind some of Anselm’s other modifications of the great bishop of Hippo.
Returning to part 2, there is consistently see a quite nuanced reception history of Anselm. Slotemaker adeptly explains the 13th- and 14th-century disputes over how to interpret the regula Anselmi (Anselm’s rule) of relational opposition. Similarly, he demonstrates where the “basic grammar” of Anselm’s satisfaction theory continued into the early reformers and beyond. Such reception history is quite helpful, given the temptation toward an immediate comparison of Anselm with a later theologian whose views are similar.
Anselm of Canterbury and the Search for God serves as an interesting and helpful analysis of Anselm’s theology, retrieving the significance of the oft-neglected Monologion, clarifying the relation between faith, reason, logic, and Scripture in Anselm’s methodology, and situating Anselm’s work in a broader historical trajectory. It is readable, precise, insightful, and detailed, a work to be highly commended.
D. Glenn Butner Jr. is assistant professor of theology and Christian ministry at Sterling College.
D. Glenn Butner
Date Of Review:
March 19, 2021
