36 Anselen his werks alchough it bus seecived 2 far top oestriceed appnoci fascination with the taste for verbal 5g easing of Angus ology of the eleventh century. Anselm's writings supply ext mentation wo suppoe this fut, Ye jon, Prclegioe, ancl Comite Ganilone, rourowing of dhe focus ro the fist fot passages of Istree work being an eifort on Angetin's part co ee Prolegion peoct set forch by Gauntlo, acontemparary monk freen'the abbey af um replaseel und argurrents for and agains the lusophical tznguage chen, h a way as ti iiake cheer fered, and even their meaning, inctessinaly remote finan shut Anselm Ind kad én mind. ‘The puseered srs contribuved even more substaacially ackis tendency. The meve sigasl ar lath Drool was lacer gener rary scholars whys conti i Ansel has nace iustry have invoked a barrage of newer, and seh cia, The poiae has foog since bes reached. when inspiration eollects mee strongly their deize co discuss exch other's vers she prouf than their wish to onderstned Adselm himself While sharyy skewed an these ways, rhe emphasis whi! _gne bas been cecorded on this creatise, along. wich che Monslegion and associated, a¢¢ Indeed prinye locacinns in Anselm's uewvre wl fdeason the cogaitivestarus ether works, methodology theory. These thaue wer tiga of Ansel these works cn proof Goals eisence found in hese three tceatses ae conupeeherded best ‘hey ae sid in conjunction wich the eet ofthe works in which Anselrs ced churn vlcoF interpreting the proofs afi vettal epistemology isbroughe cobra in the proof and elaewhere, con be ies particular appeal of Ans , they Kelp 12 explain why el ost a2 capil after his death a9 why, when Iter medieval scholastice revived h ly to misconstrue it ss his foes. chen, has twe parallel gosls, sigsificotion of scatemen iewory aud requited, teak, scferring to Godt exis the concer rae be ead in the knowledge of Goel must he Placed i which he seadied end caighe ard to which he spuke, The achievement of che second cnajot goal of chis chapcer will emerge in the attaining of the fest Anselm's vethel mode ef argument anc the arcicade toward the powers and context of che intelectual8 Alm limes of dhcological language that appear ia hi of related questions hough sen as an ecognieive in the fist Ikoower in onder for cheen eo leat to the kemwledge of theiesiynificaca. These secidiciors obtain whet abject be an infidel meving from wabelicf ro [ith or believer whose ian thoughe by onguetioned ambi vy was cooceived. The received tradition of 0 he culearal developmse Europe, there was a gndual dissoc nally (Form Donatus and Priscien, passed on by Carolingian scholars, end growing increasingly cat Uf incellectaal history, His general ideas oF teology and of religions keeosledye are derived fraen i's verbal theory of signs, mod che verbal es cad odes is grammar. Most of his Anselon 59 ‘ansitony methods and presuppesicions dictse he operacive condlicions of his thought as 2 whale Li concern is the cheological-r ing interprecarinns of Anselm whieh the anachronistic presuppositions of recent scholasship have provided. ‘To place onasel! in she Iunds of m ewensiath-cencury Cee gers i lictions, which ao a far oh he ewentieth, if moc the eleve he Friends andl the foes of seasons acduceel in disperayee the pro? vee Ie R extremely difficult 0 bas ieselfalreadly become an issue of learned “Arselm's proof hes become virewally mean: leer saggested that Anselm commentators fall between the vo scon's —of exaggerated rational this question rte, Acteprance or rejecclon of feceas an index of opinion. It has the (we gibaps~ -oF n and exaggented fea.” etn points of view om bis proof, he closiat riiqus of Thomas Aquines, Locke, and Kene, on the one ned, and of Dewars, Libnia, end Hegel, on she other, ae oo wall known te waeract fons to be cited below are, in aur opinion, dlfetive in sane way ether, they nevertheless do mele: some positive zo che undersending of Anselm. In most cases they csr by aly pare ofthe picture and by mistaking the pat foe de who this may lad t0 cenelssions cbow Angel CTC ELLER EL LEE EEREREEREAst, who Rercele Cirieetly, and ‘with much greifcation, ther Anselm ddiberaely ures co argue his proof on extescriprural grounds, 2 hi ether of sche onrequerce 264 "precanoe of Aquinas or eged interest in proving the and ceawa, feesun it th waa Aristotelian logic * id wing within che reostbolastic camp is composed of scholars are the enly twa a shich carver meet. the form of a egucion that itis an of non raf Wee hve, fr s sunewhat non-Artstotelan distor- aw ioe of che meaning af “orapicicises so dha i is made eo inchade dat beyond I the fits of aes, pes of rliginus empl — lege lghough asncaminieal oo eh level 9 "precursor of the ool have erncrged whe applourl Anselm's faundotion for. new, constr thes aheld, some of them hdow Protestant they are forced rO cay the auther wslologiealt | : bring viekwe peaving Cs 2 Prusgtan rae? bs Aovelea 6 clase co dhe qetion of huwe man? procfs here aren thes wok, whee the most importane 4A meres istve skoars chat some scholiss Sind. single argumece b ahapeer ut se cua fom Anselm as sce oelte as cen in the conte af toting thst "St, Anselm dia wot categomine ha wal: Evaps is equally eonectia cenghasic mpy bis succor ie be and an age of Qe, 20 16 aang af cheneric, sm sg of gsoruma, se ly replace each aga between fslacn and 3y2ancian seices9. ‘The ewnbard «ong of wrutheta Eusope, The ssiult wat is rar ey the, incr weirs ‘arene before the seals could be 3p Science OF intesprering tie swelring and apsakieg con ‘ECC ECC TC ELC TLE er __ecrreL_IrarMAA A Anselm educutore ware not innoearors. Their ceols tor convering che nidiments of che “Latin language co the Germanic penples were the grammatical compendia of the lace imperial period, particularly those of Deearas end Priscian. Often ceonugh the yracotaes af Denaeus sad Prisca peeved to he tan exsensive anc sophisticared for the uses co wenich rey bad w be condensed, abridged, and refurmolated io. sey imple Tenigoage. frvorite tapic amcag Carslingian textbnok writers. Their ‘ned up as an attempt to presceve che grumunati= wn.2! 4 procedure diceeced by che c reading of Holy Seripcvee i 10 be suplemected by the perusat of crab commencories end other elit swarks, These activities ang beth a prayerful and understanding of efoees of the eronks. nee camapored bp makes this elear in ebe foam of the Rebanos Manes, sow, beecheen, wht ir Jaw require ‘Which fidy commands us co kaow the Word of God. Auesiin 5 ‘During periods of “poed lecets” were sis nance of restoration of aecurrre texts shunreh fachers, and the knowledge of Concordance, and science of Holy Seripeure, As s basis of the munastic chinkcr's ‘Since this wag go tis not surprising to find eatly medieval thinkersayplying ical muxies of though ei sassiona of between the the Body and Blocd of C) iment that prefin che relationshin between, petsons oF events in ‘Too sigedficent examples may be used the clebetr.oa the Teaicy between Gotschell: of Or archbichap of F century. Relations eontuversy over predest pented evasions of ect cal the Taicity taken’ by gerarersal be x der tchallés argu 2 of language can and should show eof xing, asserts ‘denoted by an abstract noun. Thus, fine oma tai dhe Tuinity, The cere trina indicates thar there are th86 Anselm thenoun dis, being abstrses, ss par ot fax, ace applied co singelor racer chan in th ly 108 chrefatd cubject such af the Trinity, even though ive thar is grerarnatically singular, Qn che other bans, the wore bier isa singular noun of the «ype that con denoxc only a singulse sul Hincmar concludes, che toma drat i¢ insdenisrible gical augamene wi ‘A second exai rddeseed in grarmma represent words acal Zeke, oF ‘which, as incarporeuls, question concerning iii ve ne real existence, Aupas regis, ad refice ofthe fourth Cospel ate to the we sepatina, Both Tredigisus and Jubn azrer chet mii and relaced terms poctessn comprehensible grammatical meaving, #3 the oppratte of alivd and relaced terms, tc whatever degree chey apply this analysis othe explication uf a metaphysics of nonbeing.?? A.cancern widh the significance of negative teeminology as applied co God nage, Ta the eenth century, Abbo af Fleury oof al] kines in. a volume encitled Quoations snmmaiide Yu Quasi 21, Abbo deals svith « problem in Teint Anselm 67 thuology, the procession of the Holy Spirit, The Facer is unbegoeten the: rnacetsity; andl sera. negations ace eelative, ard do pot je ig invariably seems to be that ifa nega ipnifcance of the phrase isi ally negerive, ai ‘The tenth contuty provicke ut witk adltineal evil upon to play a sole uc diaetic, Fan, way hrowgh thee grammar wat tof signed co 1 year 94 raised an ourery a snuden: among the inpnks, One school, decider ec plese the lapse ‘Gunzo, who had aleesely pracceded 0 ful Fst rgie- voles? one se eonvected 8 grammatical ppoincedly se che outsec chac wards and grammatical forms, wand meaning of ehe thoughts chey express de tmuth and wislom, Gunze acvertheless proceeds. te combat age and to co own accuracy ia gran gle 1s principal TLL CCT LLL Lt LLLtiLEiLeEcLirer aaAAAS “\ 68 Anselm method of acpumect is quotation, The Epinole is liberally sprinkled with choice passages froin Servius, Donatus, Priscian, Vergil, Home, Cicero, |. ALi Bible, the timwy, and Geagory ‘These exteusive cna in face, form the balk of the Bpiesls, andl they are adhe te Categories. based or Trent Mile Ages. Ie bad been knowa and us fac eomoved from Aristode's origin 10 sueh influential cont Abbo af Fleury, Gerkorr of As of the seme pedagegues were a6 includes {nformacion eleventh century the te been achieved, und manuscripes ect Anton 69 scholas in these is less innmeciaely have created problems for gramimariaas. Yet, ic create, and they were serious ones. The ise cen apparent why thie revival problems The cwun isa parr efspexch signifjingehe properly or ingeneral _ . Thequslinyofa. 1c Priscian recap «pare of apeech -bods.ar ening, generally or [of dee ewan) ng is, ph spies ier paid Alcuin proceeds more con grammarians, which di “The noun isa par of speech, acconting tothe7 Ansett Ins bis crarstation ofthe Categorie: ie appears plainly thar nouns ela or all sigauify in de suure way. If chey signify with respect to accidents, they cannot peepodly signily wits respect to substare Jaburaces in his cranlation of Ds oatrpetatione that a nove must signily one oF fhe otter, bur nex bath." Hence dhe prblem: Who is tight, Donatus and Priecian or Bootbinst? In general. we can say thet che testimuny of Bacthias was aecepred, bus it ‘was nur allowed w oxerehroy che massive a of premmar, The Bucth- concepts of substance end sccident, geuus and species, wine Priscian’s thoory of che nous by commentacars on «he disci- es of te eiviam jn abc clevench cencuty, despice che incellzctual cantor his eccasiorally eegasced, ond che peculise amalgam of "catego- zed” grammar thar resul ‘way chence ince the intelleceval seat ef scholats and conciavess cident that the sxamples of scholasship ond controversy mor problem! enteiled by the new grammar of the alevech ce r, ateta be found in the works of Asel her Lacitanc of Bec, andl Lanfanc's principal oppo ro the land vice verve, He farcher 19 accident that cleventh-century monast remeribering that the practice oF distinguis vuong, che seven lberal acts daces feo the cwelfeh and 5 in one, acd only ily to thewider mnye ofc renaissance of the ewelfth century made available Buc alsa Jey must importane cenvers oF ed Irurgeoning cuduedral schools and universities. These new schinels, which served an cepanuing usben population and which accracted many foreigners, terded to be rmich Iyger thw their monastic counteiparcs, and, fe them Go that tal been serained by te individ This was especially eve of university ecuc 1d doctor's degrees being level, Sach a dagrce of a usccuctor, 2nd his maior fetd of ona, the bachelos's nies 10 teach 8 particular subject a: a femie specialization cannact be © parsicet most cloventh-century maenastic schoole. Although, a: sic hive con, the ie Aaselm 71 monks required a cercsin ameunc and ype of eraeniag, edvestion was neither the exelusite noreven the primary function of che monastery a8 an institution fheie petseree in ony amber, means foregone conclusion. White itis trae that great houses such as Cluny tended @ develop a compacacively Large anct laheel stalf of tenchers,ermaller and fess erinent houses umvally bad «0 rely on the services of oue oF toro instructors, whose rsspensiiliies encarn= passed all of the acts thie were cx In the esse of the monastery of Bec, hed heen founded in L041 and which was just érverging fiom relative abscutiey thanks to the patronage of cons” and the presence! Lanfranc, we find ckat-cut wubsene, Lenfrane hiraselé was ly acclaimed by his conternpozaties foc having relit the lamps ofthe Hibera ares in che wes. yea though his cducacicnal writings, che Quietions Lavfhaaci und the We Aahavea, lich aes ireqaenely listed in eleventh-contary libsary caralogs which ae, unertanscely, an Loager extant, mighe lead us co assume thar logic al worksalone, i would beeesy ro-concludle aly logic. Yet we fine concenspncaties snkious school of Ber i of Anselm a5 an educacor, left by Ordericus and chronicler of Saine-Evro Anglo-Norman century. At fist Orcencus stems to gard Ansel ores, the bbay + Lanfranc tanghs ‘leaning ws spieod al over tbe La elrested by rhe nocesrofhixerve lnoweilge. A great atont of thaclegy was asserablet iy Lacieane sneha abbey of Bots and magnifcentiy incresed By Arsalan seve the school cent oar mary tsand spiteus chariorers, who have boca usted by divice providence wich holdieg rhe rine of the churches in the sre of {is wath, Soy good cascoey rnc moa of Bec ure wa devuted ta che stacy oftettes, TLCLt cect _ rt i_rt_rirertertrete ah & SSAMAA 72 Aeselea iam ideas into gremmar, or why logical as well at theological works should ree) a grammatical bias in this period. Tes born observed charLanftare aud Bereng woof the mest che doctrine of dhe real presence is a janieed grammar. I cuens encitely en the iz and proatains, a distinccion whi bad focerd grammacians to accepe. The cat sgothcative pousibilities, good! gremmer dice: aise exten 06 “corpus” in the context af the seatencs bread svere actually change 22 oF the 9 lus whick is ea vs a8 a0 index of Lanteanc’s mo: secon grammar. Logic, for Lanfra ¢ the apparatus af ehe yyllog! ment employs term and 1 cechnigue wh Propositions," Lanfrane & the fest medieval ean snd meee of arguenene. Jr uleimste provenance i thought to be Apuleias, a Platooise of che Middle Academy boon sbaut a.m, 125, whose work, according 10 Sourhern, was coming, mney coeans che detection of the equipelleee proof weld read A-B-¢-D There 4 — D,A Anacin “to the modeen raind Lenfrene’s methexl may appear tu be no move curmpelle ing than Devengarius's. However, concempocaries Gund boc aiguments convinaing, + lige which stems largely teem the prominence of granurat in 9. Berengarius, as we have seen, isdependent on the new cheary of the pronaun conceived by claventh-censury grxmninsrians under the impect of ehe Categeis. Tanfiane is depeacens om gremmac in the rance general senve of the of ehucidacing » eeat or an indivalual ward the significative power of che aoun by astersing cha dati sometow pot only explanatory but intellectually convincing. mporance, he learned « great deal for bot describe hirn ast sudcen emergence, a Mel nrgeneslagy."* Souther has rade the trenchacr be an even bester source of examples of the lauleano, and that he sherce Berongaciue! perfeccly free 0 use segument in difforeat iy thee seas him searching for a prec ical, and artificial Iaagurge, ever x metalanguage, ¢hat transcends Basel 75 such es che world porelle tn his Decasa dabit, althouy aay be borbarisns according tw the contemporary grummatical rules, Je meaning is mor: important inceresced in such n than if ie is placed tedly and at leogth i. his anal ‘and mm pou pccare 09 appl purely ely eo eet che usu dognend an adequate inde is evware of the limicatians of che concemporsey tas dogeandé cn semantic grounds but also because he sees it as limieed ftom the becader penpective of the ways chic humen language as such fis 3 sbout the world.and Ged, which be inbericed from che Auguatinian Auselmv’s approach «0 words as signs in thenlogiest discourse thas reflec idl fae itera of ‘grammar which ke tughe a5 a ogian, 'saduratignal work, the Degnarata. redagugue as well as ein ‘Wemighe beginby exarn TRUE TRL CCE CELE kknaaanaoeAAMT 16 Aaseim. ecand the unfinished Defoastat« imprentia. . . . Beth ure ostensibly logic mec, che monk of Coruerb lose friend,“ caralogs ic in Ine in grammar, ptepounds end solwee many dale fas: recourse &9 gear ‘ams, and the species grammatiet, he points out, are 1 ie grurnation 38 a Jectcians and as useful ar sms uw bea mee. The wor Ansdlm thoughe necessary reasons his epistemnolazy and one to which ge will have below. ‘The probtern thac ene of concrere. The disciple nominative status of example in one and the adtveab budhe are This presence Anselm, & x qu Qualiry, he odds, ‘Those signify questives Be cakes sys, har no poreer nd hevke, pardon! snd how ic compares rally are ves sige thas we. Hee ery co avoid thie conclusion bp concemed, necesity and impossibility wee ace faced he patactox of word itiowe por abtad. “The word grammatical does at he discipline of gear per vr owd ch rm erate. a he Bs age thie jn ehe second cose ie is appellative.!© Bor: 's both cecesserily nonexiste ‘Aavelm acnits chac this condusion is absurd ev Anselm 77 lewves open the starus of he woed grammticur with cexpect beth 10 one hard. and to grammar, an the ocher. Now words, Anselm sacs, represene chiags, Whse kind of ching does gramnerias represen th che andy of language and the agent in the same wey. It and mere compeehensi fiacl & similar enudency on ugh in the De gramnatica In one series of of negation. What does aoe exis, be he poser co be nar ehe poses nut to be, one deals wis accribured to Ged. tf e aad that he acrves jas bbe eeuthal ror siguily cheie eppesites: "Wi78 Anselm is this stength indicated by cares rerescing indeed ro kaaw how Ansel question, buthe dacs not do sein this wo: does address and resolve the problem ‘Ansele’s caste for explaining logical relscionships in terms of graramacical isabo visible in che De poses et inp spect 10 causality. He compares canes to effects by a ying veacness?"" Te planned to answer this slnishes, alzhon he whic sober. ly apedking, the eye af a blind he Be posesiate impute gives us ruth less ‘0 work wie than does the Degraviacteo, Yee at wstions Anselm was asking, in whose primary mode of Anelo in his be cate of Anselm's command of the Augustinian view of the be fee wolsted in such a way as ly, if nor exclusively, co rheological abjccrs ef kno Poreeeas him most cognitive function of proofs. These is dialogue De ria, in henry of fides rere intel fcru. to an understanding vf his views 02 re explored, more or less rspecs analysis of necessary eeascn Analea 79 magistc aicedingly caro ignifertive fonction of steements, Their ialogus reveals Anselm’ interest aa borh ee relacion of the sign 2 i goifcacaan andthe elias of design vo the spekcer.# This poiac reflec ‘withthe Stoic distinction between ineramenta intsations, o fete, according 10 Ans they are in face accurate speakers, they ace nec may yer be and chee stha ie cortect relation smetegical validicy.™4 ot, pose ‘he sign Co the shing tc signi boeing the ign only if he knows both the sign and the obj rer any knowledge ie be consistent with Augt iris at ideacial wi cbjective scourncy & eo assessed only by aleeady knows. ‘Anselm, Wee Augustioe, begins with verbal signs: bis explaration of with respect ta. che truth of statemnems and ‘to show tha there sze uther types of signs whicd nears. 5? After analyzing the truth of cel able to cermpaee che sign with its object, wich it types ofsigas. Thus, chet wha hinlcingg wt TULL r_ rc rc_rerrrer_ir_rr_r—RL_ereL_isL_iarc_iBRrinRaLnAAAS 8D Anselm coafoecing the will ey merl svnlty.®! Moral rctinuds inckades snath of sctian, che doing of whats ight, For Anselm. there isadirecperlltbetwren the uch of scacements and the euch of actions. Just as a setemnen rey be savuclly or accideacally rue, depending on whether it merely axprosies the speaker's meaning or it also expresses realities securely, san ation may be formed it & on the science ef sense perception, Thus, fora! exarnple of che straight stick thac appears co be bene ugh water, Anselm observes that en understanding of the fn elation to supreme rrath 9? This means ehae oes not necessarily felJow for Aasclmn that “whatever is, be." Unlike mone Noo vetheory ufevil, Rather, he attacks geommatical fora, The recicude undedying all tous is prior cits signs; itis indepeadene of chem, und they cone ‘confer being upon it ar witheravs being from it: "Thea, the rightness (7 in cecens of wich ibe siguiticetion [salted cortect, or right, neither exists Abs He enough nor ch ‘he signification regesdloss ofhow dhe caanges"93 Thi recrcude—God ie she etenal «rich comand whi abet teuths—eraths of wil, of incllece, of fice, of word, of action-»-x ented." This ka fas very Kile to do wieh ee exemplars which the moral and incallectuc! vines adumbrate an and seeve a single ced.""* Ansein’s second principal epistemological incesest, necestury reasons, is earner af scholarly opinions en che cognitive sratne of rmcesary seasons have sometimes beea affected by schol sions as to the nature and validiey of the pool hey are mar cencenned with a philoeo- sl validating povicr is rather arguments, 1° Dovid Kaos pic's God"? and, even stranger, sweden peace82 Ansolm perceive the “inevitability” of the teuthieF ith, This pocsarcy lies, eccording co Knowles, cn so much in Anseln's presumed attempt to use necessary reasons in a reancee which their aeture doce presumed faire to diseingnith berween "narueel” and ad muecls of knowledge, 2 lapse not stisictory cect unt ‘which therefore an be uteibured co Acaelm's philosaphical miveté niu, om che ccher hand, coassert thar Aaselrn was no Belaian of ee mind, George $. Heyer, Jt, likewise concludes thae Aneel uses necessiry censons beens of the Ingical vaguoness of his canes"? ing to depict Anselin a furzp-minded and incencisent, these opinions give sse co cajor problem by focusing arentien too exclusively on Function of racessry reasors inthe pract of Gail's enarence. Te be sue, crs own staremtent of purpose is responsible fot this emphasis, and we lo anake the proc che rerminas of our discussion of his episternolagy However, ove must cecognice that the Maobgion deGnition of necessary er the only source of information abone chem wr che enly re relevant questions det chey raise, In particular, awa Fortier qutsions remain > be sereed: Where did. Anselm yee the idea of necessary seasnos in che Grst place? What is Anselm's own crcerion of necesiy? In answering che Gest question we are given substantia sesiscance by a Iulpful nt sranyely neglected ardele by A.-M. Jacquin, who taces the idea of accessry ceasuns 0s ultimate source, the lagie nf Aristore, acl wha gives us hr flasionof cis iden in che Latin Middle Ages wp to Anselm's time, Aristotle talks abour necessity envst succinctly in bis aeelyis of signs, ‘hich ore hase eared above, For Aristotle, i willbe sons ielibte signs sre proper wo | Hoplsms which ental sienefie knowlege nd nocessary tout are prorer (0 rhetoric: they asc sel in enthymemes, which ray be crodiced ‘vith probable, Luc wor necessary uth. AS Jacquin notes, this Aristotli detnition of prokability aed nscesiey was repeated by Cicero, Marius Vier Searrant a i does in bis ‘euperratiral objects answer «0 all Asicurle expos oughly were nor yart of the fei rtes ane were thus cox aveilzle in Latin neil the second half ofthe cwelih cencury. asselm was ehus incapable of krowing the complete context of Aviseotle's axiginal idea of cecessicy. In his own concepeion of necessity we note asignilicane shift ia empasis. Anselm is noc st sll concerned with ehe difference Letweca probability and necessity. What oes interest him isthe face that rhe derivative Lavin discussions, im pa ‘scumient of Cassicefaras, emphasize the point that necessary reasons es Aveelmn 85 truth. Now, as st hove seen, Anvelm defines reuth'ar socticuce, a qual indicacing the accuracy of a wis its objece. Fe ig noe at al difcule foe Anselm 10 assimilate the idea of necesscy co the tdea of rectirude, and chis precisely wnoe he does, Thas, accoring to Anselm, an urgumnene may be considered to have been proved rc che way chey really ae, without ievoktng the support of a higher uthaciey. 4 [Necessiny isons are therefore a mode ofexplaining he recede function is dependent on ehchenier’s pins huweedge ef dhe objec. 1 fac, the very sume criteria apply to necessiny easonns as apply e2 cauth’ All Linds of syacemeacs miy be verified by means of necessary teaors. AS we sa of the De grmmuricn, they may be applied ta purely academic ques ‘Apparently, their mejce practical limitarion as eplseemotogical cools seerns to be the face chat they afe usually geammecical in srreetare, In the cate of theological questions, aecessuey reasons may lsewise be uscd to werly ste ments sbour Ged. provided chat hese sturemenssare concietent with God ashe is, A concise definition of the nature, funceton, aad Henitations of nccessiry seasont muy be found in thy Cro daes nme, hice Anselm, as nteplstet, Says 0 Bose, a6 eiscipnlas Sineein this snguity yne are the tale ofthese who peer to bateve roving cesoupt whar has brea cotblised in adsauce Ly season, Ural lke (ez as co ages co accep, in thease cf Ged, nothing thi ein cue she lightese age v reject nothing dat is iw evee the slightest degiee reasonable SOpDeSes ie, Farin the eer of God, jute as an impos weve slight, 2 ascssey acomnpoles acy degree of easpratlenets, Inwerer stall, provided ii nor oveidden by cera other canes welghey rasan. itis inthis sense thar Boso con eay to Anselm ut che end of the dialogue: “Wow prove thy nectstity of ad's hecoming man, and you do 40 in such @ wap thar. yoo would satisfy nut only che Jews but aso che pagal by sei alone """ Necessary reatoning, fae Anselm, chiut in ne way implies Objects of knowledge can be wlered, refed, or delimited by the human mind, Wha it does irmply is thar bumnan wocds and ideas ate by she objective relies they arelesigel to expres ‘esd realities, tn their own, terms, swith rectitude, Necessity ivascns ace linked not only uo eectirude, ‘They are linked also eo Ani's chitd major epistemclegical preoccupation, the iden of fir acer inselteran. Pies quaerens fatixuem surns up Ansel’ episeemniogy. 1 presup- poses did inchades acesssary seasans and che puinciple of receiuude, and je LC EEC TEL TEE TELE ECE EEREAAA 4 Aselio Commene on this imparrant ‘Amseltn's proof of God's existence. As goed arcane for thin iviomwoll-kuown face bat Anes 8 Fids guarens intdlians before giving necessary 10 explore if Te atau ocher writingows wall agprecints the proc An oc wurce of inforrratiun on idee leeters which Anselen waate t0 combat ehe Th ‘a contemporary logician, whose nom Anschm's stack on Roscellinus is the clasese In this ecateal he seers Roseellinas's po methodology and his fauley more] -acaccrion Pith these Two obj ons, Anschn seezals once again iis te pportunity to develephis views on yd from burnan erought ix theological speculation. bs purposes in combatting Ros xan abjection derived b as we have seen, he wes 50 deeply concerned. In fect, his argument is reminiscent of the De granmotica, He holds Koscellinus 0 be tn error 1y, a8 Arselen undeestards ther, Tmouel, he sates, chese camesane fetes och, because they Te Anselm i seers ceplorible, alenost inconcti (Christian, and who chas may be assumed ro now vere three nx ut bei he dors not krow what he s saying. "quoders dialeceisians” whom he repecee be actemper to reduce Geel to the ditcensions of changh 10) © This would be 3 ques thar we ceapluy the believer, verve 10 intensify his mor already kacms by faith. I theologian, aad chia fee w theit aoa to cusoserce che claims which ore86 Aesern apologeris saraccer af his prcot ef God's existence, Most ofthe conmentaroes ‘who have advanced the purely ietmumonal argamsent have cived ihe nature of ‘Anselm's human eaviroament o suppor theit caw, He livad, they noee, ina world whac atheism, skepticism, anel religions ceher than Chtistianiry were not wall known enough e present a problem, Fur imponznt theolopicat work aumsophere of the monastery AIL of these con they do net completely explain why believer; and they ucterly fail to is necessary seroducioly Anselm nevee met him in che flesh. One an only praise Gusteve Weigel and Arhur G, Madden fr eheie acute cbeervation chat . che nonbeliover as 3 loypothetical straw ran rether thar e826 ontemporury treat to the (Chistian faith, On che wh fects but as misguided Christians their head screwed on backwards. Both in cheary acd in practice, in fevor of the believer, Neverthet thing fou dhe aggumenc of fides gnsres jusdcte, 1 would be a gross mistake ta overtook this fice, a ie would Prejudice one’s wncewtanding of Anselm's theory of knowledge froin the ‘urser, For Anselm, cheologicel sta weay. Theis abje dictated by the iat Agpela 87 Te we fad in Ansel’ Biola on che Trinity a case Cor dees bona gee and analyzes theological in relation both to thei signifcsta and to their He degen eo wrice the Cor deat bona when be was aichbishop of bury and finished it during iis conflict with King Willian JL over lay invesclture, This enforced crsvel may jan exile, ochich rceulted from his rave widened Anselm's horizons; in any cesc, the preface of the work shows him robe quite sertous about: ined two hooks: ficeh because they regard {23 lacompacible with reaon, And bls book goes on to prove by rarional neces! oything keown abou Him—thit no san con possibly be saved without Him. However, in the cond bnele— ew! prveediog 9 if fay enjoy s happy immorality. And 1 shaw the recesity of taining thisend fer which be was cested, sed means ofa Godhmae,! ‘Nonbellevers muse be shown cha Christaniey ie or itratianal, an undertaking waich deurancs argaments that do not depend on revelation. Anselm chinks that arguments by necessary reas0 be useful to the believer faced swith the task of anes infidel, 3c explains this polar ‘elleve, 35 Wella i acdc ro Always to piveastistacory ans amssyy believers repestedly ul, over chis same prob has of what necensiey did Gre! become avin? .. . Many ‘sking ar thas problem be dele wi sverns very iio, the statin ro everyone ae iscemrmenchbe! of the weity and elegance ofthe reawning. Therefor, oven shough the ely Rashes Trae aid about chi problem what aughe eo be adequate, acworth TC CCCI TCLLLrtterceeraeaaannAAAS do bo thee ho oe -yory ich passage, and Anselm explores its implications at various Jnroughouc the work. AS he sees jonal proof can show the nonbeticver that Christion eeschings ore nue absurd; but faith cannot be uuhieved by reason, Neither con season dissolve che ions, ke all signs possessing rect controlled by ehetr objects. And, in che case of theology, staternenes cannot be rect of neceosary iF they to God anything unjust, encharieable, themmiove, hae this object, God, thus 1 speculation, aleheugh troe sefar aie goes, muse therefore corabiar ‘and st can chus only be truly necessary tranaoendence necescaty Recent the part of the ebinition of dmellatas fidet woulet have to eke into acount che face hac it aim is beacicade, knowledge of Gi arguretns: Bur they are abe especie to ‘Neestiy Feavons citnor produ ais te sae s preferred muthed far doing th) if grammuatteat caplaaetions. "*alchough be also ciees the persuasive For the believer, thea, theology has ao {a discussing she hist oinred out chat "Auguste Acsetm moved. Anselin: aimed to be an Aug Avgustine farmed by the logic, grammar and ife of the eleventh cenuusy."9¥ Fron 1 oF the epistemolagy of theolagieal sacecna ioe aS u wrter, was ard inteUccruat dependence upoa and seyliscic diferences froen Augisa tine have been nosed in 2 variety of his works. They are nowhere mere systematically revealed than in the thre treatises which comprise nis theoloyy9 Anuctn fords existence; anc cis ro che Manclogion, traiegéon, aod Contra Ganilooece thie we row cura ‘The hse ching to benoticed about this series of works is thaie intencien, ‘The chapters 29 through 80, by far che ‘Trineey. Among che ewenty-sic chapters af the Pradegi the exibtonce of Gud 5 sarure; 23 is devoted to the ‘Trinity; and 24 theough 26 foun a prayer directed to God 5 the end of men. . Anselm himeelf indicates what be ¢ sdsout in the prefices oF these ewe works, The Molt his choughts “regarding meditacing on the Divine Being: cher themes related in a aed someone endeav seeking :0 underseend what subject ane method ate fardher visible ia the citles he frat selected far the cwo works, fuempline ediand de rabione fei and Ricks qusavens intellesne. 24 Nowhere i Anicim’s werk does he refer to the Movdleien and Prastgion as peoufs of Goxl’s existence, Rather, he sees thom functioning together as stvennpts at Tidaitarian speculation. In his piste de incarnations ork, he states that he weove tem to show excluding the topic of ineaenation—can he proven by com ‘mesnariisretensbar)apset from tappesl co} the aurheeiey of 8 private cornspocdence, he srinteae. 9° Ceresinly, Anselm's conter aboue his wos. to say about the ated discovered by reas: meaner what che erae Asses 91 the Prafegin co wey tore by one single are Deliver Badener does aot acalyre the Fratligion snp Farehe ‘vas wzlcen a monk inva nearby monastery his critique and his exply ta ie attached co the body of t cataloging Anselm's theological convtidmtions, Ord thet he wat, at the request af Fiend, 0 nowhere ceterring sicher Prastogon, Conte Gaonbama by nasne orto the fact that dese works concaia pructs of Goe's existence. Asheasconteoe, then che proof iss Desrinizee, whith does nocsheink fein speculating onthe mostadsruse aspects ufthedivine aatuee. Prom the point view of meckod, Ansel speci technique of argument, 20 thae boc that sae plfewted arguments and with simplifed discussion rational nee necoritaly woulel wewely prove, and « would openly naa ‘whatever te conclusion of the distinet inguiziae declared. "0 ‘Thexe has boen some confusion as eo Anselm's meaning h fam she face chat he. after be makes sobe sore, have act 0 argue the Trinitaien re ran mired asthe image of God,“ Aoselin takes this style of ergumene, aencog othe, fom August snencioa bis wholesale adoption of August cr, ies iemporea When Anselm wrote the Monobgos, bury. Lantiane’s had our documeneed the hoviey. Thae Anschin was wel of the facc chet he was making a new deparrr ite adopts when earl Sag aeaeceunecucnunuauauaaaaTe <34 Ando to Tsay sone a necessny consequence a and Pragion cure an the analogy nth cowevet, ic systetcatical human thought and fangucgs, he holds, must ia the esd stand cliched before Gud." Both che building up end ehe breaking down af these analogies are jan devices; and so ate « nuamber of the chesnct see below ‘The spisermalagical canelusinns that in che Mosolegion and Pratgie likewise rel secouise co the senguos imagery ofthe mystics. difficult ques things about slaremnsnts may be remember tha: our woe they may be spplied words, 35 shucu, same ony, We know and reflection in 4 mirtor: le human min, foc Angelis for ei! Before iniering God in Anselm 98 saternents, which we have just cxuninesd Monslegion, Anselm aleercates becwec ‘pollent proof and explanations drawn froma gramnmatica anal skthougit he is also heaeily ince! to arguments burrowed f Hie esiabtishes che proof of Gucl's existence we understond in terms of the quility of gonelness i + dhing is goo insofac as ie participates in goodness, Abuve and beyond degrees of goodness, he rates, it can vlse be acen chat things ae good ia different ways, They mus therefore be judged nat only hey perticipare in goad 0 by thoi relationship to goodies, 8 his reasoning che norm of is just ae ets teem of che extent 2 et; that Anselm _ by means of whi js Indubieably very goed, sad since all ocber yoodks exis: chrough it ond sn elation Fe selferistent, asuming the absurdity ofindinive regress. Acscl existent, merely very good, bur supremely good. Arce redefine the supremely goal as the supremely yrost, eae highest ofall existing things, Les very selexisten deyece ofall ings, and, as such, ary. Bp ne Anselm has seached the end of chapter 4, wh PR nesant AAAS 96 Ansel ct in the Mondego, he has monsyed to expacd and wo specify considerably ved che proof zat « Supreme Being eavon coassuune st the oucser hat have a single caase Im wers out the as well ag his asicy and supremacy overall Supreme Being existe ie exteblished by equi cto establishing che Aow of his attributes, Ansel al explanations of several kinds, In the case of © 5, for exemple, the vorious gods hice However, a8 we have see tanity ofthe Sopyeme Bein Should we perhaos understand bow. by compa ligt einer and ic snmething taining? Par ng (le Fare fcr ate related 10018 ong arother 27 ‘A second problem is thee of ereazioy Aniatny, sires on the may inwhich the we ‘Ansclm, may be unde hac what weare talking about asa ceab entity, capable ef acion id ae che nagacive of anything, In the fat cme is wointelligible ically, Tnghe seconde Ing ay have a natural shat ie expeeme: the intention of the epeaker, but contradictory. IF tbiag is ursderstagdl i a red the wniverse fram parking In the newe lone herwoen, incontistency thet che Suprerne Basing e ‘of the Alunulagive Anseln extends his cise ussion of the equipallency and gram creased use of Angus al arguments bere, devices as wall as a rents befeee expeessing bi Ceeacor has locations: abou word cxiss in es beeween che ope Crear, fom which point he launches into an excensive discussion of iicetinns har muse be made in speaking about the Supeeme Being. He ons thes pertain ¢o the analogy based a0 Rumen “Anselm, the Crestor needs na materists ur images The icerity bese ‘experiences the sume genert] diffculeies in erying thern. ‘IHnesediffcubccs ae considerable, The fist one wt rasolve cencesny the sease in which different kinds uf stavements can be cruc of she Crescor:98 Arweim Imply the necessity of the creation in ceums of which the Creator is supreme, ct or absence ef other root negative, de not describe ally. On tie other hand, Anvelen elds tha aantelative expres ive erstements, may be propetdy and teuly applied oo the Creator, so dung as the characce hese statements arcibute 19 bim are bector chan chep ate nor. june, such 90 sul eneall i fiastence Dot a comtpesive of his ‘ons equipollencly, by eecuctions fam the definision, of the Supreme Being at which be has already uerived. He employs redefni= ‘pearnomar, ane August exphining cho caregoriec of ean spare as chey apply to che Supreme srernpotal and axpetial, snd is yet everywhere ‘ine! ruth mast be eternal in order for any 10 be true? Repeating his previous explanation of 70100, mitbing must be tested a6 the negative of ainiling, rather than as a teal entity, in order for the seeder to achieve 4 conteet undecstandiag of the statemere thet ncthing preceded the Supreme Being, 7? The nace of cing Is sald ro be in nigh on account of mur custanuty way of spralcing fis one expression applies both eo che Supreme being and 10 spatial and Aneel 99 temporal mae rhe meaning of tweaeraent of on accoane of the disscsity of these beings iffeeat in the ewn cases.” To complete his “substance” and “sceident" 10 the S cy nro immmutabelicy. Exon sR pot he observes that "scrident™ ray 0 the Supreme Being, since he swiFers 20 change! " spreprt because it denotse eomething whic can be sflccced by accidents ‘hea, neithee these nor other wands which we apply tothe Supreme Being can be applied substantially. Although we do apply them «3 We anueesemember ther he sna renscencent, and “hence Lie ever as some name in common with orkers, withoue doubt a very diff sigoificseton muse be of this dofiision he deducts thae is one, conternal, consubstantial, and coessential with the The Word, be stats, is nce subjece co che change and imperieetion vt the ceested univer, which is his image and which exiees through hien; én short, the the crestion in exactly the same mannee at the man’s dificultien im knowing rension om men's part as ll as from Ihe notes, for men to grasp precisely even mare difftcale for man ta grasp 'w the Creator and his Word can be cwo and yee one. stthough, he thinks, the corms "Bathe apd “Son” bave » high degree uf recite, ** Mest dlificale of al is the tetaionship among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spicic. This problem impels Anselm to rxaforce his caveat against applying Jaman words to che Sapreme Being substancially, °? Sul, he argues, the gaps fin man's inowledge of the Supreme Being should not ead e deep ith. Anselm acceenpes co provide some cons Desitive fextures of hic 1 of che humae, sind as the best ectic was created «9 know ‘tad to love God, He may do ens parisiy in his wachly life. Buc, given the TREE RLEALALRLAULALE CEC aka agaAtiiel ‘AMAA 200 Ansetm ind of being man ia and she kind af being God is, Anselm ¢ and. che pote (essibility of eterna! beaditude, hope ia God, ever chough they cemore. they shea tore juns ane explaneeionst and che name itself, ae rroe, proper, ard neressery 5 igned (pprie noaea de whe crease i a quest for a the name of God thar possesses re Anselm exries on thes quest for a name of God rx jn the Prabgion. His peineigal technique in this work i equipnliency, alcxongh there at places where Anselm's pe he usage of words sper of the devocion in the ced conenplandien dius, as ‘of many of Anselm's a:gaments ia om, he addeesses the betiever seeking co unctersrand here is 9 Bind nceessary eessons which sill explain thae God is what we believe him to be seed we heliew him to be; Geet natare as wel cexiseerce & 0 be considered, He also acesesses him fal who says in riscd by ce foo is ene foot is wrong, he any way on the powers of ehe huaman mind. Re yal co indicate, first, that God is the sreares second, thar wecan conceive of hiea, By pacsing the dali Assets dvancage of being able co develop the fr argomere withour having ro prove that God is a heing: he ehocse Tecate ify the sinmplest cuz he caa fad, From Anselm's point of view, che peeves tbelf, Only ace major e rhe pare is an accurate desi anc extramental realities, He basin his mind bid agitarl poet, nthe rout enc He idea af God wig yuo me ih respect «9 existing have hark erath ane the intention of isan cxanapleof esiga quo mitine ibilegitar pet, ing both truth and reccitude. Rectiude cannot bevauae cevticuce is depenceat on bei trac that is merely bund, 1s a sign po than vice wore, conforms 1 its abj a faiely simple reateer meme equipellently s0.5 co workout she silent atgomencacion here ioan abaccact of doe same points in she Af shows God to beselexistent, the crenear of the world ox ancl bence just, truehfal, and blessed, end, n shore, whatever thaa not to be. Gad it consequently omeiant is consequently trae aff God, Anselm further deduces thet Gad is imanucebie yee compassionate. ‘This parndox can be explained, he saps by che fcr thac table ine bar compesstonate ed ne, His compussicn extends wicled, becante i operates tn arcordance wih Gocl's ustute ng proporticntd t0 our own just deserts, This iden any seem difical aerstand, says Anselm, bat ‘tan far men co and he moves in his a from negative inca shan which a getseer ing uceacee chan ean be thoaghe equipellent definitions. Conse iy, Ansel makes practically no ettempr to prove che assertions he in Brovlgion 16-26, Instead, we find an extenced prayer attributes, usnalty eeicersting characteriacs exec he has ervey he of voice calculated 20 impress upon the tader the necessicy A ity before God. He begins with che point chat God incomprehensible.” then modulates into s myatic key by desesiing i Aaselen 108 ising God as man’s cue deligi ne wearer co tasters his the pape? 4] Fralegion is in sexe ces cy aad grammatical expla 1 Prati, Ansel in che Mrnlegin, ins a larger number of overly August oviever, the eas a8 muce Augustinian in 9 tht the Alandogin co Pralegion, indicaces chat he hes @ thorugh presuppositions ofeshich ef TELE CECT TLL LTLLLLLbkiLteLeanagain VAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAN final one, They acc th che ming, he asks, what grounds have 6 che Intcer is exteainentally coal while the former is not? Partheemore, he argu, there would sbout him? “hue nem is meaningless unless one keows wha it signiies224 Buen if we sxcume that ebe natn of Ged is ceustenct of God in ve, an argument Gaui example ofan island which has never been sec and whose existence connce is oF ts incearensal existence, 2! Finlly, Gani segues se co.coneeise hypochetically af the nonexistence of God peseible ro conceive of the nonexistence ef che self or of anything else. lees not prove the seprouf fs cushioned by s compliment; no fool, he observes, covlel have consirucced ins as good as Gaus ‘nealis apon Ga 10 ts own definition, shar Acselen hs gsined by pushing che argument seep backward ino dhe realm of conjecear®. Mowever, by means ofehis sabele redefnicion, [prove thet there is some point, at least, a€ which even the dinibrers and deniers ave fenced toaskoit thar theextramentsl realy ef aligutd gun mains nibi cigtsr! Ave {otst 's possible. This conclusion deals in port with Gat ‘wall at giving, Ansclra a besit for his Further redehi ‘Taking up next che dificulty found by Gaunslo ia the distinction between we insole inellatu ad ere i 76 ne pots ut thar ws where God may be found somerimes ae iocrinsically meaningful, In one way or anccher. Unless the addressing dss not comprek wh oneusys 1g. and be vill consequently nnderscd it to deny the existence of something jast because one dees not pact about whas one te compte Jue as lescer gonas cone Can Anup Sarena snble greater gore, eo earemencs, hey and thoy therefore provide sunte positive kowiedge about cite! Nexs, Anselm shuts the third abjection hy ebserving that Cans one, All islands, however resect, ar create come io being and of a other beings that ace noe Ged ate concingent, says Ansclm, aad they ace hus eminently conceivable as nonexstent. However, nonexistence cantor be cor sexed of the being which exists in the highest degiee, even hypothetically. 28 ine dhe visw thas che objects alway’ wraugh Caunile's query of rom, ftom. purely formal perspective, one would dilferenciate ese in sfc intelli feces etn uel et js an ierelevanc question, he says, that “is aut is concerned with sh formnalans a3ign uf Gut ashi i believed 9 be, 06t with = the semaacie cogency of a phrase whnte geamenatical form is perfeedly compronensible Anselm Jeavts Gaunilo, after rensserting thet his original proof has been106 Anetm orae rated by necessniy resem principle chat ore must alvvays ateribute to God wha ie iy bareet ¢o be than nor ee ‘Gaurilo was, i face, breughcammacd toan Ar parting ineeractises we do not know. Hower episcemelogy of sigas in dhentegical discourse. Ansel id nae succeed in foundingea theological schodl in the secice conse of the word. Wi rue chic 2 number of Englishmen and Frenchmen of yreacer or leceer eeaown in che cxely deeatles of the rweufth sentury cithes studiel with Anseim at Bec, of imitated one or anccher of bis ‘wore, or were inspired by perso sscoctation wit of thenlogical method pprech tended « apply ey asarvey of the tuditions of seme of his majoe works. There ate enly nine extoo momuscipts of the Movolygion, seven of which dare from the lite eleventh mad sleventh ane owetfen Fourtenth aad fife dismember the wor, the ewelft censury people hed begun te 1g only the Gest foue choprers conaining the «dislocation and the rapid neglect of Anselm's death? 1 ced toa serica of ehanges in was alive, ag the tke Roxeellious and Guunilo make clear. Indeed, Anselm hhinsel€ coniriouced w the development of gracoroar as a murs eeebnical inseeumene of log: ius om effoms fostened thee le Ansolan himself could connfiztably end canfidently age of devotion end the language cf hard aggurnet 1 wocebalbates had already couse to. parting ofthe ways in his own day. anc they Angelen 107 were co maye even farcher apas disciplines of graminar and logic had begun in the lace eleventh ceneury tended to adermaice che pas coaflocion ofthese branches of te tetviee thet isso marked i ontemporatis, The efltee of these developmer disciplines for the tume being ant to poine Jogicians were spusred oa. amore extensive study af B ed encouraged che ecemergence ‘que of liceeary criticism as well asa technical sabject in ly the new cats au dhe devper study of texcs alecudy avilable bur the exparsion of schools are the specinliaatien of pedagoy functions enlarged dee curriculur af both grammerand logic, emphases, and altered thei aromatic iotercais af ete poet: of the preceding age, Sy formal logic of the fuer Middle Ages howgh lacking irs philosophical subecestum, was che specu! emerged WV esponents were the disciples of one ‘Fotks are rot exeanr, One sole xousce of infarmecion abut ts less of Drago’s ors, he was busn armupal 1020 and wos Traly, France, and Germany rather than any phil in 1647 he was promoted ro the rank of imporial Icfsnor known exacely when Acselan died, bur he is ended his cays as chancellor r9 Cpizo, bishop of Fildeshetmn (TERBEPR REC E EEC ek ec ec ec ec crt tan nmeAAA vt 108 Annet ad Drogen, in the lace 1067," Ausclin's chief works ar sand his Epitela aad Drcarmn magivionm ot they achieved their alchaugh Ansclin n0% ly, France, and Germany of his ow race ambig ‘ncantations x grummar-chopper.*¥? His overrefined and j2xg! ira hae ie 8 the Drogo, in shor grornrcar iy aoe caly Useless but misleading, because he i of real exierence. igeuramacical abstnuctionism scorned by' Anselm of Besite aroused great deal a atipachy in ehe evelith and centutien. Although eis [known ro us only through the filer of Anielm of Besa’ major concern of Drogo was the qusst for a sect‘ hn ce nas Hage, wn inectest we Deagoancthis followers have been cwelfth-ccanuty logicians were even more decisis of wiscora and eloquence. Abelard and the ejected the epi program of annexing and subordi- replaced by logic noc only because of the excesses of the speculative prommaciens; concurseadly, che lowicians were recovering the complece Orga- hemelves with aa epiatemolagy which precise, and reasonable thas. yrarncn: o dry, 109 abssnuct, and (00 iteelevans, Aegic had co be Snvcled eo hursanize In conditions sech es chee, x chology gr as Anselm's and a theolos thoc combined so fcely cnc of pay serge en sharply in cance of survival inthe iam whick were to scenery hed weption of che cheolagic reediste suocestors and rendeced sgrarenac by fora gramnae andl cleventh century, b of Joni