A CONTEXTUAL EXAMINATION OF ST. ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT MARTA E. LAYTON. Bachelor of Science in Mathematical Sciences

Transcription

1 A CONTEXTUAL EXAMINATION OF ST. ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT MARTA E. LAYTON Bachelor of Science in Mathematical Sciences The University of North Carolina at Greensboro May, 2005 submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN PHILOSOPHY at the CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY August, 2008

2 This thesis has been approved for the Department of PHILOSOPHY and the College of Graduate Studies by Thesis Chairperson, Dr. Nicholas Moutafakis Department & Date Dr. Martin Harvey Department & Date Dr. Diane Steinberg Department & Date ii

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In many regards a masters thesis is a solitary endeavor. However, this project would not have been possible without the assistance of many people. I am particularly thankful to my thesis advisor and committee chairperson, Dr. Nicholas Moutafakis, for the guidance and critique that helped me refine the ideas presented here. I also thank the members of my thesis committee, Dr. Diane Steinberg and Dr. Martin Harvey, and many other faculty and students of the Cleveland State University Department of Philosophy, whose willingness to discuss my ideas has been invaluable. iii

4 A CONTEXTUAL EXANIMATION OF ST. ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT MARTA LAYTON ABSTRACT Many scholars, both in the history of philosophy and in contemporary times, have criticized and defended St. Anselm's ontological argument. Much of the work on the subject has evaluated the argument of Proslogion II 1 and III using symbolic logic, and has either focused on presenting what the author thinks St. Anselm was saying in those chapters, or has critiqued the logic of the ontological argument's structure or of the plausibility of its premises. Few authors have looked at how St. Anselm's conception of God in the later chapters of the Proslogion and in the Monologion affect the ontological argument. Fewer still have inspected the way St. Anselm would have been affected by historical events and by the work of earlier philosophers. This thesis aims to examine the ontological argument of St. Anselm, both in terms of why St. Anselm chose to develop it as he did and whether it is logically valid and sound. I will begin by exploring the historical events that would have influenced St. Anselm's thought, such as the hierarchical nature of Benedictine monasticism and the power struggles between the Visigoths and Franks in medieval France. I will then turn to St. Anselm's writings, looking at the theistic proofs he gives in both the Monologion and 1 Throughout this thesis I will use this notation to refer to the chapter number of the book being discussed. It allows me to avoid less direct phrasing, such as "the second chapter of the Proslogion." iv

5 the Proslogion. In this way I will be able to identify the ontological argument that was advanced by St. Anselm. Having identified the Anselmian ontological argument, I will then evaluate this argument's logical validity and soundness. I will first consider what logical sources from antiquity St. Anselm would likely have had access to. This will allow me to establish the system of logic St. Anselm would have used in evaluating his argument. I will conclude this thesis by critiquing the challenges raised by Gaunilo, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Immanuel Kant to Anselm's argument. This approach makes it possible to evaluate St. Anselm according to the logic he would have known when constructing his argument, and thereby to avoid anachronistic criticisms. v

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... iii ABSTRACT... iv CHAPTER I. Introduction... 1 II. HISTORICAL INFLUENCES ON ST. ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 4 Introduction. 4 The Development of Christian Monasticism.. 6 Ecumenicism and the Ontological Argument. 11 Toward a Definition of Power 16 Conclusion.. 23 III. ST. ANSELM'S PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN THE MONOLOGION. 25 Introduction. 25 Goodness and Greatness in the Monologion.. 26 Existence in the Monologion.. 29 Conclusion.. 35 vi

7 IV. ST. ANSELM'S PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN THE PROSLOGION 36 Introduction. 36 The Argument in Proslogion II One Argument or Two? The Argument in Proslogion III.. 46 Conclusion V. THE INFLUENCE OF CLASSICAL LOGIC ON THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 50 Introduction.. 50 Logic Before Aristotle.. 51 Aristotelian Logic. 55 Definitions and First Principles 59 Stoic and Megarian Logic 63 Textual Transmission and Medieval Logic. 66 Conclusion. 69 VI. DEFENDING THE FOOL: CRITICISMS OF ST. ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 72 Introduction 72 Historical Criticisms.. 73 Gaunilo.. 73 St. Thomas Aquinas.. 78 Immanuel Kant. 80 vii

8 The Validity of Proslogion II's Argument.. 84 The Validity of Proslogion III's Argument. 87 Conclusion.. 93 VII. Conclusion.. 94 BIBLIOGRAPHY.. 97 viii

9 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Of the various arguments for the existence of God, the ontological argument is one of the most influential to the history of later thought. Many of the medieval arguments for God's existence are not seriously considered viable by contemporary scholars, but the ontological argument is still heavily debated. At first glance, the argument seems too simple to survive scrutiny, and it appears that it merely asserts God's existence rather than proving it. However, when the ontological argument is examined more closely, we discover that it is fiendishly difficult to disprove. St. Anselm presented the ontological argument in Proslogion II and III. He begins by defining God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" and observes that, for the fool to deny God's existence and to understand what he is saying, he must grant God existence in the understanding. St. Anselm argues that God cannot exist only within the fool's understanding because it would be greater for God to exist beyond the 1

10 understanding than to be limited to the fool's understanding. This proof draws on a metaphysical assertion that existence not limited to the understanding is greater than existence limited to the understanding what a contemporary philosopher might describe as the belief that existence (as more than just a concept) is a greatness-enhancing quality. The claim that existence is a predicate of any sort is very controversial in post-kantian philosophy, but this problem does not seem to have troubled St. Anselm; neither St. Anselm nor his contemporaries questioned this aspect of the ontological argument. This thesis will therefore focus on other challenges to the ontological argument that were more debated by philosophers in St. Anselm's own day, such as whether a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived" is itself conceivable, and whether the fool understands God in the way the ontological argument requires. The ontological argument was not St. Anselm's first attempt to prove God's existence. In his earlier work, The Monologion, St. Anselm offered a proof built on observations about the way different beings inherit their characteristics. If a being existed, St. Anselm argued, it either received its existence through another being or through itself. If its existence was inherited, then the being had existence of a lower sort than the being from which it inherited its existence. Moreover, there could be only one being through which all beings received their existence, and this being had existence of a higher type than any other being. St. Anselm also developed similar arguments for greatness and goodness, and observed that the being through which all other beings inherit these characteristics was the same being, which St. Anselm named God. Since all other beings receive their existence through God, and since a being could not pass on a characteristic that it did not itself possess, St. Anselm concluded that God must exist. 2

11 Since St. Anselm considered this proof successful, it seems odd that he would publish a second proof for God's existence. St. Anselm explains his reasons for offering this additional proof in the prologue of the Proslogion. He writes, After I had published, at the solicitous entreaties of a certain brethren, a brief work [the Monologion] as an example of meditation on the grounds of faith, in the person of one who investigates, in a course of silent reasoning with himself, matters of which he is ignorant; considering that this book was knit together by the linking of many arguments, I began to ask myself whether there might be found a single argument which would require no other for its proof than itself alone. 2 In the Monologion St. Anselm is writing in the person of someone investigating questions to which he does not already know the answer, and the Monologion is in many ways a narrative of self-discovery. The Proslogion, on the other hand, is structured as an argument and is addressed to an opponent: the "fool [who] has said in his heart, there is no God." 3 At least on its face, is less a meditation and more a proof than is the Monologion. In the coming chapters I will examine the similarities and difference between these arguments more closely. To lay the necessary groundwork, this examination will begin with a brief look at some of the historical factors that led St. Anselm to develop the arguments in the way he did. I will then offer a more in-depth reading of the pertinent passages from the Monologion and Proslogion, and will conclude by evaluating several common criticisms made about the ontological argument. 2 Anselm, Proslogion Prologue. Text inside square brackets was added by the editor of the Medieval Sourcebook. 3 Anselm, Proslogion II. Text inside square brackets was added by myself for clarity. 3

12 CHAPTER II HISTORICAL INFLUENCES ON ST. ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Introduction The ontological argument is framed in the style of a logical proof, specifically that of a proof by contradiction, and so it is easy to seize upon perceived logical faults or strengths and analyze St. Anselm's argument this way. This approach has been taken by classical philosophers as diverse as St. Thomas Aquinas 4 and Immanuel Kant, 5 as well as more modern scholars such as Alvin Plantinga, 6 Vincent Spade, 7 and David A. Truncellito. 8 However, if the investigations of the ontological argument focus on the argument's soundness and validity (or lack thereof), to the point that it ignores the historical context in which the argument was written, St. Anselm's readers will do him a great disservice. 4 Summa Theologica 1aQ2 5 c.f. Critique of Pure Reason, p. A592-A c.f. God and Other Minds. 7 c.f. "Anselm and Ambiguity" 8 c.f. "Anselm's Equivocation" 4

13 Before turning to a more textual interpretation and evaluation of the ontological argument, I will first examine several historical and social factors that may have influenced how St. Anselm chose to present his argument. This chapter will look at three key historical developments that might have affected how St. Anselm framed his ontological argument: the shift from hermitic to communal monasticism in France and Germany; the persecution of Arian Christians, Roman Catholics, and religious minorities by the Franks and Visigoths; and the Franks' struggle to legitimize their rule over the French people. All of these factors had an influence on the development of St. Anselm's ontological argument. Many attempts to describe how general events contribute to an individual's philosophical work are speculative endeavors. The same historical event may affect different individuals in very different ways, or may affect one individual significantly and another hardly at all. Few of St. Anselm's communications have survived to modern times, and so it is difficult to say with authority what historical events most affected St. Anselm and in what way. Someone hoping to understand Anselm's ontological argument in this way must proceed with caution, but he need not become a complete skeptic. We do know a good deal about St. Anselm's biography, and his time and place in history would probably have influenced him in fairly predictable ways. The careful scholar can identify several events that would have likely affected how he presented his proof's for God's existence perhaps not with absolute certainty that they impacted St. Anselm the way that is speculated, but with a fair degree of confidence. 5

14 The Development of Christian Monasticism St. Anthony the Great (c ) is generally recognized as the father of Christian monasticism. He was not the first Christian monk, but he was the first to attract a following that developed into a monastic order; his extreme asceticism led others to imitate his style of solitary living. According to the vita written by St. Athanasius about him, he lived for twenty years in the desert in an abandoned fort, refusing all human contact. Over time several of the pilgrims who journeyed to the fort adopted his hermitic life, living in the caves near him, though for several years St. Anthony refused to meet with them. Eventually (c. 305) he left his fort and worked with the monks who had come to live near him, both instructing them on spiritual matters and improving the organization of this primitive monastic order. However, the organization of St. Anthony's followers was very different from the monastic orders that developed in Europe in the Middle Ages. St. Anthony's followers were primarily hermitic monks. It is true that they organized a loose community, but this was primarily to divide necessary labors in a way that benefited all of the monks. A monk could bake bread for his fellow monks nearly as easily as he could bake it for himself, and by taking turns at this task, the monks would not need to devote as much time to some non-spiritual concerns. It is true that some of the desert monastic communities 9 were more communal than St. Anthony's was, but these more communal monastic orders were exceptional rather than the general rule of the early Egyptian monks. Medieval 9 For one such example, consider the community founded c. 315 by Pachomius at Tabernissi. Here work was done in small groups rather than individually and where the monks met weekly for worship services. 6

15 European monks, on the other hand, lived in a much more communal fashion. They met daily for worship and often ate their meals together. This more communal nature is due to several factors. First, the Egyptian desert monks lived in a time when it was relatively safe to live as a hermit. In the fourth century, the Roman Empire was still capable of providing unified legal protection for its citizens. This allowed monks to live in isolation, relatively free from fear of being attacked by criminals. The desert also provided some protection; it was difficult to travel into the desert wilderness, so monks were less likely to face attacks from those who did not live in the area. The climate, too, made a hermitic lifestyle more appropriate. If a monk lived near a water source and had shelter from the heat, and if he had access to a little food, he need not be afraid of dying from exposure or starvation. In northern Europe, on the other hand, the climate was less accommodating. The winters in this region were much colder than they were around the Mediterranean, which necessitated that the monks live somewhere that could be affectively heated. This encouraged monks to live in constructed buildings rather than in caves. They also needed warm clothes and boots, which would occasionally need to be repaired or replaced. A monk in France could not live alone for decades at a time, as St. Anthony had. Moreover, without a desert or the Roman Empire's stability to provide protection, European monks were less safe from attack; they needed to live in a community more than St. Anthony's followers had. This shift from hermitic to communal monasticism also decreased the focus on asceticism that had been present in early monasticism. The early hermitic monks would eat little, and what they did eat would be simple dishes. They left their families and homes for a harsh life in the wilderness and eschewed human contact, often for years at a 7

16 time. This rough life only attracted monks who were extremely devoted to the spiritual life hermitic monasticism encouraged. Communal monasticism, on the other hand, was not as strenuous a way of life. These monks lived in buildings rather than in caves. They had good clothing and interacted with other men. The life of a monk in a communal order was still less pleasant than the life he would have lived outside a monastic order, but it was also not as hard as the life lived by the early desert monks. The challenges faced by the early communal monks were addressed by the Benedictines. St. Benedict of Nursia (c ), who founded this order, was himself a hermitic monk, but he also recognized that some Christians might benefit from a monastic life without necessarily being called to a hermitic life. Even St. Benedict himself lived a less absolute hermitage than St. Anthony had; while he lived in a cave for several decades without regular interaction with other men, this cave was on the outskirts of Rome rather than in the middle of the desert, and he did occasionally receive visitors. He also organized his followers into communal monastic orders nearly as soon as he began to attract a following. In 529 he founded the monastery at Monte Cassino, where he and his followers left cave-dwellings for more elaborate buildings. To guard them against excess, St. Benedict wrote a well-circulated Rule, governing areas as diverse as when the brothers should meet, what they should eat and wear, and what type of behavior needed correction. This rule provided a standard against which an order could be evaluated, and the Benedictines were instrumental in reforming Christian monasticism throughout northern Europe. More pertinent to the ontological argument, the Rule of St. Benedict provides a good deal of information about the type of life St. Anselm would likely have lived. At the 8

17 time St. Anselm joined the monastery at Bec, it was a relatively young monastery and had not yet become as entangled in regional politics as older monasteries tended to be. The monks at Bec were still committed to the Benedictine ideal, and so their leader most likely lived a life in compliance with the Rule. In addition, Lanfranc, the abbot under whom St. Anselm joined the monastery, started a renowned school at Bec that attracted scholars from across Europe. 10 The monastery would have attracted many able and intelligent men. The fact that St. Anselm was chosen as Lanfranc's successor, first as prior and later as abbot, suggests that St. Anselm was well-regarded according to the standards of that community. So what does the Rule of St. Benedict tell us about St. Anselm? St. Anselm, like any Benedictine monk, would have divided his day between communal prayer service (4.5 hours per day), private study (3-5 hours per day), and some practical labor (6-7 hours per day). For an educated monk, this last portion could have involved academic work, such as copying manuscripts or writing treatises. He would have had specific times of the day during which he was expected to study and write, and this time would have been broken up by communal prayers and meals at regular intervals. From these facts, we can reasonably deduce the amount of time that St. Anselm would have devoted to each of his treatises (since we know when they were published and how many hours per day he could devote to academic endeavors), and also what other types of work he would have been doing when he was not working on his treatises. St. Anselm's day would have been very different from (for example) Socrates', who spent much of his time engaging the Athenians in dialogue, or Kant's, who worked as a private tutor and university professor. 10 Birt's "Lanfranc." 9

18 The portion of his day devoted to private study would not have been spent exclusively on the study of Christian Scripture. St. Anselm was a monk and so would have studied Christianity's holy texts, both by himself and with other monks, but Benedictine monasticism recognized the importance of studying works other than the Bible, even those written outside the Christian tradition. Many Benedictine libraries, most notably Cassiodorus's library at Vivarium, included treatises by both Christian and non- Christian authors as well as holy texts 11 Previté-Orton observed about Cassiodorus, "But for him and the learned turn he gave to Benedictine labors it is possible that no Latin classic, save Virgil, would have reached us complete." 12 The holy texts were still the primary study of the Benedictine monks, but Cassiodorus and other Benedictines recognized the value of secular learning. Through the libraries created by Benedictine monks, St. Anselm would have access to many works from antiquity. The final aspect of the Rule that deserves comment in connection with the ontological argument is the Rule's treatment of speech. Many monks, especially hermitic monks, took a vow of silence that lasted for years. The Rule of St. Benedict did not prohibit speech altogether; it did encourage moderation, but profitable or necessary speech" 13 was not discouraged. In addition, the Rule urged the monastery to gather for communal discussions to address issues important to the whole community. The decision of the abbot was absolute, but he was supposed to listen to the opinions of other monks where this would be helpful. St. Anselm would have learned how to present and defend his position eloquently in these communal gatherings. Yet his style of argument would 11 The monastery at Bec was affiliated with the great Benedictine monastery Cluny, and so St. Anselm would have had greater exposure to resources (both living and written) at other Clunaic monasteries than he would have if he had lived at an independent monastery. 12 Previté-Orton's The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 1, p The Rule of St. Benedict, Ch. 6, qtd. Alston "The Rule of St. Benedict" 10

19 have been tempered by the need for only "profitable or necessary speech." This simplicity is evident in the ontological argument, which proceeds from premise to conclusion with little diversion. 14 In the Proslogion St. Anselm speaks of how he often turned his thoughts to the possibility of finding a single proof for God's existence, and having specific hours when he was expected to think about religious topics in solitude would encourage this type of thought. However, the communal nature of living in a Cluny-affiliated Benedictine monastery also had its affect, giving him access to academic resources. 15 The unique blend of hermitic and communal monasticism present in eleventh-century France contributed to the ontological argument, and by understanding these movements we can better understand why St. Anselm formulated his argument in the way that he did. Ecumenicism and the Ontological Argument The history of Christian monasticism, and in particular of the Benedictine order, reveals a good deal about the academic environment in which St. Anselm developed the ontological argument. Broader historical events also contributed to how he chose to frame his argument, and by studying them it is possible to theorize why he formulated the ontological argument in the way that he did. 14 This same emphasis on simple, clear statements is evident in the scholastic form of argument. While St. Anselm's arguments were not written in the scholastic form, his need to clearly state his opponent's position and his own reasons for objecting to it is an important precursor of Scholasticism. 15 I will consider precisely what resources St. Anselm might have had access to in a later chapter. 11

20 In the centuries between the fall of the Roman Empire and St. Anselm's own lifetime, France experienced several regime changes. Tensions between Arian and Catholic Christians led to persecutions of both groups as well as religious minorities like the Jews. Pagans in Germany, particularly the Saxons, were oppressed by Charlemagne in large part because they refused to convert to Christianity. In light of this history of religious strife, it is perhaps significant that the ontological argument does not appeal to Scriptural authority, 16 nor does it require any theological belief specific to any of the groups that populated post-roman France. All that is required to be convinced by the ontological argument is that a person define God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," which Arians, Catholics, and Jews should all be able to do. The major Christian denominations in France during the post-roman period were the Catholics 17 and the Arians. These groups differed from each other primarily in how they saw Christ relating to God the Father: Catholics accepted a trinitarian formulation of the Godhead, whereas Arians insisted that Christ co-existed with God the Father but was not part of the same being. For Christians under the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, this issue was answered definitely in 325 A.D. by the Council of Nicaea, which described Christ as "Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made." 18 In 381 A.D. this position was further enforced by an edict published by the Byzantine emperor, 16 It is true that St. Anselm quotes Psalms 14:1 when he says at the beginning of Proslogion II: "the fool has said in his heart, There is no God." However, the argument would proceed in the same way if St. Anselm observed that many men deny there is a God. Anselm may quote the psalmist, but he does not rely on the authority of Christian Scripture to prove his argument. 17 I use the word "Catholic" to refer to Christian orthodoxy, which at this point in history would include the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. When referring to just those Christians under the Roman pope, I will use "Roman Catholic." 18 The Latin text, as recorded in the Missale Romanum, reads "Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum uerum de Deo uero. Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem patri per quem omnia facta sunt." 12

21 requiring all his citizens to accept the Nicaean Creed under penalty of death. Though there were pockets of resistance, these two acts ensured that trinitarianism became the dominant form of Christianity in the Mediterranean world. In France and Germany, however, Arian Christianity survived. The influential missionary Ulfilas taught it among the tribes of Germany, and many Arian refugees left the lands that had once been the Roman Empire in favor of northern Europe, where the Catholic churches were less influential. When the Visigoths first converted to Christianity they became Arians, and several of those kings viciously persecuted the Catholic Christians living in their realms. This was far from a universal policy, and in the early days after the fall of the Roman Empire the old Roman citizens often filled administrative roles in the Visigoth kingdom; many kings, however, made it illegal to practice Catholic Christianity, and it was not uncommon for Catholic priests to be executed under those regimes. The situation grew worse in the sixth and seventh century, for two primary reasons. First, as time passed, the Visigoths learned to administer their kingdom without needing Roman assistance, and there was less of an obvious divide in talents between the Gallo-Romans and the native Visigoths. As the Gallo-Romans 19 became less needed than they once had to administer the kingdom, the ruling Visigoths had less incentives to treat them well. When the Frankish king Clovis attacked the northern borders of the Visigoth territory, many Catholic Gallo-Romans did not resist him, preferring the rule of a pagan king to the treatment they had received under the Arian Visigoths. Perhaps more significantly, around this time the Visigoths began fighting a civil war between Arian and Catholic factions. Leovigild (ruled ) was an Arian, but 19 That is, descendants of old Roman families living in France. 13

22 his son Hermenegild married a Catholic Frankish princess and eventually converted to Catholicism himself. Hermenegild also rebelled politically, seizing control of the area around Seville while his father was still king. In response, Leovigild held a synod at Toledo, offering easier terms of conversations to Catholics, but when few accepted his terms Leovigild resorted to banishment, execution and confiscation of the Catholic lords' land. He recaptured Seville after a two-year siege, and Hermenegild was executed for refusing to convert to Arianism. However, Hermenegild's conversation encouraged the growth of Catholicism among the Visigoths, and later Visigoth kings could no longer suppress Catholicism so severely. The next king, Recared, converted to Catholicism while king, and in 589 he made Catholicism the official religion of the Visigoths. Recared was not able to establish a lasting dynasty, his only son being killed in battle against the Arian leader Witteric. He was instead succeeded by Sisebut ( ), a renowned warrior who was only distantly related to the royal line. Sisebut initiated a fierce persecution of the Jews, which Previté-Orton argues was made possible by the increased intolerance toward religious sects. 20 At this point, the Visigoths had engaged in a civil war with a religious component for several generations, where the Christian sect losing power was forced to convert to the other sect's theology or risk loss of property and power, and even execution. This sectarian violence was influenced by Byzantine edicts from the fourth century A.D., requiring that all Christians accept the Nicaean Creed on penalty of death. For centuries, Christians had been attempting to define what theological position orthodox Christians needed to adhere to. Christians had also been trying to convert both non-christians and heterodox Christians to whatever they considered the orthodox Christian denomination. 20 Previté-Orton's The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 1, p

23 It is not surprising that Sisebut would use force against non-christian groups once the civil war between Arians and Catholics was resolved, or that St. Anselm would have sought a less coercive means of convincing rational men of differing religious beliefs than his own that God must exist. The attempt to convert Catholics, Arians, and non- Christians to the "true theology" had been unpleasant and violent and it had not worked. Because of their civil wars over religion in Spain, the Visigoths had less resources to devote to the protection of France, and more and more of France fell under the rule of the (then-pagan) Franks. When Charlemagne attempted to Christianize the German people in the ninth century, he faced fierce opposition; as for Spain, the majority of the Iberian peninsula was ruled by Muslim Moors from the decline of the Visigoths until the Reconquista in By St. Anselm's day, Christians exercised considerably less power in the regions that had previously been under their control than they had at the height of the Visigoths' reign. The ontological argument does not require that the fool be a Christian to be convinced that God exists, much less that he be a trinitarian or an Arian Christian. All that is required is that he believe God to be greater than any other conceivable being. Whatever the fool believes about the relationship between Christ and the Godhead, he should believe that the Godhead satisfied this criteria. The ontological argument should even be convincing to non-christians, so long as they are monotheists. In this way St. Anselm crafted an argument that, if it proved God's existence, should work equally well 21 It is beyond my scope (and not directly relevant to St. Anselm's work) to describe in detail how rule of Spain passed from the Christian Visigoths to the Muslim Moors; for a more thorough treatment see the tenth chapter of The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History and the articles "Cordova" and "Andalusia" in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The pertinent point for my current project is that, by St. Anselm's time, Christians no longer ruled Spain, despite the Visigoths' efforts to convert Spaniards by force to orthodox Christianity. 15

24 to prove the existence of a trinitarian, Arian, or non-christian conception of God. This allowed St. Anselm to sidestep the religious strife that had dominated much of his country's history. Toward a Definition of Power In the ontological argument, St. Anselm defines God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," and he sees a contradiction if this type of God does not have existence outside the understanding. Although he does not try (at least at this point in his writing 22 ) to define exactly what greatness might mean for God, he may have been influenced by the power struggles in his country's recent history. Specifically, St. Anselm would most likely have known about the Frankish kings' struggle to become a legitimate power in France, and about Charlemagne's abuse of power against the Saxons in Germany. When the Franks gained control over the French territory previously governed by the Visigoths, it was often as liberators. At the time the Visigoth rulers were still Arian Christians, and many of their kings were hostile toward Catholic Christians. When the Frankish king Clovis attacked northern Gaul in 507 A.D., he was not resisted by the Catholic Visigoths. 23 Many of the Franks were still pagans, though Clovis had himself married a Catholic princess and converted to Catholic Christianity a decade earlier. This set Clovis apart from the other pagan kings of western Europe of his time, who converted to Arianism when they converted to Christianity. Catholic Christians under the Visigoths 22 St. Anselm examines God's omnipotence in more detail in the Monologion chapters 1-4, and in his reply to Gaunilo, chapters 1-2 and Previté-Orton's The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 1, p

25 may have felt safer from persecution under a Catholic king than they did under an Arian king. If this was the case, the Frankish kings would have rightly been concerned by Recared's conversion to Catholic Christianity. Since the Visigoths themselves were now ruled by a Catholic king, why should the Catholic Christians of Gaul prefer Frankish rule to Visigoth rule? The kingship of the Visigoths had not always been inherited by a close relative of the royal line (most notably Sisebut, a distant relative of the king who had been chosen primarily for his renown as a warrior) so the Visigoths could not claim an ancient and unbroken dynasty, but the institution of the Visigoth kingship had survived for several centuries. The Franks, on the other hand, now ruled the people of France because their power allowed them to do so, but there was no guarantee their power would persevere. They had been accepted as liberators by some of the Catholic Christians oppressed by the Arian Visigoth kings; now that the Visigoth kings were themselves Catholic, those people no longer had to cling to the Franks to avoid persecution. The Franks needed something to legitimize their rule in France. The Frankish kings found this legitimacy through the Catholic church. As Previté- Orton writes, "The Church and the Papacy could give Pepin the consecration and authority he required, the glamour he needed." 24 Pepin was not the Frankish king but was instead the mayor of the palace, a peculiarly Frankish official who regulated the royal tribunal and was in charge of the providing for the king's household. This was a socially important position because the mayor of the palace often controlled which of the many people present at court actually could speak with the king. In this way it was similar to the Roman patricians, who also had great control over what nobility could approach the 24 Previté-Orton's The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 1, p

26 emperor. However, unlike the patricians, in most cases the mayor of the palace did not actually govern; the king himself retained the actual power to rule, and the mayor would at most advise him, not govern in his stead. Pepin's situation, though, was more similar to the Roman patricians than was the case for most Frankish mayors of the palace. His king, Childeric III, had been chosen as king of the Franks after the kingship had been vacant for several years. During that time the Franks were governed by Pepin and his son Carloman. Even after his coronation, Childeric III left much of the actual ruling to Pepin. In 751, Pepin tried to legitimize his rule of the Franks. He sent envoys to Pope Zacharias to ask whether the kingship should go to someone of the royal lineage or to the person who actually did the governing. This was not, strictly speaking, a question of political possibility but rather of morality; Pepin was asking the highest moral authority available to him whether it would be right to overthrow the king. The pope's answer, however, was the preferred one: Zacharias replied that the kingship should be given to the one who actually governed. Childeric III was soon after deposed and entered a monastery, and Pepin was elected king of the church. 25 This answer had an even further-reaching impact than allowing Pepin to assume the throne. When the pope said that kingship should be given to those men who actually ruled, not necessarily those of royal lineage, he provided a moral basis from which the Franks could argue that they were the legitimate rulers of France. While the Visigoths might have ruled that region in the past, they no longer had sufficient power to enable them to continue to do so; the Franks did have that power, and so had a right to the kingship of that people. 25 Previté-Orton's The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 1, p

27 The Franks further legitimized their rule in the time of Pepin's grandson Charlemagne, on Christmas Day 800. While Charlemagne was kneeling as part of the Christmas mass, the pope Leo III placed a golden crown on Charlemagne's head. Leo III then performed the customary "adoration" ceremony that the pope had once done to recognize a new emperor of the Roman Empire, and the Roman nobles chanted the traditional Laudes: "To Charles, Augustus, crowned by God, the great and peace-bringing Emperor of the Romans, life and victory." 26 Charlemagne's eldest son, Charles the Younger, was later crowned in the same fashion. This ceremony was significant in two regards. By crowning Charlemagne's son as well as Charlemagne himself, Leo III recognized the Carolingian dynasty; he named not just Charlemagne but also his descendants as the defender of the Church. Charlemagne's coronation also established him as more than just king of the Franks and military ally of the pope. When Leo III performed the adoration ceremony, he gave Charlemagne the same kind of papal veneration that the Roman emperors had received. This made the Frankish kingship at least as legitimate a power as the Visigoth kingship had been; arguably, the Frankish kings had more legitimacy. As Previté-Orton writes, "[Charlemagne] was the new David, the Lord's Anointed, chosen to guide the Christian people in the City of God on earth." 27 The Franks were careful to obtain Byzantine recognition before accepting this new position. Charlemagne was not trying to replace the Byzantine emperor; he hoped to recreate the political situation after Theodosius's death, when the Roman Empire was split into eastern and western halves and each was governed by its own emperor. He did 26 Previté-Orton's The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 1, p Previté-Orton's The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 1, p

28 not allow his youngest son Lewis to be crowned as emperor until the Byzantine Emperor Michael recognized Charlemagne's own imperial claim. In this way he respected the Byzantine emperor's claim as sole ruler of the eastern Roman Empire. St. Anselm would have known about both the coronation of Charlemagne as emperor and the deposition of Childeric III. These two incidents illustrated the need for balance between authority based on the ability to rule and legitimacy based on moral right and historical precedent. St. Anselm's hierarchical conception of God in the Monologion and his definition-based conception in the Proslogion reflected both of these considerations. St. Anselm's conception of God was probably influenced by Charlemagne's efforts to establish the Franks as the legitimate authority of people who had previously been governed by the Visigoths. God is greater than anything conceivable, and so must be the most able to rule. This means that St. Anselm's God was the truly legitimate ruler of the entire universe. However, St. Anselm's God would not only be all-powerful, but would use his power in a proper way. St. Anselm also was aware of how absolute royal power could be abused, and so for God to be truly the greatest conceivable being He should avoid abusing His greatness. Charlemagne was brutal in his attempts to subdue the Saxons, the last independent heathen tribe in inner Germany. Charlemagne's desire to subdue them was at least partly motivated by a desire to convert them to Christianity. This was not his only motive, as the Saxons had attacked the Franks in the past and a free Saxony was a danger to the Frankish kingdom, but St. Anselm could have believed that Charlemagne's motives were proper. He destroyed the column of Irminsul, which in the Saxons' mythology 20

29 symbolized the tree that supported the world, and so his war against the Saxons did have a strong religious component. However pure his motives, Charlemagne's war tactics were harsh. In , while Charlemagne was in Spain quashing a rebellion, fighting erupted in Saxony. In response, the Franks enforced conversion of all the pagans. The Saxon lands were seized and divided into counties, which were given to submissive Saxon lords. This led to a rise in tensions between the Saxons and Franks, resulting in the massacre at Suntle. When Charlemagne marched with a Frankish army against the Slavic Serbs, he went with a contingent of Saxon warriors sent by the submissive Saxon lords. The Saxon rebel leader Widukind encouraged the Saxons marching with the Franks to rebel, and the Franks were butchered by their own soldiers in the Suntle hills, just below the Weser river. Charlemagne reacted to this by marching again on Saxony, causing Widukind to flee to Denmark. Charlemagne slaughtered 4,500 captured rebels at Verden, which in turn sparked further resistance. Charlemagne put down this last wave of battle in three campaigns from 783 to 785. Even Widukind eventually submitted to baptism in 785. After Widukind's baptism, Charlemagne encouraged conversion on pain of death. Heathen religious practices were also subject to the death penalty, as were attacks on Christian clergy. The Franks imported their own political institutions into Saxony, along with Frankish officials, and established Catholic dioceses throughout the region. These harsh measures led to a final revolt in 795, after which Charlemagne began to deport part of the Saxon population into other areas, giving their lands to Franks. After 804, when the last remnant of Saxony beyond the Elbe was defeated, several of these penalties were made less severe. By this 21

30 point, Charlemagne's goal had been accomplished and the last independent tribe of Germany had been made an integral part of the Frankish kingdom. However, many of Charlemagne's earlier measures against the Saxons were regarded as excessively violent, in particular the killing of the 4,500 captured Saxons at Verden. 28 St. Anselm, being aware of these abuses of power even in the king who had been crowned as emperor, would have seen the need for some limits on the king's power. St. Anselm found an answer to this problem when he examined the question of how God could be both just and merciful. St. Anselm wrote, For, in sparing the wicked, you are as just, according to your nature, but not according to ours, as you are compassionate, according to our nature, and not according to yours; seeing that, as in saving us, whom it would be just for you to destroy, you are compassionate, not because you feel an affection, but because we feel the effect; so you are just, not because you requite us as we deserve, but because you do that which you as the supremely good Being. 29 God, as the being than which nothing greater can be conceived, contains every perfection, including both justice and mercy. He is able to act in the greatest possible way by acting in accordance with His nature. If it were possible for God to act in some way not in accordance with His nature, then it would be less great for him to act in that way than in accordance with His nature. Charlemagne, who does not have that same perfection, must act in accordance with what is right, not with that which he wants to do. Because the king's judgment, like that of all humans, was imperfect, his use of this power would be imperfect as well. He could judge an action to be right, but if his judgment was incorrect, that action would still be the wrong thing to do in that circumstance. Charlemagne's 28 Previté-Orton's The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 1, p St. Anselm, Proslogion X 22

31 massacre of the Saxons, motivated as it was by good intentions, showed St. Anselm that human power was always limited by its understanding of some standard external to the people exercising the power. Only God could be absolutely great because only God need only act according to his nature. Conclusion St. Anselm would have been affected by several historical developments of the preceding centuries. The Visigoths' civil wars between Arian and Catholic Christians, and the accompanying persecutions of different religious groups, would have shown St. Anselm that martial coercion did not convince people that a certain theology was correct. This would have shown him the value of a logically valid proof that did not require his reader to accept his theological position beyond very basic premises. The history of the Franks also provided St. Anselm with important lessons. Childeric III's deposition and Charlemagne's coronation, combined with Charlemagne's severity in severing the Saxons, would have influenced how St. Anselm viewed the concept of power. The history of Christian monasticism gives a different type of insight into why St. Anselm crafted the ontological argument the way he did. Studying Benedictine monasticism and in particular the Rule of St. Benedict makes it possible to reconstruct how St. Anselm would have likely spent his day. In this way, the careful scholar can imagine how working at certain tasks for certain proscribed intervals would have affected 23

32 his thought process, and the way in which he formulated the ontological argument. By investigating the way in which St. Anselm lived as well as important historical events in the preceding centuries, we can understand the ontological argument better than if only its logical structure and the plausibility of its premises was examined. 24

33 CHAPTER III ST. ANSELM'S PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN THE MONOLOGION Introduction In the Monologion, St. Anselm presents an argument for God's existence based on a hierarchy of beings. This argument is different from the ontological argument presented in the Proslogion in several key aspects, though several points do remain constant. This chapter will trace how St. Anselm builds up his conception of God in the Monologion and how he defends this being's existence. The next chapter will examine how the description of God raised in the Monologion led to St. Anselm's famous definition of God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" in Proslogion II. It will also look at how the differences in these definitions of God led St. Anselm to use different forms of argument in the Monologion and the Proslogion. 25

34 Goodness and Greatness in the Monologion St. Anselm begins the Monologion by considering the case of the man who has no knowledge of the existence of one Nature which is highest of all existing beings, which is also sufficient to itself in its eternal blessedness, and which confers upon and effects in all other beings, through its omnipotent goodness, the very fact of their existence, and the fact that in any way their existence is good." 30 St. Anselm further observes that "all desire to enjoy only those things which they suppose to be good," 31 and so the man must at some point consider the case of something which he does not desire except for the reason that he considers them to be good. If the man considers what he believes to be good, he will find such an extensive group of good beings that he must ask himself how they obtain their goodness? Does their goodness come to all good beings through one supremely-good being, or do some of the good beings he observe receive their goodness through one good being and others through another good being? St. Anselm observes that there are many things which are considered good, and furthermore that those things are considered equally good while in other cases one object is thought more good than another. For this to be the case, objects must be ranked in regard to their goodness. This requires that all good objects possess some quality, and that different good objects possess this quality in different degrees. 30 Anselm, Monologion I 31 Anselm, Monologion I 26

35 St. Anselm argues that this is the case because they received their goodness through another good object. This position is reminiscent of the Platonic idea that beings receive their essential characteristic through the forms. However St. Anselm arrives at this position, it seems a reasonable stance in light of medieval logic. Either an object receives its goodness through itself or from something other than itself. If a being received its goodness from itself, St. Anselm could question why all good objects have the same quality. How likely is it that all good objects possess the same type of goodness (so that they are comparable), if they did not receive their goodness from the same sort? It seems most probable that good objects receive their goodness from the same source. This means that all but one good object must receive their goodness from some source other than themselves. To better understand how good beings are comparable, St. Anselm examines the different ways in which the word "good" is used. He writes, Apparently it is by virtue of one quality, that a horse is called good, because he is strong, and by virtue of another, that he is called good, because he is swift. For, though he seems to be called good by virtue of his swiftness, yet swiftness and strength do not appear to be the same thing. 32 However, these same qualities can be found in beings which are not considered good, such as a robber. It is not the horse's swiftness or his strength that makes him good, but rather because of its utility: Just as a strong, swift robber is bad, because he is harmful, so a strong, swift horse is good, because he is useful. And, indeed, nothing is ordinarily regarded as good, 32 Anselm, Monologion I. 27