Talk:Anselm of Canterbury

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Influences and influenced[edit]

In the infobox which accompanies this article, only two influences are named: Jesus and Aristotle. Both seem odd. Is Jesus typical for Christian philosophers? It seems appropriate enough to me, but it should be applied consistently at least. Is Aristotle correct? I would think that most of Artistotles corpus was only well-known to the European West later. Plato would, I think, be more accurate. I think we could also add Augustine and maybe Lanfranc, though I don't know that Lanfranc can be considered a philosophic influence. Those he influenced are much wider than Aquinas and Hegel and I don't even think those two are exemplary. I don't know how much influence he had on the Reformers, but I think he had some. I think he could also be said to exert a great influence on all major purveyors of the ontological argument in the last century: Malcolm, Hartshorne, Plantinga, etc. I though I'd bring this up here first, before making and changes on an area that is not my expertise. Srnec 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say that Jesus should be removed; that does seem rather vague for a Christian philosopher. And I'm hardly expert in any of this, all the rest of my response is going to be based on the introduction to my copy of Proslogion (trans. and intro. by M.J. Charlesworth). I found a reference that Leibniz was "greatly attracted by the Anselmian argument". Also, it says that in his works Anselm refers to several of Aristotle's works, and that yes he would have been exposed to them as would all scholars at the time while studying dialectics. Also, "...judging from the references in Anselm's own works, later writers such as Leo the Great and Gregory the Great were also closely studied." [in relation to St Augustine]. It also suggests that he got neo-Platonist ideas, albeit by way of St Augustine. Hope this helps a bit. Carl.bunderson 22:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That infobox is gone, but Srnec was right that Jesus nor Aristotle influenced Anselm's philosophy directly. Both were understood 2nd or 3rd hand through St Augustine (with all the attendant but likewise indirect Neoplatonism involved) and Boethius. Apart from the Scholastics, you'd have Descartes and Leibnitz in addition to the modern Anselmians. — LlywelynII 00:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct link for antipope Clement[edit]

In following the link to Clement III I was redirected to Pope Clement III instead of antipope Clement III. I beleive this is the proper link:

Also, I hope you don't mind if I pass on a few suggestions for the antipope Clement III page. I thought the introduction of Matilda was rather abrupt and that the mention of Henry's withdrawal from Italy was a bit sketchy.

Thanks for these great pages of history.

I fixed the Antipope Clement III link KarlBunker 23:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References from 1911 Britannica[edit]

Perhaps we might reincorporate into the Reference section of the article some (but not all) of the long list of references from the 1911 Britannica that were recently deleted - not in the context of their being from the 1911 Britannica, but rather as historic references on St. Anselm. They'd be of interest to at least one user (myself) :) Perhaps the ones where the wiki link to the author of the reference work is not red. I may possibly work on this during future editing sessions. --Lini 04:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should restore any references to the sources. Once other sources begin to be incorporated into the article, a blanket "this is cribbed from the EB11 is no longer sufficient. On the other hand, there's apparently no original content in the EB11 articles: apart from its bibliography, the entire thing seems to be cribbed from the EB9. — LlywelynII 11:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response from Mark R. Dobbins[edit]

Dear Members:

I apologize for my silence during the ongoing discussion regarding my 2000 article on Anselm of Canterbury. A kind friend only recently pointed out the Wikipedia article containing a footnoted reference to the article, and the ongoing - and highly stimulating -debate it caused. I am now writing a response that I hope to post in the near future. Until that time, I would like to clarify a few points: 1. I am no longer an undergraduate student. I am currently pursuing a Ph.D. in the History of Art at the University of Delaware. 2. My fields are Baroque Italian Painting (major field) and Gender Studies in the History of Art (minor field). I never claimed to be an expert in the field of "Anselm Studies." 3. I would appreciate it greatly if the personal attacks against my credentials or lack thereof would cease.

Thank you. I look foward to clarifing the history of the article I wrote in 2000, and my intent in writing it, shortly.

Mark R. Dobbins University of Delaware

BA History of Art (Honors College) - Southern CT State University 2000 Thesis: Caravaggio's "Entombment of Christ" Reconsidered MA History of Art - University of Delaware 2007 (proposed date) Thesis: Textual and Visual Sources for Caravaggio's "Narcissus:" The Basis for a Reinterpretation Ph.D. Candidate - University of Delaware

Hello, Mr. Dobbins. I may be the only person reading this page who has any memory of the debate you're referring to. It dates back to Jan-Feb of 2006 and is currently "archived" in "/Archive 2" at the top of this page. The person who originally cited your article no longer appears to be actively involved with this article, nor is my major antagonist in the Jan-Feb debate. As you've seen if you've read through that (painfully long) archive, the debate was settled in terms that I think you'll largely agree with, although the citation to your article was unfortunately removed as not quite fitting Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source, I still believe what I said during that debate: that your undergraduate article on the subject was the best, neatest, most appropriate analysis of the whole "Dilecto dilectori" issue I've ever read. KarlBunker 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saints and Naming[edit]

Saints, as a general rule, tend to have a lot of places named after them. I've spent a while now trying to gather, through searches, information on entities with the name "Anselm", and the most concise list is currently at Saint Anselm's, as is the case with Saint Mary's for consistency, but this list is by no means complete. Anselm is the name of many places, not just in English but also Anselmo in Spanish and Anselme in French. Please feel free to tidy up and Wikify the current disambiguation. See Saint Anselm's. Madeinsane 17:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Dilecto dilectori" section[edit]

I've removed the following phrase from the section:

"especially because "dilecto dilectori" can also be traslated as "Love's lover", "Love" being a pseudonym for God commonly used by Christians thoughout the ages (compare 1 John 4:7–12,16).[citation needed]"

My reason for removing it is that it gives the incorrect impression that the debate is based on nothing more than poor translation of a single phrase that Anselm used. To correct this misimpression it would require getting into a deeper discussion those writings of Anselm's that have given rise to the debate in the first place. See the earlier version of this diff for some illustrative quotes from Anselm. I feel that expanding the section in this way would give too much attention to a minor issue. KarlBunker 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does appear that KarlBunker is in the right here (assuming the quotes in the diff above are accurate). I have tightened the section a bit further. As Karl says, we don't want to give undue weight to such speculations. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Karl said he unlinked homosexual in this section because "people know what it means." Most people do, but reading this guideline, I think the link is still helpful here because the section exists to discuss Anselm's purported homosexual inclination. (By comparison, I would certainly not link to male here.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Point taken. I'm still inclined to think it's unnecessary, but not enough to argue about it. KarlBunker 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the "sometimes" translated phrase is all that is given then it implies that there are other, perhaps more correct (?), translations of the phrase that will not be confusing to people or seem to be an attempt at a smear campaign. The quotes in the older version of the article Karl cites above have no references. If the current paragraph is too shallow to not mislead readers then perhaps the quotes, with references, and further discussion should be put back into the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
The quotes given in that earlier version are available in Southern's book (you can read them at Amazon, via their "search inside" function). Personally, I don't think the current version is "too shallow." I think confining the quotations to simply "dilecto dilectori"/"beloved lover" gives the most succinct and least-lurid gist of the origins of the debate. Giving the more extensive quotes would have some lurid shock value, but I think that, unless the article went into a lot of cautionary language (as Southern's book does) about not "reading" the quotes by overly-contemporary standards, including them would be misleading. So again one gets into the problem of devoting too much space to an issue that most scholars consider to be a fairly minor point. KarlBunker 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Saints can be placed in multiple categories as to their country of origin. Anselm can go in both Category:Italian saints, as he was from Italy, and Category:British saints, as he lived in Britain for 16 years. On the other hand it is inadvisable to leave him in the main Category:Saints, which becomes too large very easily. If no one offers a real objection I will add the appropriate categories.--Cúchullain t/c 02:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done.--Cúchullain t/c 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure why the "Shield of the Trinity" diagram was added to this article, since there's no evidence that this diagram was in use until about a hundred years after Anselm of Canterbury's death, as far as I'm aware. Also, from the summary given on the article page, Anselm's philosophical approach to the Trinity would appear to have a very different emphasis from the quasi-logical approach (taken from the Athanasian Creed) of the Shield of the Trinity diagram. AnonMoos 06:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one had defended the inclusion of this image, so per AnonMoos, I'll remove it. RedSpruce (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh. I'm just letting Anselm languish in obscurity. WAY too much philosophical stuff to deal with to work up the article. I just try to keep obvious vandalism out. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archbishop of Canterbury infobox[edit]

The "Archbishop of Canterbury" infobox isn't working right (in this or other articles). Inserting the template below in an article's talk page is supposed to enter the article into a category that will hopefully bring this to the attention of someone who knows how to fix this. RedSpruce (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Or you could have just posted here or on the template talk page. I'm assuming the problem is the {{unknown}} part in the "enthroned" field? The problem is that the "began" field is being used as an "enthroned" title. Not all medievel archbishops have that date know. I've added "unknown" to the field. I've given up working on the archbishop template, because when I finally get it working, someone comes along and "improves" it and breaks it again. It should be working on this page correctly now. I'll go ahead and fix all the before 1500 archbishops now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent. Thanks. I've removed the template, now that the fix is done. RedSpruce (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tag at top of article[edit]

I added a number of references from two RS to the article. I didn't touch the Archbishop of Canterbury section much, as my refs gave very different details which were rather hard to reconcile. And I left the Works/thought section virtually the same as it was. Can the citation needed tag at the top of the article be taken down now? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 09:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anselm's career as archbishop is the subject of some controversy in the academic world, with two differing views of his motivations for his various actions. The main works would be Richard Southern's two biographies and Sally Vaughn's biography, plus a number of journal articles. Briefly, Southern sees Anselm as an otherworldly philosopher with little grasp of political matters, and Vaughn sees Anselm as a reasonably skilled political actor. While both agree on the actual actions Anselm took, they disagree on the reasons behind those actions. Someday, I'll get around to actually working on this article. I didn't put the tag on, you'd be better off asking whoever did. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparent discontinuity[edit]

In the section "Archbishop of Canterbury under William," Anselm moves to Lyon, then in the next paragraph he leaves Rome for Schiavi. I think this needs some work. Mrgate3 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I'll just delete that last sentence of the section. It's leftover from before my overhaul. It doesn't add much of value, given that Cur Deus Homo is mentioned in the writings section. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions)
Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article body has the (referenced, it appears) statement that Anselm was never formally canonized, although he is venerated both in Anglican and in Roman Catholic tradition and was proclaimed Doctor of the Church in 1720. The infobox otoh claims he was canonized under Pope Alexander VI (r. 1492-1503), but this is unreferenced. I am removing this claim pending attribution. --dab (𒁳) 06:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comparing other articles (it:, de:) I find it is a commonly repeated claim that Anselm was canonized in 1494, in apparent contradiction to our article here. I consequently left both claims in place but have tagged them. Somebody will need to look into this. --dab (𒁳) 06:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I meant to mention this before: the "receive the pallium from the hands of the pope" seems an overstrict interpretation. IIRC there was much to-ing and fro-ing about York/Canterbury and pallia, which imply that sending one was not an extraordinary event. All the best: Rich Farmbrough02:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC).

Indeed Gregory sent a pallium with Laurentius and Peter, for Augustine in 601. All the best: Rich Farmbrough15:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Text from EB1911[edit]

To check whether this text contains text copied from EB1911 you can run

If it does then please do not remove the EB1911 citations that cover the text or the attribution template in the References section (see WP:PLAGIARISM). -- PBS (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no need for the (ugly and malformed) blanket attribution template provided there are well-formatted inline citations of the article's use. Those should not be removed, until the material is rewritten and the source replaced. At the same time, material copied by the EB11 from the EB9 should be appropriately replaced by references to the EB9 article. — LlywelynII 04:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


is obvious and (per WP:NOTADICTIONARY) should be left for the "Anselm" Wiktionary entry to handle. Given IPA's specificity, however, if editors here insist on its inclusion, it would be necessary to provide the UK and alt US pronunciations rather than pretending that the Midwestern US pronunciation is the default in all varieties of English. — LlywelynII 04:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It appears that the citations to Charlesworth have nothing whatsoever to do with his translation of Anselm and only refer to the original content in his introduction. As such, the introduction should be cited directly as an original work, rather than listed as an edition of Anselm's works. The source is offline, though, so restore the Anselm-centric citation if that's in error. — LlywelynII 04:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This edit established the usage of the page as American English, which (per WP:ENGVAR) should kindly be maintained pending a new consensus. (Fwiw, I understand Canterbury is in Britain, but I personally don't see a close national tie to British English here given that we're talking about an Italian who was educated in France to write in Latin, that every noble he talked to in Britain used Norman French, and that Americans are more interested in his theology these days. In any case, AmEng is the default til someone speaks up.) — LlywelynII 05:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thoughts on article expansion[edit]

See here or here for some source material suggested by User:Ealdgyth.

The primary issue for formatting here seems to be that most of the EB references should be replaced by links directly to Eadmer's biography, which it seems to be based on. (Links to their editorial opinions would need to remain or be updated.)

It also looks like a historiography section might be in order, with a fuller treatment of Eadmer/Vaughn/Southern and perhaps more careful use of their cites elsewhere in the article. — LlywelynII 15:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly suggest not using Eadmer as a direct source for anything. Facts such as dates still need some interpretation through a reasonably recent historian. It's just best practice to do so on Wikipedia. Yes, you can use primary sources but it's better to use secondary sources when they exist, and they exist in good numbers for Anselm. Besides my suggestions mentioned above, Barlow in English Church 1066-1154 has a good treatment of Anselm and there is a brief treatment of the basics of his life in the introduction to the Oxford World's Classics editon of Anselm's works. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With respect, that's a misreading of WP:PRIMARY. You're quite right that Eadmer is heavily WP:BIASED and at times (being charitable) mistaken. Any interpretation of events he describes needs to be either directly quoted or sourced to modern scholarship for appropriate context. That said, for the bare litany of facts, EB, Butler, Southern, Vaughn, &c. are in great part just retelling Eadmer's account. (Southern and Vaughn document this with their many footnotes pointing to the pages in Eadmer they're recounting.) It is more of a service to provide those footnotes here rather than leave them in in- or only partially-accessible nonhyperlinked texts; moreover, it reduces bias to point to the original the scholars are looking at, allowing one to compare it to their emendations. It's parallel to our linking directly to Biblical verses rather than to the Talmud or patristic commentary: yes, you've got to be careful but it's still the actual source of the material. — LlywelynII 01:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other works[edit]

Numerous lists of Anselm's works lack Homilae et Exhortationes, Liber Meditationum et Orationum, and Tractatus asceticus but PEF has them and numerous people have translated the "Meditations and Prayers of St Anselm". Are they just extracts from the other works and letters? or are they separate works that the philosophy sites consider infra dig.? — LlywelynII 23:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Give me a sec...Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Richard Sharpe's Handlist of Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland before 1540 lists the following as Anselm's works: Cur Deus homo; De casu diaboli; De conceptu uirginali et de originali peccato; De concordia praescientiae et praedestinationis; De grammatico; De incarnatione Verbi; De libertate arbitrii; De processione Spiritus Sancti; De sacrifico azymi et fermentati; De ueritate, Epistola ad Waleramnum de sacramentorum diuersitate; Espitolae; Meditationes; Orationes; Monologion; Proslogion; Responsio Anselmi contra Gaunilonem. He then lists as spurious: De altercatione inter Augustinum et Pelagianum; De laude beatae urginis; De motione altaris; De professione monachorum; De XIIII partibus beatitudinis; De VII beatitudinibus; Homilia super Intranuit Iesus sine De assumptione Mariae; Homiles; Similitudines de humanis moribus. I apologize if I messed up some typing in that. I can scan the pages as pdfs tomorrow if you'd like - just drop me an email throuhg the email this user function. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that's fine. I assume Espitolae is Epistolae and the formatting on everything else is subject to formatting. De Fide Trinitatis is well-cited but seems to just be an alt name for De Incarnatione Verbi. Presumably Epistola ad Waleramnum is the De Sacramentis Ecclesiae we've got listed. I guess the Meditationes and Orationes were originally separate works and simply published together later. Maybe the Tractatus Asceticus were the three letters to ascetics we mention already, taken as a separate work. Suppose that makes the Homilae spurious though. — LlywelynII 04:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works for future article expansion[edit]

I generally dislike WP:FURTHER reading sections since their criteria are utterly vague, inescapably arbitrary, and very subject to creep. I was working on this one since there hasn't been a Wiki-wide policy of excluding them but it's getting to be too long. Since there's no way for any non-expert to determine relative notability/helpfulness and prune other than by cribbing experts and very little way for experts to avoid their own biases, I'll move the #Editions subsection to its own area and the rest here for later reïnclusion as inline sources if they have material helpful for the article. List follows:

  • "Saint Anselme de Cantorbéry", Dictionnaire de théologie catholique [Dictionary of Catholic Theology], Vol. I, Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1909. (in French) (EB11 notes its bibliography)
  • Adams, Robert Merrihew (1971), "The Logical Structure of Anselm's Argument", Philosophical Review, Vol. 80, pp. 28–54.
  • Barth, Karl (1931), Fides quaerens intellectum. Anselms Beweis der Existenz Gottes im Zusammenhang seines theologischen Programms [Faith Seeking Reason: Anselm's Proof for the Existence of God in Connection to his Theological Program], Munich: C. Kaiser. (in German) ×2
  • Bencivenga, Ermanno (1993), Logic and Other Nonsense: The Case of Anselm and His God, Princeton: Princeton University Press, ISBN 9780691074276.
  • Braun, Jerzy (1974), Wiara szukająca rozumu [Faith Seeking Reason], Toronto: Instytutu Miłosierdzia Bozėgo [Institute of Divine Mercy]. (in Polish)
  • Burlikowski, Bronisław (1971), Anzelma z Aosty próba racjonalizacja wiary [Anselm of Aosta's Attempt at the Rationalization of Faith], Warsaw: PWN. (in Polish)
  • Campbell, Richard James (1976), From Belief to Understanding: A Study of Anselm's Proslogion Argument on the Existence of God, Canberra: Australian National University Press.
  • Chambers, Timothy (2000), "On Behalf of the Devil: A Parody of St. Anselm Revisited", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series Vol. 100, No. 1, pp. 93–113.
  • Châtillon, Jean (1959), "De Guillaume d'Auxerre à Saint Thomas d'Aquin. L'argument de saint Anselme chez les premiers scolastiques de XIIIe siècle [From William of Auxerre to St Thomas Aquinas. St Anselm's Argument in the First Scholastics of the 13th Century]", Spicilegium Beccense, I Congrés International du IXe centenaire de l'arrivée d'Anselme au Bec [1st International Congress of the 9th Centenary of the Birth of Anselm of Bec], Paris: Vrin, pp. 209–232. (in French) ×2
  • Church, Richard William (1870), Saint Anselm, London: Macmillan & Co. (Numerous reprintings).
  • Domet de Vorges, Edmond Charles Eugène, le Comte (1901), Les Grands Philosophes: Saint Anselme, Paris: Félix Alcan. (in French)
  • Evans, Gillian Rosemary (1978), Anselm and Talking about God, Oxford: Clarendon Press. ×3
  • Evans, Gillian Rosemary (1984), A Concordance to the Works of Saint Anselm, Millwood: Kraus International Publications.
  • Evans, Gillian Rosemary (1989), Anselm, London: G. Chapman. ×2
  • Franck, Georg Friedrich (1842), Anselm von Canterbury [Anselm of Canterbury], Tübingen: C.F. Osiander. (in German)
  • Gasper, Giles Edward Murray (2004), Anselm of Canterbury and His Theological Inheritance, Aldershot: Ashgate, ISBN 0754639118.
  • Gersh, Stephen (1988), "Anselm of Canterbury", A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255–278.
  • Gilbert, Paul (1984), Dire l'Ineffable: Lecture du 'Monologion' de S. Anselme [To Say the Unspeakable: A Lecture on St Anselm's Monologion], Paris: Lethielleux. (in French)
  • Gilson, Étienne (1934), "Sens et nature de l'Argument de S. Anselme [The Sense and Nature of St Anselm's Argument]", Archives d'Histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age [Archives of the Doctrinal and Literary History of the Middle Ages], No. 9, pp. 6–51. (in French) ×2
  • Gogacz, Mieczysław (1961), Problem istnienia Boga u Anzelma z Canterbury i problem prawdy u Henryka z Gandawy [The Problem of God's Existence in Anselm of Canterbury and the Problem of Truth in Henry of Ghent], Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL [Learnèd Society of the Catholic University of Lublin]. (in Polish)
  • Gogacz, Mieczysław (1963), "O nowszych badaniach dowodu ontologicznego Anzelmo z Canterbury [On the Latest Studies of the Ontological Proof of Anselm of Canterbury]", Roczniki Filozoficzne [Philosophical Annals], No. 11, pp. 103–111. (in Polish)
  • Gombocz, Wolfgang Leopold (1975), "Zu neueren Beiträgen zur Interpretation von Anselms Proslogion [On Newer Contributions on the Interpretation of Anselm's Proslogion]", Salzburger Jahrbuch für Philosophie [Salzburg Annals of Philosophy], No. 20, pp. 131–135. (in German)
  • Grzesik, Tadeusz (1999), "Anselm of Canterbury—Christian Philosopher 'par excellence'", Acta Mediaevalia [Medieval Acts], No. 12, pp. 251–256.
  • Grzesik, Tadeusz (1999), "What Anselm Owes to Boethius and Why He May Be Regarded as the Initiator of the Boethius Age", Cur Deus Homo. Atti de Congresso anselmiano internazionale: Roma 21–23 maggio 1998 [Why God was a Man: Proceedings of the International Anselmian Congress at Rome, 21–23 May 1998], Rome.
  • Hartshorne, Charles (1965), Anselm's Discovery: A Re-Examination of the Ontological Proof for God's Existence, La Salle: Open Court.
  • Hasse, Friedrich Rudolf (1842–1853), Anselm von Canterbury [Anselm of Canterbury], Leipzig: Engelmann (Translated in abridgment as The Life of Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury for Francis & John Rivington by William Turner in 1850) {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help). (in German)
  • Henry, Desmond Paul (1967), The Logic of Saint Anselm, Oxford: Clarendon Press. ×3
  • Henry, Desmond Paul (1974), Commentary on De Grammatico: The Historical–Logical Dimensions of a Dialogue of St Anselm's (Synthese Historical Library, No. 8), Dordrecht.
  • Hick, John (1970), Arguments for the Existence of God, New York: Macmillan Co..
  • Hick, John; et al., eds. (1967), The Many-Faced Argument. Recent Studies on the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God, New York: Macmillan Co..
  • Hogg, David (2004), Anselm of Canterbury: The Beauty of Theology, Aldershot: Ashgate, ISBN 0754632326.
  • Holopainen, Toivo (1996), Dialectic and Theology in the Eleventh Century, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
  • Holroyd, James B. (1834), Historical Sketches of the Introduction of Christianity into England from the Earliest Records to the Passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, in 1829, Vol. I, London: John Mason.
  • Hopkins, Jasper (1972), A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ×3
  • Jori, Alberto (2005), "Die Paradoxien des menschlichen Selbstbewusstseins und die notwendige Existenz Gottes—Zu 'Cogitatio' und 'Intellectus' im Streit zwischen Anselm und Gaunilo [The Paradoxes of Human Self-confidence and God's Necessary Existence: Cogitatio and Intellectus in the Controversy between Anselm and Gaunilo]", in Viola, C.; Kormos, J. (eds.), Rationality from Saint Augustine to Saint Anselm. Proceedings of the International Anselm Conference—Piliscsaba (Hungary) 20-23 June 2002, Piliscsaba, pp. 197–210 (in German)
  • Kienzler, Klaus (1981), Glauben und Denken bei Anselm von Canterbury [Faith and Reason in Anselm of Canterbury], Freiburg: Herder. (in German)
  • Kohlenberger, Helmut Karl (1972), Similitudo und Ratio. Überlegungen zur Methode bei Anselm von Canterbury [Similitude and Reason: Considerations on Method in Anselm of Canterbury], Bonn: H. Grundmann. (in German)
  • Koopmans, Rachel (2011), Wonderful to Relate: Miracle Stories and Miracle Collecting in High Medieval England, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, ISBN 978-0-8122-4279-9.
  • Koyré, Alexandre (1923), L'idée de Dieu dans la philosophie de St. Anselme [The Idea of God in the Philosophy of St Anselm], Paris: E. Leroux (in French)
  • La Croix, Richard R. (1972), Proslogion II and III: A Third Interpretation of Anselm's Argument, Leiden: Brill.
  • Leftow, Brian (1997), "Anselm on the Cost of Salvation", Medieval Philosophy and Theology, No. 6, pp. 73–92.
  • Lewis, David (1970), "Anselm and Actuality", Noûs, Vol. 4, pp. 175–188.
  • Majeran, Roman; et al., eds. (1999), Saint Anselm, Bishop and Thinker: Papers Read at a Conference Held in the Catholic University of Lublin, on 24-26 September 1996, Lublin: University Press of the Catholic University of Lublin, ISBN 8322806590.
  • Malcolm, Norman (1960), "Anselm's Ontological Arguments", Philosophical Review, Vol. 69, pp. 41–62.
  • Mascall, Eric Lionel (1971), The Openness of Being: Natural Theology Today, London: Darton, Longman, & Todd.
  • Mazzarella, Pasquale (1962), Il pensiero speculativo di S. Anselmo d'Aosta [The Speculative Thinking of St. Anselm of Aosta], Padua: Cedam. (in Italian)
  • McIntyre, John (1954), St Anselm and His Critics: A Re-interpretation of the Cur Deus Homo, Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
  • Millican, Peter (2004), "The One Fatal Flaw in Anselm's Argument" (PDF), Mind, Vol. 113, pp. 437–476.
  • Möhler, Johann Adam (1827–1828), "Anselm Erzbischof von Canterbury, ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des religiös-sittlichen, öffentlich-kirchlichen und wissenschaftlichen Lebens im XI. und XII. Jahrhundert", Theologische Quartalschrift [Theological Quarterly], Vol. IX & X, Tübingen: Heinrich Laupp (reprinted at Regensburg in 1839 as part of Möhler's Gesammelte Schriften und Aufsätze [Collected Writings and Essays]; translated from the German as The Life of St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury: A Contribution to the Knowledge of the Moral, Ecclesiastical, and Literary Life of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries for T. Jones by Henry Rymer in 1842) {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help). (in German)
  • Plantinga, Alvin, ed. (1965), The Ontological Argument from St. Anselm to Contemporary Philosophers, Garden City: Anchor Books. ×2
  • Ragey, Philibert (1889–1890), Histoire de saint Anselme archevêque de Cantorbéry [A History of St Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury], Paris: Delhomme & Briguet. (in French)
  • Ragey, Philibert (1890), Saint Anselme professeur [St Anselm Professor], Paris: A. Roger & F. Chernoviz. (in French)
  • Rémusat, Charles de (1853), Saint Anselme de Cantorbéry: Tableau de la Vie Monastique et de la Lutte du Pouvoir Spirituel avec le Pouvoir Temporel au Onzième Siècle [St Anselm of Canterbury: A Portrait of Monastic Life and the Struggle of Spiritual Power against Temporal Power in the Eleventh Century], Paris: Didier (2nd ed., 1868). (in French)
  • Rigg, James Macmullen (1896), St. Anselm of Canterbury: A Chapter in the History of Religion, London: Methuen & Co.
  • Roth, John K. (2000), Saint Anselm, Salem Press, ISBN 978-0-89356-878-8.
  • Schmitt, Franz Sales (1934), "Zur Chronologie der Werke des hl. Anselms [On the Chronology of St Anselm's Works]", Revue Bénédictine Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale [Benedictine Research Review of Ancient and Medieval Theology], No. 6, pp. 313–330. (in German)
  • Schönberger, Rolf (1989), "Reponsio Anselmi. Anselms Selbstinterpretation in seiner Replik auf Gaunilo [Anselm's Response: Anselm's Self-interpretation in his Reply to Gaunilo]", Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie [Freiburg Journal of Philosophy and Theology], No. 36, pp. 3–46. (in German)
  • Schufreider, Gregory (1994), Confessions of a Rational Mystic: Anselm's Early Writings, Lafayette: Purdue University Research Foundation, ISBN 1-55753-036-X.
  • Siegwart, Geo (2014), "Gaunilo Parodies Anselm: An Extraordinary Job for the Interpreter", Philosophiegeschichte und Logische Analyse [Philosophical History and Logical Analysis], Vol. 17, pp. 45–71.
  • Smith, Arthur David (2014), Anselm's Other Argument, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Vaughn, Sally N. (1994), "Anselm in Italy, 1097–1100", Anglo-Norman Studies: XVI. Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1993, Woodbridge: Boydell Press, pp. 245–270, ISBN 0-85115-366-6.
  • Williams, Thomas (1997), "Review of Holopainen 1996", History and Philosophy of Logic, No. 18, pp. 55–59.
  • Williams, Thomas; et al. (2009), Anselm (Great Medieval Thinkers), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Zimmer, Christoph (2005), Logik der Ratio Anselmi [The Logic of Anselm's Reasoning] (PDF). (in German)

Entries with ×2, ×3, &c. reflect the works' appearance in more than one bibliography elsewhere and may imply more notability or importance. A less anecdotal process would be to check Google Scholar and count their citations, but again my preference would be to keep any list like this out of the article itself and just include the works as we use the relevant ones and establish some context. — LlywelynII 02:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tadeusz Grzesik[edit]

Under the heading 'Responsio', it says someone called 'Grzesik' responds to Anselm. The person linked to is a Polish serial killer. Is this an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobobobo2 (talkcontribs) 14:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Argument from Degrees[edit]

Added to notable ideas. Source: 2601:840:8601:EEA0:0:0:0:5F16 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to add this, you need to explain it in the main text with the reference. A bare mention in the infobox with no explanation is no use to the reader. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]