Abstract

A detailed analysis of the argument of ’Cur Deus Homo’ is offered. Particular attention is paid to where the argument might now be thought to be at its weakest, in two unargued assumptions: the relevance of aesthetic considerations, and the presumed connection between the actions of one man and all humanity. The reasons for these assumptions are explored, as also the meaning of the key term ’satisfaction.’ It is argued that for Anselm only Christ’s death constituted a debt not owed, and so it is to later theologians such as Calvin that the notion of suffering as atonement should be attributed, not Anselm