MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394954416 · doi:10.1353/ben.2022.a923900

The Image of the Fons and the Role of the Saints in Anselm of Canterbury’s Vision of Redemption

2022· article· en· W4394954416 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rachel Cresswell

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Benedictine Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage (mathematics)GenealogyHistoryArtComputer visionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Image of the Fons and the Role of the Saints in Anselm of Canterbury's Vision of Redemption1 Rachel Cresswell (bio) Rachel Cresswell Rachel Cresswell received her DPhil in Theology from the University of Oxford in 2020. She is currently Departmental Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History at the Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Oxford, and Junior Research Fellow at Blackfriars, Oxford. Footnotes 1. An earlier version of this article was delivered as a paper entitled "The Saints as Images of Christ in the Prayers of Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109)" at the American Benedictine Academy session of the International Congress on Medieval Studies at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, in 2018. John Fortin, in his 2019 article, also notes the image of the fons, as well as other biblical images, in Anselm's devotional writing: John Fortin, "Scriptural Images in Saint Anselm's Second Prayer to Saint John the Evangelist," American Benedictine Review 70, no. 2 (2019): 201–211. 2. Eleonore Stump, Atonement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). For Stump's analysis of the "Anselmian interpretation" of atonement, see especially pp. 55–56, 71–78, 107– 111. 3. Summaries of these critiques are found in J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 219–320; Stephen Finlan, Problems with Atonement: the Origins of, and Controversy about, the Atonement Doctrine (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005), 71–74; Dietrich Wiederkehr, Belief in Redemption, trans. Jeremy Moiser (London: J. Knox Press, 1979), 40; Paul S. Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation: the Christian Idea of Atonement (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1989), 99; and Stephen R. Holmes, "The Upholding of Beauty: A Reading of Anselm's Cur Deus Homo," Scottish Journal of Theology 54 (2011): 190. For feminist perspectives, see especially Beverley W. Harrison and Carter Heyward, "Pain and Pleasure: Avoiding the Confusions of Christian Tradition in Feminist Theory," in Christianity, Patriarchy and Abuse: A Feminist Critique, ed. Joanne Carlson Brown and Carole R. Bohn (New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1989), 148–173; Carlson Brown and Rebecca Parker, "For God So Loved the World?" in Christianity, Patriarchy and Abuse, 1–30. Cf. Flora A. Keshgegian, "The Scandal of the Cross: Revisiting Anselm and his Feminist Critics," Anglican Theological Review, 82 (2000): 475–92. 4. Weaver, 99–100. 5. Stump, 109. 6. Katherine Sonderegger, "Anselmian Atonement," in T&T Clark Companion to Atonement, ed. Adam J. Johnson (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 175. For positive perspectives on Anselm's atonement theory, see Hans Urs Von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics. Vol. II, Studies in Theological Style: Clerical Styles, trans. Andrew Louth, Francis McDonagh and Brian McNeil C.R.V., ed. John Riches (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2006), 211–259; and David Bentley Hart, "A Gift Exceeding Every Debt: An Eastern Orthodox Appreciation of Anselm's 'Cur Deus Homo,'" Pro Ecclesia 7, no. 3 (1998): 343–344. For Balthasar's perspective on Anselm, see Emery de Gaál Gyulai, "The Rediscovery of Anselm's Appeal to Beauty in Hans Urs Von Balthasar's Theology," in Saint Anselm of Canterbury and his Legacy, ed. Giles E. M. Gasper and Ian Logan (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2012), 318–340; and Glenn W. Olsen, "Hans Urs Von Balthasar and the Rehabilitation of St. Anselm's Doctrine of the Atonement," Scottish Journal of Theology, 34, no. 1 (1981): 49–61. For beauty and "fittingness" as the Cur Deus Homo's structural foundations, see David S. Hogg, Anselm of Canterbury: the Beauty of Theology (Aldershot, Hants, UK: Ashgate, 2004), 89–124; Roberto J. De La Noval, "Anselmian Apocatastasis: The Fitting Necessity of Universal Salvation in St. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo," Scottish Journal of Theology, 71, no. 2 (2018): 142–158. 7. R. W. Southern, The Making of the Middle Ages (London: Pimlico, 1993), 212. 8. Southern, 225. 9. Anselm's authentic prayers and meditations were identified by André Wilmart: Auteurs spirituels et textes dévots du moyen âge latin: études d'histoire littéraire (Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1932), 162–201. See also Benedicta Ward, "Introduction" in The Prayers and Meditations of St. Anselm, with the Proslogion, trans. Benedicta Ward (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Benedictine ReviewSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207