The Letter Collections of Anselm of Canterbury

Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) was a prolific letter writer. The modern edition of his letter collection comprises more than 600 folio-size pages in print and includes 472 letters, the vast majority of which were sent by him. Our knowledge of Anselm’s letters is derived from collections of his letters, for none of his correspondence survives in its original form of individual letters. There was no one canonical version of the collection, and the extant manuscripts generally differ substantially: the largest medieval manuscript witnesses include over 400 letters, while the smallest contain only a few. We know 38 manuscript witnesses, but no authorial manuscript survives. Certain references in Anselm’s letters reveal, however, that he collected his correspondence on at least two occasions while he was still abbot of Bec, and this study proposes that a third collection was possibly made under his supervision in Christ Church. The third collection also covered Anselm’s Canterbury period. Whether the third collection was authorial or posthumous is unclear. Certain contextual evidence and references in letters would suggest that the collection was authorial. If so, the collection was probably a register book, which was started in c. 1101 at the earliest. There is no positive proof that any of the three surviving minor collections may be authorial. Each of these collections was circulating at a very early stage, however, some probably in Anselm’s lifetime. Moreover, the minor collections seem to have been put together from smaller source units, which possibly originated at Bec. The contents of these units suggest very early and possibly authorial origins: the letters are mainly from Anselm’s years as prior of Bec. The critical edition by F. S. Schmitt represents the current phase in the textual tradition of Anselm’s letter collection. This study demonstrates that the value of the edition is weakened in particular by the way in which Schmitt selected manuscripts for collation, doubtless influenced by the fact that he had not established the structure of the tradition properly. Ultimately it is impossible to undertake systematic research on the letter collection on the basis of Schmitt’s edition.