St. Anselm's Proslogion is a book that St. Anselm wrote to prove the existence of God. St. Aelred's Spiritual Friendship is basically a conversation Aelred had with his 'imaginary friend' that provides insight about friendship and love.
It's easy to tell that Anselm is a very logical thinker. His writing has a set structure--"if this is true, then this is true, therefore *conclusion*". I couldn't find any uses of metaphors, similes, or other literary devices in his work. His work sounds like that of a scientist or mathematician--he seems to be a no-nonsense, straight-to-the-point kind of person.
Aelred, however, is a much more romanticized thinker. As he talks to the character of 'Ivo', he explains the aspects of friendship (which, if you think about it, is not always logical, therefore implying that Aelred is a different kind of thinker from Anselm). Aelred uses many metaphors, which to me make his writing much easier to read than Anselm's. An item or idea is easier to understand when you have something to compare it to.
Anselm serves his explanation of God's existence with a topping of logic and a side of rationality, which is not a bad way to present an argument. If you can explain something with solid logic, it means you understand it well. But Aelred presents his explanation of friendship as a fictional conversation between two friends. If you can place something against a different background and still understand it well, you probably understand that subject thoroughly.
Both methods of explanation are effective, but they are very different. Anselm's is strict non-fiction, while Aelred uses creative writing to bring an idea into the light.
It's easy to tell that Anselm is a very logical thinker. His writing has a set structure--"if this is true, then this is true, therefore *conclusion*". I couldn't find any uses of metaphors, similes, or other literary devices in his work. His work sounds like that of a scientist or mathematician--he seems to be a no-nonsense, straight-to-the-point kind of person.
Aelred, however, is a much more romanticized thinker. As he talks to the character of 'Ivo', he explains the aspects of friendship (which, if you think about it, is not always logical, therefore implying that Aelred is a different kind of thinker from Anselm). Aelred uses many metaphors, which to me make his writing much easier to read than Anselm's. An item or idea is easier to understand when you have something to compare it to.
Anselm serves his explanation of God's existence with a topping of logic and a side of rationality, which is not a bad way to present an argument. If you can explain something with solid logic, it means you understand it well. But Aelred presents his explanation of friendship as a fictional conversation between two friends. If you can place something against a different background and still understand it well, you probably understand that subject thoroughly.
Both methods of explanation are effective, but they are very different. Anselm's is strict non-fiction, while Aelred uses creative writing to bring an idea into the light.
