BASA

26 J . Hopkins criticism maintains, then to call him a clever mind would itself be an overstatement. In this paper I want to clear up several misinterpretations both within and about the debate between Anselm and Gaunilo. At the same time, I want to articulate the reformulations of the ontological argument as they occur in Reply to Gaunilo 1. I shall not take up the issue of whether or not any of these reformulations presents a sound argument for the existence of God, though in my judgment none does. Nor shall I worry about the respective degrees of brilliancy attributable to our two opponents, though on the present interpre– tation Gaunilo will fare better than Hartshorne supposes but not as well as Southern fancies. 1.1. Problem of interpreting Gaunilo. The Anselm-Gaunilo controversy has usually been approached with the preconception that Anselm's interpretation of Gaunilo's text is reliable. Anselm may or may not have successfully rebutted all of Gaunilo's objections, it is assumed, but he certainly was not mistaken about the nature of these objections . Now, it is strange that commentators find no apparent difficulty in allowing that Gaunilo misunderstood Anselm's argument while disallowing the reverse-Le ., disallowing that this « great mind [viz., Anselm] beside whom Gaunilo was not an intellectual giant » 4 should have misread On Behalf of the Pool. Thus, in a recent article 5 F. S. Schmitt deals section by section with Anselm's Reply to Gaunilo . But he deals with Gaunilo's text itself only through the eyes of Anselm's Reply, which he assumes to be exegetically definitive. Yet, when we look closely at Gaunilo's text and then at Anselm's interpretation of it, we will find that Anselm's charge of inconsistency is based upon a misreading. 1.2. Gaunilo's misinterpretation of Anselm. However, before taking up the issue of whether or not Anselm fully understood the logical structure of Gaunilo's work, let us admit outright that Gaunilo did not fully comprehend that of Anselm's. Most flagrantly of all, he failed to appreciate how uniquely the expression aliquid quo • Anselm's Discovery, 18. • F. S. SCHMITT, Der ontologische Gottesbeweis und Anselm, in: Analecta Anselmiana, ed. F. S. Schmitt (Frankfort/Main: Minerva Verlag, 1972), vol. III, 81-94.