BASA

Anselm's debate with Gaunilo 27 nihil maius cogitari potest fits into the structure of the argument in Proslogion 2. Thus, in Section 1 of On Behalf of the Pool he sees no harm in slipping from the expression aliqua... natura, qua nihil maius cogitari possit (S I, 125:3-4) to the shorter phrase maius omnibus (S I, 125:9). Now, as the beginning and end of Section 4 reveal, Gaunilo is using maius omnibus ( « that which is greater than all others ») as an abbreviation of illud maius omnibus quae cogitari possunt ( « that which is greater than all others that can be thought »). 6 But Anselm reads maius omnibus as a shorthand for •SI, 126:30; 127:23. Gaunilo employs the phrase «aliquid omnibus maius» (S I, 127: 11-12) in the middle of this same section. Cf. the end of section 3 (S I, 126: 26-27). Even those who would deny that Gaunilo intended « maius omnibus» as an abbreviation would still have to translate this phrase as « that which is greater than ail others » and not as « that which is greater than ail ». To omit the word « others » - on the ground that the Latin term « aliis » does not appear in the text - would have the consequence that that which is greater than everything would be greater than itself. And this is surely not an accurate expression of Gaunilo's point. However, in Section 4 of On Behalf of the Pool « illud maius omnibus quae cogitari possunt » could admittedly be read as « that which is greater than ail that can be thought ». Now, the sentence « God is that which is greater than ail that can be thought » entails that God cannot be conceived. Although in Section 4 Gaunilo does argue that God cannot be conceived, he does not do so by claiming that « God is illud maius omnibus quae cogitari possunt » entails that God is inconceivable - something he could hardly have failed to do on the above reading. Moreover, he is using this Latin phrase to identify Anselm's position. And he knows that in Proslogion 2 (where Anselm says that God is something than which nothing greater can be thought) Anselm neither means nor implies that God cannot be thought. The intent of Gaunilo's Latin expression, therefore, is that God is greater than ail others that can be thought. Accordingly, in Section 4 he challenges Anselm's belief that God can be conceived. Thus, he maintains that one reason God can be supposed not to exist is that He cannot at al! be conceived secundum rem. Gaunilo's Section 4 is addressed to Proslogion 4 and not to Proslogion 15, where Anselm allows that God can be thought (i.e., can be apprehended) even though He is greater than can be thought (i.e., greater than can be comprehended). Moreover at S I, 128: 22 Gaunilo obviously means an « island which i~ more excellent than ail other lands », though he writes only « insu/am illam terris omnibus praestantiorem ». Where the context suffices to imply « aliud » Anselm himself sometimes does not bother to insert this word. E.g., cf. M 64 (S I 75: 7) with M 65 (SI, 76:3) and DCD 4 (S I, 241:31) with DCD 4 (S I , 242: 1). To be sure, there is a prima facie difference between (1) « God is that which is greater than ail others that can be thought » and (2) « God is that than which nothing greater can be thought ». For the former entails that God can be conceived, whereas the latter seems to entail neither that God can be conceived nor that He cannot be conceived. Nonetheless, Gaunilo's use of (1) is not a distorted substitute for Anselm's use of (2), given Anselm's insistence on the conceivability of that than which no greater can be thought. At any rate, « maius omnibus, » as Gaunilo uses it, does not stand for « maius omnibus quae sunt », as Anselm supposes it does.