BASA

38 J. Hopkins Anselm, as for Augustine, man has a rational faculty which belongs to the soul. This rational faculty accounts for man's capacity to think rationally, to understand. So, in some contexts, whether Anselm speaks of rationality (rationalitas) or understanding (intellectus) or thinking ( cogitatio), he is regarding these as alter– native designations for the same faculty of soul. Accordingly, in Monologion 23 he comments that intellectus is there in the soul where rationalitas is-although « there » and « where » are not being used as spatial locators (S I, 41 :28-29). A third meaning of intellectus occurs at S I, 132: 12-13 (Reply to Gaunilo 2), where Anselm states that anyone who does not understand the description « N » has little or no intellectus-i .e., intelligence. 26 To borrow a terminology from De Libertate and De Concordia, such a person would have the instrument, or faculty (instrumentum), of understanding but either would not be able to use ( uti) this instrument adequately or else would have a defective instrument (as one might have defective vision). Anselm does not elaborate the point. Still, his view is clear: a fool might not have much intelligence (intellectus), but he must have the faculty of intellectus; otherwise he would not be a man, and therefore not a fool (non-rational animals are not fools). The fourth meaning of intellectus has caused the most difficulty– especially to English translators of Anselm's Latin. In particular, the phrase in nullo intellectu has not made sense in English translations . For instance, at S I , 132:29-30 (Reply to Gaunilo 2) Anselm writes: Sed utique quo maius cogitari potest, in nullo intellectu est quo maius cogitari non possit. Charlesworth translates this as: « But surely 'that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-thought' is not for any mind [the same as] 'that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be– thought' ». McGill has: «But certainly that than which a greater can be conceived does not stand in relation to any understanding as 'that than which a greater cannot be conceived' ». And Wolter puts: •• Not even McGILL reads this passage as telling us that the Pool has no « act of understanding. »