BASA

62 P. A . Streve1er ment; 20 for it assumes that there is a real entity referred to by the expression 'chimaera'. The point is precisely parallel to the point made in the Sentence Commentary regarding the proposition « Deus est Deus », with the significant difference that 'Deus' is not a contradictory expression, although it does contain as part of its definition 'infinitus' which is, for us , impossible to conceive, strictly speaking. Hence, -any statement utilizing such an expression which purports to refer to some definite entity is at least capable of doubt, until that entity has been shown to exist on independent grounds . Thus the statement «Deus est Deus» as in Bonaventure's argument, or « Id quo mains cogitari non potest, est id quo maius cogitari potest » as in Anselm's argument, cannot be used as a premise in the attempt to prove that « Deus est » is true, for this begs the question. The critique of Gregory of Rimini 21 has certain conceptual affinities to Occam's critique. Gregory is not concerned with the status of the identity statement of premise two , but simply with the logical or grammatical status of Anselm's description of God as « that than which no greater can be thought ». There are many aspects of Gregory's critique of a quasilinguistic nature which would probably delight a modern day student of the school of linguistic analysis . I shall merely state what I take to be the upshot of bis critique, and leave the detailed analysis to the reader. Gregory asks firstly whether Anselm, in describing God as « that [ being] than which no greater can be thought » intends this description to refer to something other than itself, or merely for itself-i.e. for the terms themselves. 22 That is to say, when Anselm, at the outset of his argument, daims that even the fool who says in his heart « There is no God », _understands by « God », 20 Robert Holcot, a fourteenth century Occamist, makes the same point con– cerning the proposition « Chimaera est chimaera » in an unedited quodlibetal question on the problem of future contingents. 21 The source for Gregory's critique is his Commentary on the First and Second Books of the Sentences (Super Primum et Secundum Sententiarum ), Distinc– tions 42, 43 & 44 ; q. iii, a. 3, printed in Franciscan Institute Publications, Text Series No. 7, 1955. This is a reprint of the 1522 edition, and shares al! the typographical complexities of a genuine incunabulum. 22 « Tune ad probationem Anselmi... distinguo antecedens istius consequentiae Anselmi, quoniam vel ipsum supponit materialiter vel significative et personaliter », ibid.