 Gregory adopted Wodeham’s theory and tailored it where necessary to his own thought. The complexe significabile, once thought to be Gregory’s invention, is neither the proposition itself, nor individual things in the world, nor the arrangement of things in the world. The exact status of Gregory’s complexe significabile has been much discussed. In a nutshell, there are three main interpretations. The first one builds on Gregory’s claim that the complexe significabile is nothing (nihil), and thus holds that Gregory does not defend logical realism (Biard 1989, 183, Libera 2002, 217; Bermon 2007, 166–167). The second interpretation builds on Gregory’s claim that there are senses of “something” (aliquid), “thing” (res) and “being” (ens) that can apply to the complexe significabile, and insists that the complexe significabile must be something mind-independent because of this, although it is not an entity (Elie 1936, 28, 174; Nuchelmans 1973, 73). The third interpretation concludes from the fact that the complexe significabile is said to be something but not an entity to the fact that the complexe significabile must be mind-dependent or in the mind (Trapp 1977, 58; Mandrella 2016, 208, as a legitimate hypothesis). Another point of debate concerns how one should evaluate Gregory’s take on Wodeham’s ideas. That debate opposes those who consider Gregory’s developments as a clearer elaboration of the concept (Bermon 2007, 169, 173), and those who believe Gregory blurred the clear picture Wodeham had given, thus making the doctrine of the complexe significabile an easy target (Gàl 1977, 70; Nuchelmans 1980, 185–186; Zupko 1994–1997, 218).