Textkit Logo

Albertus Magnus text

Here's where you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Moderator: thesaurus

Albertus Magnus text

Postby mjdubroy » Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:00 pm

For context:
Ex hac etiam ratione sequitur quod intelligi non potest, quod anima pereat pereunte corpore. Detur enim quod intelligitur: sequetur aliquod esse principium huiusmodi intelligentiae. Hoc autem esse non potest, nisi quod aut illa natura ex contrariis composita (80) sit aut quod unita sit corruptibili, et horum utrumque est contra intellectum naturae intellectualis; haec enim de se dicit naturam separatam a materia et contrarietate. Igitur nec composita est ex materia et contrarietate nec unita materiae, et sic (85) patet, quod intelligens, quid est natura intellectualis, non potest intelligere, quod pereat pereunte corpore.

My question deals specifically with this sentence: haec enim de se dicit naturam separatam a materia et contrarietate.

It is confusing because it seems like this is indirect discourse but with a participle and not an infinitive. Is that possible? Or might one thing that the "esse" is implied here to make "separatam esse" the perfect passive infinitive?
So that instead of: "For this says about itself nature having been separated from matter and a contrary" it would be: For this says about itself that the nature has been separated from matter and a contrary."
mjdubroy
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:04 pm

Re: Albertus Magnus text

Postby bedwere » Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:15 pm

haec enim de se dicit naturam separatam a materia et contrarietate.



Natura intellectualis enim de se dicit esse naturam separatam a materia et contrarietate.
User avatar
bedwere
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Re: Albertus Magnus text

Postby adrianus » Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:44 am

Sic justè legatur "de se dico" cum accusativo casu sine "esse" infinitivo modo, ut opinor: anglicè "establishes itself as/defines itself to be", vel "dedico" latiné.
I would suggest that "esse" is not required necessarily [though it could be included] and that "de se dico" with an accusative is translated directly as "designates itself/establishes itself as/defines itself to be/specifies itself as/sets itself apart as", similarly to the latin verb "dedico".

So "haec [natura intellectualis] enim de se dicit naturam separatam a materia et contrarietate."
"which latter (namely intelligent nature or nature of the mind or soul) sets itself apart as a nature [accusative] separate from matter and its [matter's] opposite [empty space]."
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Albertus Magnus text

Postby mjdubroy » Fri Nov 29, 2013 4:51 pm

Thank you for the help. It is extremely helpful and makes so much more sense to see "de se dicit" as "dedicit se". I would never have thought of that. It seems to me that in the medievals, at least in Albert, there are a bunch of these kind of idiomatic phrases that are not easily decipherable (at least for me). Sometimes I can get the gist of it and can paraphrase but I don't understand why the Latin means what I can tell from context since it is usually a few words.

Any thoughts on being able to learn to read and understand these sorts of phrases?
mjdubroy
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:04 pm

Re: Albertus Magnus text

Postby mjdubroy » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:00 pm

Actually one more question about the text: could "et contraietate" be understood as: "as the contrary."

So that the meaning is: for this[intellectual nature] establishes itself as a nature separated from matter as the contrary.

The context seems to demand this because the point is that the soul is not dependent on the body so it seems odd then if this means that the soul is separated from both matter and its contrary (namely, form). The soul is the form; how could it be separated from itself?
mjdubroy
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:04 pm

Re: Albertus Magnus text

Postby Shenoute » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:30 pm

Contrarietas can mean "contrast ; resistance ; opposition ; encroachement ; violence" (Niermeyer, p. 267). I think this sense fits better here than "contrary" because as you wrote, being separated from matter and its contrary doesn't seem to make sense here. So i would suggest something like "separated from matter and constraint".

I find this specific terminology quite hard too but I think there are specific lexica devoted to it (especially for Aquinas vocabulary). This could maybe help.
Shenoute
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm

Re: Albertus Magnus text

Postby adrianus » Sat Nov 30, 2013 1:40 am

Super Sententiarum (ed. Borgnet, 1893-4), Lib.II, dist.3, art.2, p.64b wrote:AD ID quod objicitur de ultima, dicendum quod meo judicio vocat ibi gratiam donum datum cum natura. Omnis enim natura creata in quantum est educta de nihilo tenderet in non esse, si manus omnipotentis Dei non contineret : et hanc manum nihil intelligo nisi voluntatem, naturam separatam a contrariis permanere in esse : in hoc enim quod a contrarietate removit, voluit permanere incorruptibilem : et hoc videtur velle Plato in Timaeo, qui dicit quod natura quidem dissolubiles, voluntate autem Creatoris permanentes : licet hoc melius de planetis intelligatur, quos Plato igneos, et ideo per naturam corruptibiles putabat.

Adjuvatne vel prohibetne hic locus?
Does this passage help or hinder?
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 29 guests