St. Albert the Great

[mjdubroy]

Here's one from St. Albert:

Albert, I Sent., d. 8, a. 34 (ed. Paris., p. 269): “Et quantum ad primum mutat modum praedicandi, quia quoad illud modus praedicandi suus est modus accidentis facientis compositionem concretionis cum subjecto in quo est, et praedicatur denominative de ipso: et talis praedicatio in Deo non potest esse: et ideo in divinis amittit naturam accidentis.”

My translation:
And as to the first, it changes mode of predicating, because as to that mode of predicating itself is the mode of an accident making composition with a subject in which it is, and it is predicated by derivation from itself: and such predication in God is not able to be: and therefore in God it loses the nature of an accident . . . .”

My questions:
The basic sense is clear. When predicating a relation to God it does not predicate as a relation, i.e. by composition with a subject.

But I don't understand what "concretionis" really means here. It seems to be a genitive and means something like "compacting" or "condensing." I essentially left it out of my translation.

And then second, "denominative de ipso" means something like by derivation from/of itself. But I don't understand the sense and so am not confident that I have it right.

[bedwere]

Could concretio mean

II. Concr., materiality, matter: “(deus) mens soluta quaedam et libera segregata ab omni concretione mortali,” Cic. Tusc. 1, 27, 66; cf. Lact. 1, 5.?

As for the second question, I'd say

it is predicated by derivation of/about itself (the subject).

[mjdubroy]

Yea so maybe it means like a material thing

"as to that the mode of predicating itself is the mode of an accident making composition of a material thing with a subject in which it is."

[mjdubroy]

“Absolutum est ante respectivum : quia, ut supra dictum est ab Augustino, omne relativum est etiam aliquid aliud, et aliter nec relativum esset, quia oporteret aliter quod relatio in nihilo fundaretur.”

My translation: “Absolute is prior to relative: because as was said above by Augustine, every relative is also something other, and in one way the relative is not because otherwise it is necessary that the relation is founded in nothing.”

My question is about the second half starting with "et aliter..."

I suppose it is largely about what aliter...aliter means.

I know it can mean "in one way....in another way" but that meaning does not seem to fit.

Maybe I'm just not understanding why Albert has the subjunctive here "esset...oporteret...fundaretur."

[bedwere]

Notice that you have imperfect subjunctive, which indicates an unreal condition for the present. aliter is otherwise.

[mjdubroy]

Ahh yes that's right.

So: “Absolute is prior to relative: because as was said above by Augustine, every relative is also something other. Otherwise the relative would not be because it would be necessary that the relation is founded in nothing.”

I think the two aliter's through me off, but it seems to just repeat it but have the same one meaning for the whole sentence.

Thanks for your help with all my recent questions!

[bedwere]

You are welcome. II'd keep the second aliter for clarity's sake and use the subjunctive also in English:

[..] it would be necessary otherwise that the relation be founded on nothing.