A passage in Albertus Magnus

Specific Text Questions
1

Albertus Magnus is here discussing the progression from observation of individuals in the world to formation of a universal in the mind.

  • et non dicitur ad universale: quia multiplex est universale:
  • And it is not “to universal” because the universal is multiplex [whatever that means].

What then is going on here with et . . . et?

  • est enim universale rei et vocis per signum distributivum, et est universale intellectus, quod secundum se a singularibus collectum accipitur:

Is that “For the universal of something is both (et) of a word . . . and (et) of the intellect . . . ”?

Or is it “For the universal of something and of a word . . . and the universal is of the intellect . . .”

Or is intellectus nominative and not genitive?

And then what about quod secundum se? Does quod mean “because” or “which” ?

The passage continues:

  • et in omni sive in qualibet inductione est progressio in inductione ad universalia et non ad unum universale, hoc est, uno modo acceptum.

Any advice welcome!

–

2

Full text here

Terminus vero ad quem est universalia, quae ideo pluraliter dicuntur a singularibus ad universalia progredi, et non dicitur ad universale : quia multiplex est universale : est enim universale rei et vocis per signum distributivum, et est universale intellectus, quod secundum se a singularibus collectum accipitur : et in omni sive in qualibet inductione est progressio in inductione ad universalia et non ad unum universale, hoc est, uno modo acceptum.

I think it is explaining in what ways the universal is complex. There is a universal of thing and voice, and there is one of the intellect (genitive). Secundum se means according to itself.

1 Like