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."
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].”
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?
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?
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.