Bullinger Translation - Help Needed

[CharlieJ]

Hey everyone,

I have gotten through about the first half of Bullinger's De Origine erroris (1528) and am trying to clear up some of the more difficult sections. Here are three of the problem passages I've run into. If you have any insight into them, I'd appreciate it. If not, that's quite understandable. I've put the especially troublesome portion in bold.

Passage 1:

Cupio enim, ut solius dei in Christo gloria mundo nota fiat, suppressis impiis mundi erroribus, quos hic pro uirili retego orbi, futurum sperans, ut impietate missarum, ac transubstantiationis probe perspecta, quisque ad ueritatem, ac ueram pietatem conuertatur, quicquid tamen hoc subcisiui laboris sit, uobis dicatum uolo.

Here's my translation attempt. Working the quicquid and the sit together is difficult. Note that subcisiui is a variant spelling of subsiciui:

For I desire that the glory of the only God in Christ should be made known to the world, along with the world’s impious errors being suppressed. I expose these errors here before the world to the best of my ability, hoping that when the impiety of Masses and transubstantiation are correctly perceived, someone might be converted to the truth and true piety. Yet however much this might be a work of incidental importance, I want it dedicated to you.

Passage 2:

Quae res, ut noua est, ac inaudita nostro saeculo, ita uerissima, & quae sciatur longe dignissima, quaque Pontificiorum gloriae, & iactationi non parum derogabitur.

On this one I would like to know if you think I've divided the sentence up correctly, namely into three grammatically independent parts introduced by quae res, quae sciatur, and quaque. "Res" refers to the work itself. I believe the ut … ita construction is a correlative that puts some level of contrast between the two parts.

This undertaking, though new and unheard of in our time, is indeed most authentic. It should be recognized as extremely worthwhile, and by it not a little will be detracted from the boasting and vanity of the Pope.

Passage 3:

This one is a real stumper.

Itaque sinistre intellecta rapimus ad ceremoniarum fulcra, quarum & modum ignoramus, et egrum animum uana spe deludimus, quod certe Gregorio magno accidisse nemo inficias ibit, qui paulo diligentius & instituta & scripta hominis expendit.

I am pretty sure the "nemo" goes with "qui" in the sense of "no one who", but the rest of the words in that clause flummox me.

And so we grasp things perversely understood as supports for ceremonies, and we don’t even know the method of them, and we delude a sick soul with a vain hope, that to Gregory the Great accidisse nemo inficias ibit, who weighs a little more carefully his institutions and writings.

 

[a mere housewife]

I am just a very beginner and can't yet puzzle out each word. Yet would the sense of the last carry something along the broad lines of surely Gregory the Great not poisoning anyone to their downfall if they carefully consider his institutions etc?

 

[CJW]

Provided that inficias is a late medieval variant of infitias, I came up with:

For most certainly no one will deny that to have befallen Gregory the Great. (I.e. Having grasped things misunderstood as a support of ceremonies)

Infitias ire : to deny in classical Latin

 

[CharlieJ]

Aha! Thank you. I had figured inficias as infitias, but was unaware of the idiom with ire, and it was the ibit that was giving me trouble.

 

[a mere housewife]

The Latinist is largely a rare, elusive creature who must be tantalised with gross error.

 

[CJW]

'Tis true, there is nothing quite like the chase and capture of the unruly Latin sentence, and that one was a particularly juicy morsel, so thank you, Mr. Johnson, for posting it!

 

[a mere housewife]

I should clarify that I was referring to my own error as gross, not Charlie's translation . (I was hoping a real rare and elusive Latinist would take up that point.)