Reformation Latin

Latin Learning Latin
1

Hello,

I’m working through Martin Luther’s Latin treatise from the early 1520s, “Against Latomus.” I’ve encountered a construction that, while not necessarily obscuring the overall point, seems odd. He uses it several times. I was hoping somebody more skilled than I could break it down syntactically for me.

Take the following passage:

Nunc cum apertis verbis inclinet, & solus metus est, ne quid occulte habeat, sitque nec plene obscurus nec plene apertus sensus, potior sit pietatis sensus; aut interim nullus, quam impietatis.Accedit, quod & hic ebraice faciens bonum, is est, qui autor est ut sint bona, ut non tantum personale, sed efficacem bonitatem ad extra prosperatam significet, & tamen hunc peccare dici.

Luther tends to stack these “ut” phrases on top of one another. The “standard” English translation in the Luther’s Works series reads: “It happens here (accedit) that, according to the Hebrew, a ‘doer of good’ signifies a producer of good works whose goodness is not simply personal, but fruitful for others. Yet it is said that such a one sins.”

Again, the overall meaning seems clear enough, but I’m trying to figure out how each of the two “ut” phrases is functioning syntactically in the Latin. It seems like it would be much easier simply to say “autor bonorum” or something similar than “autor ut sint bona.” Which leads me to believe I’m missing something. I appreciate any thoughts the community can offer!

2

Should personale be personalem? I can’t understand it otherwise.

The way I read it, each ut introduces what would be classified as a consecutive (result) clause, the second subordinate to the first. I guess the first is more or less equivalent to autor bonorum as you say, but unless it’s simply a feature of Luther’s style (which I don’t know at all) I suppose there may be a little more to it: “the faciens bonum in Jewish thought is one who’s an auctor in such a way that there are bona, i.e. who brings it about that there are bona in the sense that (ut significet) …”. The second specifies what’s meant by bona: lit. “in such a way that it means not just personal goodness but …”, i.e. “‘good’ in the sense not just of personal goodness but of …”. Does that suit?

Is & tamen hunc peccare dici also part of the definition?

3

I apologize about personalem - I copied and pasted the text from an online version, and it seems to have been defective on that point! You’re correct.

As for the double “ut” clauses - that makes a lot of sense. It just seems to be an awkward passage, but I see how the consecutive result explains it. Thank you!