Hi all,
I am having trouble translating most of Catullus 101. Here is my (weak) translation with the original text:
Multas per gentes et multa per aequora vectus
advenio has miseras, frater, ad inferias,
ut te postremo donarem munere mortis
et mutam nequiquam alloquerer cinerem,
quandoquidem fortuna mihi tete abstulit ipsum,
heu miser indigne frater adempte mihi.
Nunc tamen interea haec, prisco quae more parentum
tradita sunt tristi munere ad inferias,
accipe fraterno multum manantia fletu,
atque in perpetuum, frater, aue atque vale.
Having traveled through many peoples and through many seas,
I arrive at these miserable offerings, brother,
As I present you with the last gift of death
and I address silent ashes in vain.
Since fortune took you yourself away from me,
alas miserable brother taken undeservedly from me.
Meanwhile, however, by the ancient custom of (our) ancestors,
which has been handed down as a sad service for (these) rites in honor of the dead,
now accept these many flowing tears of a brother,
and forever, brother, be well and have power.
What I am most unsure about is the translation of the three adverbs in line seven. It seems odd to me that nunc is grouped with the other two adverbs in that line, since it pertains to line nine (assuming my translation is correct). Is this done to comply with the meter? Also, what use of the ablative is munere in line three? Finally, is it ok to translate fletu as plural? It seems awkward to translate as singular in English.
Thanks,
Deccius
Dear Decius
Your translation is not weak at all; you’ve clearly put a lot into it and I hope you send us some more of your stuff. But since you have asked for opinions concerning translating, I think that over all it could use a little more polishing to remove a few instances of awkwardness and to add loftiness of tone. However, if litteralness was your principal goal, you did just fine. Now, as most of us know, the more litteral a translation the more awkward it is likely to be. On the other hand, the more liberties we take to achieve a state of polish the further we depart from the latinity. Most folks opt for some sort of compromise. As for grasp of the grammar, you did quite well except for (as always, “in my opinion”) the purpose clause intoduced in line 3 which you you seem to have taken as some sort of adverbial temporal clause. But for all I know you may have done that deliberately.
[balance of this post, was subsequently edited out by the author]
Hello, and good work! Here are some points for your consideration.
-“Nunc tamen interea” does seem odd in its order, at least for English ears. Switch up the first and second and you have, “Yet now, meanwhile,” which I might render as “But now, being here,” etc.
-The “munere” in line three is in ablative because of dono’s particular requirements: hominem aliquo dono - I present a man with something (think ablative of means/instrument).
-Careful with line 9: manantia is present participle, plural neuter accusative, as you indicate, but you may have confused the case of fraterno and fletu. Both are ablative, making it literally, “Receive [these things, from haec, earlier], flowing very much with fraternal weeping.” Clearly quite awkward, so you might say, “Accept this offering, soaked through with your brother’s tears…”
-Unless you hid it in your extreme literalism, you missed the pathos in “ave atque vale.” Literally, you did catch their meaning, but how did the Romans use the two words, especially in the imperative ? “Hail and farewell,” or, more colloquially, “hello and goodbye.” So he’s traveled all this way to see his brother, but his greeting is itself a parting.
Excellent analysis, o bellum and pax, and well written as well.
Kynetus
I concur with Ken.
I’d add that translating the neuter plural “haec” and its later adjectives might work best with the noun “words.”