OK, I haven’t asked for help for a while now, not wanting to ask for too much help, but I came across these two lines from the Metamorphoses (Book IX, lines 334-335):
est lacus adclivis devexo margine formam
litoris efficiens; summum myrteta coronant.
I finally decided that “litoris” and “adclivis” are both genitive singular and one modifies the other. But the opposites “adclivis” and “devexus” have me baffled. I cannot imagine this lake! The best I can come up with is:
“There is a lake producing the form of an upward-sloping shore with/to(?) a downward-sloping edge; myrtle groves crown the highest part of its shore.”
Also “vexing”, for my understanding at least, is that “adclivis” is adjacent to “devexo”, no doubt deliberately. The only thing I can imagine, and it’s probably wrong, is that as you approach the lake, you have to climb a sandbar or something and after you reach the top, it slopes quickly down to the water.
Would someone better at Latin than I am please help me with this?
Hi Leisulin,
I think what’s going on here is that the ‘devexo margine’ is an ablative absolute providing the contrast. “there is a lake, that although the bank is downward sloped, gives the form of an upward sloping shoreline”. I can think of a similar effect: when you’re driving at night, sometimes it’s hard to tell if the road is sloping upwards or downwards because you can’t see the surrounding terrain, or perhaps Ovid is just playing with us: “does it slope down or up?” or perhaps he’s making the point that “slope” is a matter of perspective; it depends on where you’re looking from.
BTW, the OLD cites this passage as an example for the usage of acclivis “acclivis…formam litoris”
est lacus adclivis devexo margine formam litoris efficiens; summum myrteta coronant.
Perhaps if you drop the idea of sloping up and down as being opposites and think about the line in a “relative” way it might be clearer. If you stand by the water and look up the shore shelves upward if you stand further up and look down to the water the shore shelves downwards. So I dont think there is a great mystery here.
Also by fixing on the translation of “producing” for efficiens you are preventing yourself from understanding the line.
Golding (1567) an excellent reader has
"There is a certaine leaning Lake whose bowing banks doo show
A likenesse of the salt sea shore. "
He is trying here to capture Ovid’s idea that it is not a lake with banks that are level with the water but more like what can be found at the sea shore with high dunes and a steep descent to the water.
I see Aetos has now posted on this while I was thinking of how to finish this post so I will leave it as it is (unrevised) for what its worth. Ovid is certainly playing with us by mixing shelving up and down and trying to confuse us. I think the general idea is that we have a lake rimmed with myrtle with banks that shelve downwards steeply.
This is pretty much what I picture as well. Note that in Golding’s translation, he associates adclivis with lacus. He chooses the general meaning of litus being sea shore and so his comparison is of the lake and a sea shore. Here is Frank Miller’s translation from the Loeb:
“There is a pool whose shelving banks take the form of sloping shores, the top of which a growth of myrtle crowns.” As you can see, Miller associates adclivis with litoris but there is no contrast, just comparison and no need for an ablative absolute, just an ablative of quality.
Thanks to those who responded! I had a couple of things to say about what was said.
It appears the OLD differs from Golding’s interpretation. He made “adclivis” agree with “lacus” whereas if the OLD says “acclivis…formam litoris”, then the punctuation of the quotation seems to suggest that they think “acclivis” modifies “litoris”, does it not? I hadn’t considered the possibility of “adclivis” agreeing with “lacus”, but I should have.
Golding (1567) an excellent reader has
"There is a certaine leaning Lake whose bowing banks doo show
A likenesse of the salt sea shore. "
He is trying here to capture Ovid’s idea that it is not a lake with banks that are level with the water but more like what can be found at the sea shore with high dunes and a steep descent to the water.
At this point I like taking “adclivis” with “lacus” and contrasting this lake’s shore with litus being specifically the SEAshore where one expects the banks to have a sharper decline to the water. I think those two ideas clear things up for me! Thanks again to you both!
My sense of style tells me that est lacus stands unqualified, introducing the ecphrasis. And adclivis surely goes with litoris, and that phrase is given definition by the sandwiched devexo margine. The lake’s shoreline has sloping sides. There’s no opposition between the two adjectives, and the point of view does not shift; it’s a static scene. That’s how I read it, anyway.
The lake’s shoreline has sloping sides. There’s no contradiction between the two adjectives
Do you consider, then, that the main idea in both “devexo” and “adclivis” is “sloping”, and both “margine” and “litoris” are “shore” and he’s merely (playfully) expressing the same meaning twice, in two ways which appear opposite but which are simply saying the same thing? And all along I was sort of forgetting which author I was reading?
