I love the transition from the discussion of natural barriers that protect against invasion to Stilicho. Rutilius makes his point so clear - Rome's barriers were never weak; she faltered only because Stilicho invited barbarians inside her fortifications. This allows Rutilius to explain the disaster of the Goths without ever challenging the supreme power, glory, and defensibility of Rome. What an excellent rhetorical strategy! (zing!)
Two questions, though. I wonder if Rutilius chose to compare Stilicho with Nero specifically so that he could have 2.60. (zing! mom joke) Certainly Nero-bashing was a well established precedent, but why not have Caracalla, or a more recent (even better - a Christian!) emperor take butt of the joke?
Second, did others find book 2 significantly more snarly than book 1? I found myself looking up a much higher percentage of vocab, and typically puzzling over lines or secondary meanings for much longer periods of time. Even the Loeb editor makes no less than nine (!) footnotes from lines 43-60 alone trying to explain circumlocutions. My favorite, from line 48, simply says "the phrasing is difficult." (zing!)
No comments:
Post a Comment