Lion or Wolf? Judging a Simile's Praise and Brutality
A candidate is analysing a 24-word battle narrative for a literary essay: 'Ille, velut leo qui per silvas fame actus praedam quaerit, sic in medios hostes ruit; nec mora: terra sanguine madet.' The question asks how the simile shapes the reader's judgement of the warrior. A classmate writes 'It compares him to a lion, so he is brave.' The teacher says this is only recall-level and asks for a judgement about whether the image glorifies or brutalizes him. The candidate must use diction, word order, and the transition to the aftermath. The passage is from a constructed text, not a prescribed author, so no external comparison is allowed. The candidate has 15 minutes and must produce a thesis with two pieces of textual evidence.
1. State a thesis about whether the simile glorifies or brutalizes the warrior, and support it with two pieces of evidence.
Read the worked answer
The simile does both, and the tension is the point: it ennobles the warrior while exposing the animal violence of his charge. Evidence one: velut leo gives a royal, powerful predator, not a scavenger; the comparison raises him above the ordinary soldier. Evidence two: fame actus ('driven by hunger') removes rational heroism and makes him a creature of appetite; praedam ('prey') turns the enemy into food. The transition nec mora... terra sanguine madet then refuses to linger on heroic glory and gives the physical aftermath. A thesis that says only 'he is brave' misses the cost; a thesis that says only 'he is a beast' misses the elevating force of leo.
2. Analyse how word order and diction in 'in medios hostes ruit' and 'terra sanguine madet' shape the judgement.
Read the worked answer
In medios hostes ruit puts the prepositional phrase before the verb, so the reader moves into the enemy mass before reaching ruit; the word order imitates the charge. medios ('the middle of') stresses that he does not skirmish at the edge. ruit is a strong, falling/rushing verb, not a dignified procedit. In terra sanguine madet, the ablative sanguine is postponed and madet closes the clause; the ground, not the hero, is the subject. That shift from warrior to blood-soaked ground is a judgement: the simile's energy ends in carnage. The diction is visceral rather than celebratory.
3. How would your reading change if leo were replaced by lupus? Keep the same syntax.
Read the worked answer
The line would tilt much further toward brutalisation. A wolf is a predator too, but in Roman literary shorthand it is associated with scavenging, stealth, and hunger rather than royal courage; fame actus would fit even more naturally. The 'prey' language would make the enemies look like livestock, and the warrior's charge would look like a raid rather than a heroic sally. The lion can carry a regal or heroic charge that complicates the hunger imagery; the wolf has less of that compensatory dignity. The conclusion would still note the graphic aftermath, but the balance would shift: less glory, more menace.