Abstract
In the paper Stanislav Doležal's recent treatment of Rutilius Namatianus' invective against Stilicho is challenged. According to Doležal, Rutilius' attitude to Stilicho followed from his belief that he had betrayed Rome to barbarians while religious motivation played a lesser role if any.
Thereby, however, the manner in which this betrayal could have been accomplished seems disregarded. In the eyes of the last pagans of Rome whose view of the world Rutilius is rightfully claimed to have shared, two conditions are easily imaginable to have been expected to be met so that Rome could be captured: the enemy had to know the secret name of the tutelary deity of Rome and the Sibylline Books had to be prevented from being consulted on looming danger.
Yet precisely for removing these two obstacles from Alaric's way Stilicho can be argued to have been (in the case of the former) or manifestly was (in that of the latter) blamed by Rutilius. In his motivation for his attitude to Stilicho religion thus played a vital role.