Surviving Works of Ancient Rome: A Sulpician Analysis

Pen to paper, stylus to tablet — throughout history, surviving literature has framed the archival narrative of civilization through a filtered lens, enabling a select number of perspectives and retellings to remain. Due to the impermanence of records kept prior to the development of recent technology, most works which endure from the Post-Republican Era are required to have been passed down from one generation to the next in order to be preserved — a privilege which oftentimes eludes the common citizen and does not extend beyond the scholars and intellectuals (typically males) of the upper class. As a result, existing works are oftentimes not wholly representative of populations in Imperial Rome, an example being that Sulpicia, a member of nobility during Augustus’s reign, is the sole extant female poet writing in Latin. Though offering insight into the female experience, Sulpicia’s elegies are laced with caveat: her class and connections often preclude the accurate representation of women and their writings during the Post-Republican Era, and her literature shares an astounding number of commonalities when compared to her near-contemporaries such as Catullus, the most significant being that her self-concept is central to her poems. However, in her Elegies, Sulpicia’s passivity, acquiescence to emotion, and self-definition differ from Catullus and other male poets in that they are largely shaped by a gaze other than her own, her literature succumbing to societal norms rather than shaping them.

In her Elegies, Sulpicia’s compliance to the male gaze and her external locus of control stand in stark contrast to the works of Catullus, whose confidence in the longevity of his poetry frame his brash declarations of love — this further complicates her intent of authorship, as it is unclear whether Sulpicia, despite her class and prominence, muted her poetry in anticipation of the need to conform to stereotypes surrounding women. Catullus initially prefaces his Selected Poems with an allusion to the anticipated longevity of his works, haughtily comparing his literature to those of Cornelius, his digressive contemporary. In an invocation to his “Patron Muse,” he prays that his poems would “endure for more than one generation,” implying that his intent was for his poems to be read, repeated, and recorded (Catullus 1.11). In hoping that his texts last “for more than one generation,” it is suggested that Catullus authored his remaining poems with cognizance that his works may be read by others, and perhaps be referred to as an exemplum in the future. This parallels the outlook of other male authors such as Pliny, who, in his Letter detailing the Eruption of Mount Vesuvius, discusses the death of his uncle with an acquaintance such that it may be “[written] about more accurately for posterity” (Pliny, 6.16). However, Sulpicia concedes to Ovid’s generalization that women “desire more discreetly,” utilizing using sealed tablets as a vehicle to send messages to her lover “for fear that someone else might read them first” (Ovid 1.276; Sulpicia Elegies 1.7). It is thus unclear whether Sulpicia was aware that her elegies would survive to be read throughout generations (and resultantly muted her self-expression), as demonstrated by her reluctance to showcase her private thoughts to others. However, it is of considerable import that both Catullus and Sulpicia were of higher social standing — the former was of the equestrian class while the latter was considered to be of the highest Roman nobility as per her relation to the general Messalla. It is likely due to her status that Sulpicia was taught how to write, and it is probable that both authors’ social prominence and wealth played a role in their texts being preserved: behind preservation, there likely exists intent due to the sheer amount of effort required to impart a literary work to posterity. It can thus be argued that Sulpicia’s poetry, filled with leisurely visits to the countryside and birthday celebrations in the city, were not representative of the average female’s experience in Rome — however, Sulpicia’s tendency to construct her writing around the male gaze may be an element that more women are unfortunately able to relate to, rendering it an applicable work of literature for the modern reader.

Although seemingly polar in nature, Catullus’s fiery invectives and Sulpicia’s conversational elegies share commonalities tangential to the author’s self-concept — however, while Catullus is able to reject complacency in pursuit of greater forms of action and decision-making, Sulpicia acquiesces to passivity and continuously refers to herself in reference to the male gaze. In her first elegy, Sulpicia speaks of her desire directed towards her puer, Cerinthus, yet attributes their romance to circumstance rather than claiming overt action: she writes that she “begged Venus to bring [Cerinthus], and she did, set him right down in [Sulpicia’s] lap” (Sulpicia Elegies 1.3). In attributing her relationship with her lover to a higher power, Sulpicia demonstrates an external locus of control in which her actions are dependent upon another being — a situation which mirrors her lack of choice when her uncle coerces her to spend her birthday in the countryside. In contrast, Catullus exercises greater determinism through his invective when he reiterates his resolve to cut ties with his lover: “Farewell, girl, now Catullus is tough. He will not try to track you down, will make no advances, since you are unwilling” (Catullus 8.15). While Catullus writes about his conscious decision to separate from his lover, Sulpicia defines herself in terms of the male gaze, even while she expresses a wide range of emotions. With regard to her cheating lover, she exclaims, “go ahead, think more about that cheap toga-wearing whore, [...] than about Sulpicia, the daughter of Servius,” labeling herself in terms of her paternal lineage rather than as an individual. It is of significance to note that when Sulpicia’s collected and conversational tone deviates from her precursory elegies in this expression of frustration, the expression of emotion seems to be provoked by jealousy for another woman. Similar devices are used as she pleads to Cerinthus, questioning if he “[cared] at all for [his] girl,” referring to herself as a subject of ownership and possession and likening herself to the property of her former puer (Catullus 5.1). Similarly passive language is used throughout her elegies as she continuously refers to herself as having been “abducted” by her uncle and “end[ing] up” with her estranged lover — in shaping her narrative around the actions of men, Sulpicia’s elegies stand in stark contrast to Catullus’s invectives with regard to each author’s self-concept.

As the sole surviving work of Post-Republican Rome’s female poets, Sulpicia’s Elegies simultaneously offer valuable insights into the female experience while succumbing to her contemporaries’ dismissal of the female gaze. While her poetry is largely informed by gender, Sulpicia’s poems often allude to class as a factor for stratification in literature, as social standing often operates as a frame of reference for surviving works from classical antiquity.