GOETTING, CODY WALTER, M.A. DECEMBER 2019 LATIN

THE VOICES OF WOMEN IN LATIN ELEGY (67 pp.)

Thesis Adviser: Dr. Jennifer Larson

By examining feminine speech within the corpus of love elegies composed throughout the Augustan period, especially those written by Tibullus, Sulpicia, Propertius, and Ovid, one can determine various stylistic uses of female characters within the entire corpus. In addition to this, while his writings were penned a generation before the others, the works of Catullus will be examined as well, due to the influence his works had on the Augustan Elegists. This examination will begin identifying and detailing every instance of speech within the elegies from a female source, and exploring when, how, and why they are used. The majority of the elegies in which these instances occur are briefer, more veristic in nature, although longer, more polished examples exist as well; both types are examined. Except for Sulpicia, these poets are male and present the majority of their elegies from a masculine point of view; this influence is also examined.

THE VOICES OF WOMEN IN LATIN ELEGY

A thesis submitted To Kent State University in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

by

Cody Goetting

December 2019 © Copyright All rights reserved Except for previously published materials

Thesis written by Cody Walter Goetting B.S., Bowling Green State University, 2013 B.S., Bowling Green State University, 2013 M.A., Kent State University, 2019

Approved by

______, Advisor Dr. Jennifer Larson ______, Chair, Department of Modern and Classical Languages Dr. Keiran Dunne ______, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Dr. James L. Blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iv

Method and Terms ...... 1

Literature Review ...... 3

Catullus ...... 7

Propertius ...... 17

Tibullus ...... 26

Ovid ...... 34

Sulpicia ...... 45

Epistles and Longer Elegiac Speeches ...... 53

Conclusion ...... 59

Bibliography ...... 62

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iv

Method and Terms

While it may be tempting to assume that everything the elegists wrote about actually happened, and particularly happened to themselves, to do so would be to fall into the biographical fallacy. As such, throughout this essay a distinction will be made between the poets themselves, and their narrating characters: the term ‘narrator’ refers to this character (likewise amator/amatrix), while the term ‘poet’, or their name refers to the actual poet. This distinction is important, as not only are there differences between the poets and their characters, but the world of elegy is different from the real world as well.

In addition to this, the term puella refers specifically to the young women that the amatores courted, who are the subject of many of the elegies as well as the source of much of the feminine speech within them. This topic deserves some exploration as well, as there are several different types of feminine speech within the elegies. The first type is direct speech, which is closest to the women themselves, where a female character’s speech is directly recorded. This type encompasses those instances where the narrator relays exactly what the woman said, which accords the women the most agency over their speech. This is referred to as either direct speech, or directly quoted speech. As an example, one may examine a brief bit of dialogue in which

Cynthia, the topic of many of Propertius’ elegies, directly accosts him, in 2.15.8: dixit ‘sicine, lente, iaces?’ (She said, ‘So, lazybones, sleeping again?’)1. Note that the poet introduces her

1 The Latin text is taken from the appropriate Loeb Classical Library texts; all translations, unless otherwise noted, are my own work. 1 speech by a direct verb of speaking, which, while not always present, indicates that these were her exact words.

The next type is a level removed, where the narrator indirectly reports what the woman said, typically through one of the grammatical constructions of indirect speech, most commonly an infinitive-plus-accusative construction. At this stage, the narrator is still reporting what the woman said with some faithfulness to her actual words, although they are now introducing some of their own interpretations onto the exact words. This allows the female character still some degree of agency, as her words still form the basis of the construction, however now the typically male narrator is introducing elements of their interpretation onto them as well. This type is referred to as indirect speech, indirect quotation, or indirectly reporting. For an example of this, one can look to Catullus’ 72.1-2, Dicebas quondam solum te nosse Catullum, Lesbia, nec prae me velle tenere Iovem (‘Once you used to say that you knew only Catullus, Lesbia, and that you did not want Jupiter himself over me’). Note that now the narrator is no longer trying to exactly reproduce what the woman said verbatim, instead indirectly focusing on reproducing her meaning, as well as the grammatical construction.

The final type is the furthest removed from the source, where the narrator merely reports on what was said, using their own words to describe it. This allots the narrator the greatest amount of agency, relative to the puella, whose original voice is almost completely silenced in favor of the narrator’s interpretation This method is therefor also the least reflective of actual speech from the puella. This method is referred to as paraphrase. Again one may look to the opening of one of Catullus’ Carmina, in this case 92.1, Lesbia mi dicit semper male nec tacet umquam de me (Lesbia is always saying bad things about me, nor is she ever silent when it comes to me). While at times similar to indirectly reporting the speech of a puella, this method

1 requires even less attention to detail on the part of the narrator. Note that now the narrator does not provide any indication of what those statements might have been, only referring to their general topic.

In addition to these methods, there is one additional way that the audience can glean some of the content of female speech. At times, the narrator will begin a dialogue (or indeed, a monologue) heavily focused on his own words; while this does not report any of the speech of the woman, one can begin to see some of the things that she brought up by the topics that the narrator addresses in turn. This of course affords almost complete agency to the narrator, as the female character’s voice is never heard. Likewise, the audience cannot be completely sure of her words, as the narrator may have chosen to ignore certain comments, or to interpret them in a radically different manner than they might have been intended. As such, this can only broadly be considered a category of feminine speech, as no speech from a female source is ever actually presented, it can still be useful in examining the general topics that women present within the elegies. This method is referred to as implicit speech when it occurs. Numerous examples of this can be seen in Ovid’s Amores 1.4, where the narrator is constantly instructing and reacting to the actions of his puella, however she is given no form of a speaking part, while the narrator monologues throughout the entire elegy.

All three of these classes of feminine speech in the Augustan elegies will be examined, as well as this supplemental category, although each elegist uses them to different degrees. This difference is also examined, as each type of speech carries with it a different weight and tone. At times the elegists prefer one category to another, and the potential reasons for this are explored as well, such as why the tone they are trying to achieve is best arrived at by the particular method of feminine speech they utilize.

2

Literature Review

As a genre, it is widely known that Roman love elegy presents an inverted picture of gender roles, as compared to the traditional Roman relationship in the first century B.C.E. and

A.D. As opposed to the actual historical situation, women are presented in positions of power over their male lovers, primarily but not always solely due to their erotic influence over them.

However, it has been noted by Sharon James that even in this inverted elegiac world, the relationships still maintain “standard Roman social and power structures, [which suggests] an inescapable inequity.”2 James continues and points out that, in this manner, when a woman speaks in elegy, she does so usually with the purpose of ‘attacking’ the amator, and in doing so, hopefully keep his interest. The majority of gender analysis on elegy examines these women in detail.

As James states in the beginning3 of her analysis of gender in elegy, most scholarship regarding elegy can be categorized into either research or interpretation. This is important, as a full appreciation of elegy requires a detailed knowledge of history, literature, and mythology.

Furthermore, many of the elegies, even for those who do have this knowledge, can be examined regarding multiple layers, which could lead to different interpretations. Gender is only one of such lenses. Even when gender and relationship dynamics form the core of an analysis, it does not necessarily mean that the role of female characters and voices forms an integral part of the

2 James, Learned Girls and Male Persuasion, 26.

3 James, Learned Girls and Male Persuasion, 3. 3

analysis, as Lyne’s groundbreaking analysis of the convention on the uses of ‘servitium amoris’ shows.4 While this study certainly handled the concepts of gender, it focused much more on the male amatores than their lovers.

Even when these studies do focus on the female characters, there is no guarantee that they will not limit themselves to examining the traditional literary influences, as Kutzko5 does when he examines in depth the possibility of relating Sappica puella / musa doctior in Cat. 35 to

Lesbia, as opposed to the traditional interpretation that it refers to the muse Sappho. In works such as this, the genre is examined much more thoroughly from a literary aspect, with the usage of particular characters as an afterthought to their literary influences and purposes.

More recently however, there has been a growing body of works concerning themselves first and specifically with the depictions of women in classical works. This ‘feminist’ trend can trace its origin primarily to the latter half of the twentieth century. While these works tackle the topic with zeal, any detailed examination of Roman women is bound to face struggles due to the fragmentary (at best) accounts of the lives of women in Rome. Despite these struggles, one early example specifically regarding elegy can be seen in Maria Wyke’s works beginning in the late

1980’s6. These works largely examined how a specific poet utilized a specific aspect of their feminine characters, such as Propertius’ use of Cynthia’s education.

Another key figure in the examination of elegy is Judith Hallet, who has done much the same as Wyke, examining the usage of particular poets’ depictions of women in their elegies, such as her study of Catullus. Hallet has also examined the depictions of women and how their

4 Lyne, “Servitium Amoris.”

5 Kuztko, “Lesbia in Catullus 35.”

6 For example, 1987’s “Written Women: Propertius’ Scripta Puella.” 4 voices are portrayed in elegy, as when she does so for the feminine voices in the Carmina of

Catullus. Her works begin with a similar categorization of each instance of feminine speech, although her analysis focuses primarily on the distinctions between ‘heard’ voices and ‘echoes’.

In addition to this, she also charts the influences of this style on later poets, primarily Sulpicia.7

This topic especially, that of Sulpicia, is a key topic for scholars, and Hallet is no exception, who has worked extensively on showcasing her literary influences and style. In her works, she argues that she is both a legitimate Roman poet and as well as a woman.8 This topic has garnered much debate, but Hallet often uses studies of Sulpicia’s poetry as a means to delve deeper into the literary themes and motifs of the genre itself.9

A third scholar deserving of special note here is James herself, mentioned above, who has broadly examined the entirety of elegy, although usually with a specific intention in mind, such as comparing such a selection to the program detailed by lenae such as Acanthis and Dipsas. As

James notes broadly, elegy is an genre dominated by the masculine voice, however, this only means that those rarer times when a feminine voice are used become more impactful.10 She argues, however, that each of the puellae are, at least, so heavily embellished as to be no longer distinguishable from any reality.11 This literary figure can trace its roots back to the meretrix

7 Hallet, “Women’s Voices and Catullus’ Poetry”, 421-422.

8 Hallet, “Sulpicia and her ‘Fama’: An Intertextual Approach.”

9 Hallet, “Martial’s Sulpicia and Propertius’ Cynthia.”

10 James, “Ipsa Dixerat” 314.

11 James, Learned Girls and Male Persuasion.

5 figure in Roman comedy, she furthers argues, and therefore all feminine speech in elegy can trace itself back to figures such as Thais and Phronesium.12

In this mind then, examinations of women in Roman comedy are also of note.

Particulary, one set of examinations deserve special attention, by Dorota Dutsch, whose work13 deals with feminine discourse in Roman comedy. Throughout her work, she employs much the same methodology as I do, examining a particular set of comedies with a sub-set of types of speech in mind. In her longer works, the type of speech examined might contain every such feasible example, or it might be narrowed down to a more particular grouping, such as speech detailing threats of suicide.

What these works can often fail to cover, however, is how, why, or when the poet chooses to incorporate aspects of feminine speech in their elegies. Perhaps one of the best comparisons to this role can be seen in Megan Drinkwater’s work,14 which presents such an analysis, but with a comparison between the female puellae and the male lover Marathus as its primary topic. It is in this vein that this study falls, continuing a detailed examination of how

Roman elegists as a whole utilized feminine speech in their works, and hopes to address this comparative dearth of discussion.

12 James, “Construction of Gender and Genre in Roman Comedy and Elegy.”

13 Dutsch, Feminine Discourse in Roman Comedy, and “Genre, Gender, and Suicide Threats in Roman Comedy.”

14 Drinkwater, “The Woman’s Part: The Speaking Beloved in Roman Elegy.”

6

Catullus

Catullus is in many ways the first of the Roman elegists and instituted many of the motifs that would define the genre and would be adopted and adapted by the later Augustan elegists, just as he himself used motifs drawn from Callimachus and the Alexandrian school. Within his works, while he depicts several women, the most prominent of these is certainly Lesbia.

Throughout the corpus of Catullus’ works, he devotes a total of one hundred and five lines15 to reporting feminine speech (of which seventy are a stylistic representation of Ariadne’s lament in

64.132-201). Discounting the lengthy mythological discourse, Lesbia is the source of fifteen of the more veristic thirty-five remaining lines, the largest single source. The other twenty are attributed to several different women whom Catullus encountered in his roles as amator and man about Rome.

In examining Lesbia, however, it is important to note that Catullus never directly quotes her, and only rarely does so indirectly (only three times, in Carmina 7.1-2, 70.1-2, and 72.1-2), preferring instead to usually paraphrase her speech (as can be seen in one passage, 83.1-6, equaling the amount of lines of all the previous method combined). Despite this, however, through indirectly reporting and paraphrasing her speech he attributes to her the largest amount of material of all the women portrayed in his elegies, as well as makes her the subject of several

15 Carmina 7.1-2; 10.14-16, 25-27; 41.1-2; 42.3-4; 45.13-16; 55.12; 61.97-101; 64.132-201; 70.1-2; 72.1-2; 83.1-6; 92.1; and 109.1-2. 7

other Carmina. Instead of offering her a means to directly present her own ideas or feelings, the poet always filters her speech through the words and perspective of the amator. This reluctance to quote Lesbia is not some absolute stylistic choice, as, again discounting Carmen 64, eleven of the remaining twenty lines are direct quotations from various women, with a further two being indirect quotations.

This distance from the source of the words to the audience draws the attention away from the woman, in this case Lesbia, and keeps the framing influence of the male in the audience’s mind. This trend is reflected in the actual paraphrased speech from Lesbia as well, with all fifteen of her ‘spoken’ lines reflecting upon her relationship with the narrator. To some extent, this should come as no shock; the reported love and relationships of the amatores is one of the primary themes of the genre.

Still, it is the manner in which Catullus presents Lesbia speaking about their relationship which marks the unique characterization of her relationship. Catullus, while still presenting enough of an image of Lesbia to create a picture of the puella throughout the entirety of his works, still leaves her remote and mysterious, reflecting the enigmatic nature of her relationship with the amator as well. Cynthia, for example, typically speaks about some topic relevant to her relationship, but Propertius’ extensive use of direct quotations lead the audience to interpret a greater proximity in their relationship; there is never any doubt as to exactly what Cynthia is feeling towards her amator. Likewise, this proximity perfectly translates her overbearing and controlling tendencies, whereas the distance of Lesbia contributes to the uncertain nature of her relationship with the narrator.

8

As depicted by Catullus, Lesbia exhibits all of the typical mannerisms that would later be expected from an elegiac puella: she teases and flirts with the amator (7.1-2, 109.1-2), she makes her relationship status known and turns it into a game (83.1-6), as well as spurning some of his own advances (72.1-2), and can show her anger and displeasure at times with him (92.1-2). In each of these instances, however, there is no more characterization than that Lesbia has simply done each action. The audience is only told that Lesbia is ‘always speaking ill’ and saying ‘many bad things’ about the amator:

Lesbia mi dicit semper male nec tacet umquam de me: Lesbia me dispeream nisi amat. quo signo? quia sunt totidem mea: deprecor illam assidue, verum dispeream nisi amo (92) Lesbia is always speaking ill about me and never silent: But, would that I perish if Lesbia does not love me. By what sign? Because they are the same with me: I’m constantly depreciating her, but may I die if I do not love

Lesbia mi praesente viro mala plurima dicit: haec illi fatuo maxima laetitiast. mule, nihil sentis. si nostri oblita taceret, sana esset: nunc quod gannit et obloquitur, non solum meminit, sed quae multo acrior est res, iratast. hoc est, uritur et loquitur. (83) Lesbia says many bad things about me whenever her husband is present, which brings great joy to the fool. You idiot, you know nothing. If she would go quiet, having forgotten me, then she would be chaste: But now because she snarls and raves, she not only remembers, but she is angry, which is a much more worrying. That is, she burns, so she cries out. Besides this, the audience is given no more detail to characterize Lesbia, such as how she does so, or what specifically incites her to these actions, or how the lover comes to hear of these

9 things. Furthermore, the amator can be seen reverting the focus back to himself, either to how he himself feels (92), or to how he interprets Lesbia’s actions (83).

The reaction from Catullus, both as amator and as poet, is likewise stereotypical.16 He revels in and returns Lesbia’s flirting and attention, he laughs and takes part in her games of love when he is the winner and sulks when he is the loser, and he endures her reprimands and whimsies as a necessary sacrifice for her love. Again, as with the inverse, what is missing is the characterization one might expect to find specifying the reaction of the amator, beyond the broadest of strokes. While taken as a whole, the series of Lesbia’s spoken lines and the responses of the amator can describe a picture of a relationship, it quickly becomes apparent as a piece of pointillism. Just as if one were looking at Seurat’s ‘A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La

Grande Jatte’, one begins to see that the individual episodes, while passionate, lack the level of detail the complete image seemed to once portray. It is the sequence of the poems which presents the overarching story of the relationship with Lesbia.

These interactions, while perhaps conventional, do not paint the full picture of feminine speech within Catullus. As stated above, while Lesbia makes up the largest single source of the veristic speech within his corpus, she contributes less than half total of these lines, while an almost equal amount of these non-Lesbia lines are quoted directly or indirectly. In these passages17 the reaction of the amator appears more veristic, as he also provides more detail about

16 Gibson, “How to Win Girlfriends amd Influence Them,” 62-68. Gibson demonstrates that although the Augustan elegists used different terms to describe their relationships (such as militia and/or servitium amoris, while Catullus’ poetry typically follows standard values of amicitia, although applied to extra-marital relations instead of male friendship), they still follow the same protocols and ideology that permeates Catullus’ elegies. 17 10.14-16,25-27; 41.1-2; 42.3-4; 45.13-16; and 55.12.

10 what both participants say and feel. In these passages, the amator often shows a stronger reaction leaning towards anger and disgust towards the women, no matter if they’ve wronged him or not:

“quaeso,” inquit mihi1 “mi Catulle, paulum istos commoda! nam volo ad Serapim deferri.” “mane,” inquii puellae, “istud quod modo dixeram me habere, fugit me ratio: meus sodalis —Cinnast Gaius—is sibi paravit. verum, utrum illius an mei, quid ad me? utor tam bene quam mihi paratis. sed tu insulsa male ac molesta vivis, per quam non licet esse neglegentem. (10.25-34) (The amator, just back from a trip to Bithynia, runs into a friend along with his girlfriend, who is the first speaker) ‘Please’ she says to me, ‘my Catullus, just for a little while lend me those servants, because I would like to be carried to the temple of Serapis.’ But I said to the girl, ‘Hold on, what I said earlier, that I have those servants, I misspoke, my friend, Gaius Cinna, is who bought them. But whether they were his or mine, I used them as though I had got them. But you, a damned idiot and nuisance, will not allow anyone to be forgetful.’ This is his reaction in the majority of these examples, something that he does not do with Lesbia, no matter how she behaves.18

This reply is already more spontaneous than how the amator responds to Lesbia, with three19 of the Carmina containing a direct response from the amator as well. While Catullus’ model might not have been as refined as it was during the Augustan elegists, this pattern is still

18 Carmina 10, 41, 42, and 55 all contain some manner of remark, uttered or narrated, which constitutes something akin to revulsion at best, and outright anger at worst. It is worth noting that while Carmen 45 does not contain this response, it is also the only one that the amator does not have a central part in, instead depicting the love of Septimius and Acme rather than his own exploits.

19 Carmina 10.18-20, 27-34; 42.11-12, 19-20, 24; and 55.10.

11 something he could have easily addressed, had he so chosen to. As it stands, Lesbia is generally cast in a positive manner, or at least in terms which make clear how dear she is to the poet. The other women, when they speak to him, invariably get under his skin and usually elicit a stern reprimand for it. Lesbia’s actual voice is never heard directly, and it would seem she is loved all the more for it.

Carmen 7 is an ideal example of this:

Quaeris, quot mihi basiationes tuae, Lesbia, sint satis superque. quam magnus numerus Libyssae harenae lasarpiciferis iacet Cyrenis oraclum Iovis inter aestuosi et Batti veteris sacrum sepulcrum; aut quam sidera multa, cum tacet nox, furtivos hominum vident amores: tam te basia multa basiare vesano satis et super Catullo est, quae nec pernumerare curiosi possint nec mala fascinare lingua. You ask how many kissings of you will be enough and more than enough, Lesbia. As many as the number of Libyan sand which lies on Silphium producing Cyrene, between the oracle of sultry Jupiter and the sacred tomb of old Battus; or however many stars there are when the night is silent, which watch the furtive loves of men. To kiss you with so many kisses is enough and more for mad Catullus, kisses which neither the the curious are able to count nor an evil tongue curse. What begins as the amator restating a question of Lesbia’s, becomes him turning it into a grand image of their love. Since the audience is not privy to Lesbia’s original asking of the question, there is also some possible doubt as to her intention: is she asking Catullus, in a playful, flirtatious manner? Or is she genuinely asking him, so that she, tired by his affections, knows when he will finally stop? The beginning of Carmen 7 also draws heavily on the image created by the amator himself in Carmen 5, where the amator asks for an uncountable amount of kisses from Lesbia, showing that one of her most affectionate displays is merely an echo of the

12 amator’s.20 Likewise, in Carmen 8, the amator reveals that he was the one to seek Lesbia out, and while attempting to fortify his resolve to quit the relationship, he never considers the possibility that Lesbia would seek out him and his affections, although one might consider that to be an even more cathartic image for the amator. When again he returns to Lesbia, it is in jealousy of the man whom Lesbia has found to visit her now. Again though, it is the mere fact that this man gets to see her that draws first draws his jealousy, and then to hear her – not speaking, but laughing instead.21

After an image of just how intimate Lesbia has been with several of the other men around

Rome in Carmen 58, Carmina 71 and 73 depict the amator coming to terms with the revelations of Lesbia’s nature. By Carmina 76 he has finally accepted both her faults, and that he still burns with love for her. Indeed, now that the amator has gotten a complete image of her, he cannot help but admit her image is tarnished in his mind, and this is the closest he comes to admonishing her, a much softer course than the amator takes with the other women he encounters. Perhaps this is also the driving force to him not focusing on these aspects of her personality of her to the audience: he wishes to convince them, as much as herself, to her perfection. This continues the distance between the two lovers, as reflected in the distance from

20 Carmen 5.7-9 conculdes da mi basia mille, deinde centum, dein mille altera, dein secunda centum, deinde usque altera mille, deinde centum. (“Give to me a thousand kisses, then a hundred, then another thousand, then a second hundred, then one more thousand, and a hundred too”” while 7.1-2 begins Quaeris, quot mihi basiationes tuae, Lesbia, sint satis superque (“You ask, Lesbia, how many of your kisses and enough for me, more than enough.”). Immediately after this romantic image however, Catullus presents the amator and Lesbia in a rough patch, with him swearing her off for good. As he does so, he pretends to address her, intending to make her question her decisions, 8.13-16 vale puella, iam Catullus obdurat, nec te requiret nec rogabit invitam. at tu dolebis, cum rogaberis nulla. scelesta, vae te, quae tibi manet vita? quis nunc te adibit? (Goodbye, mistress, now Catullus grows hard; he will neither require nor ask for an unwilling you. But you will regret this, when you are sought by no one. Poor girl! What life remains for you, now who will visit you?”). 21 Carmen 51.3-5 qui sedens adversus identidem te spectat et audit dulce ridentem (“Who, sitting across from you again, watches you and hears you laughing sweetly”).

13 her speech to the audience, but it also reinforces that, although the amator is aware of these aspects, he ignores them as best he can, still hopelessly in love with her.

This general pattern mirrors that of the typical Roman marriage, where women’s voices were traditionally retained within the sphere of their household, focusing primarily on domestic matters while men focused on public matters of business and state. This is one further thing that the poems that have women directly addressing the amator have in common, namely that they all occur in public, and the women are all of a lower class than the narrator.22 Presumably the narrator, as a persona who shares the name of the poet, would share the poet’s social class.

Likewise, women in mythological exempla are permitted to speak directly within the poetry of

Catullus as well, as can be seen with Ariadne in Carmen 64. Lesbia however is never depicted as directly addressing the amator, and even further than this, often times her words are reported to him from some other source, which he then comments on, continuing the fantasy that their relationship is just a different, but equal, kind of marriage.23 This trend is continued as he seems to be arguing for his particular interpretation, especially in the case of Carmen 83.

This trend, however, could be attributed to a disparity in class between the amator and the girls he meets in public. He describes them all as prostitutes either directly or by insinuation, and he would likely be an upper-class citizen. Lesbia for her part, her moral conduct aside, would also be an upper-class Roman woman as well, an equal or even social superior to the

22 Carmen 10 specifies the Forum, while 55 specifies the walkway of Pompey. 41 and 42, while they do not specify locations, with their references to the women being prostitutes (the girls being either defututa or moecha, respectively) would also suggest a public or semi-public location for their altercations.

23 Carmina 83.1-6 and 92.1 specify that Lesbia is speaking about the amator to other people. Since these conversations do not seem to be the kind that the amator would be present at (83 details a conversation between Lesbia and her husband, while 92 specifies that she speaks about him, nec tacet umquam de me, not to him, it is reasonable to assume that word got to him somehow.

14 amator.24 For this however, the final example of directly quoted speech can shed some light, as it depicts a discourse between Septimius and Acme. Throughout Carmen 45, Catullus as poet here resoundingly approves of this relationship:

Uno in Septimio fidelis Acme facit delicias libinisque quis ullos homines beatiores vidit, quis Venerem auspicatiorem? (45.23-26) Acme takes her fill of faith and pleasure in Septimius alone. Who ever saw happier people, who ever saw a more blessed love? However the name Acme leads one to view the woman in this relationship as a foreign Greek.

While foreign women at this time were not as low socially as slaves and other infames, a category which prostitutes would fall into, they would have still have been a tier lower than wealthy Roman citizens. Throughout this time wealthy, foreign Greek immigrants were becoming a more common sight throughout Rome, so this general picture of Acme would not be out of place in Catullus’ time.

This relationship, however, shows that it is not necessarily a disparity between social classes that drives the animosity from the amator, and leads one back to the specific dialogue.

Throughout Carmen 45 there is nothing to suggest that the conversation takes place in public, with no location or a description to lead on to believe that it did, as Carmina 10, 41, 42, and 55 all do. Likewise, Acme here only offers her support to her love, instead of placing the man on the

24 While it would be wrong to assume that the amator reflects the poets (the biographical fallacy), Catullus himself was an eques. Therefore, while this comparison should not be considered to be absolute, to the extent that the amator can indeed be understood to share similarities to the poet, he can be understood as an equestrian as well. Furthermore, if Lesbia was indeed Clodia, she would have been a patrician, and socially been higher than Catullus. For further reading on the social status of Catullus and the norms that would have brought, see: Tatum, “Friendship, Politics, and Literature in Catullus.”

15 spot, as the amator often finds himself. Both of these aspects also place her in the light of a proper Roman wife, one who remains domestic, and speaks in support of her husband when he initiates the conversation, as Septimius does.

Likewise, the distance between Lesbia and the audience also reflects the distance between the amator and his love. The audience never gets to truly confront Lesbia as Catullus presents her, instead viewing a distant figure through the words of another. This is a situation that Catullus, in his role as amator, finds himself in as well, hearing Lesbia’s words through the mouth of another, and having to form his own opinion and judgements thereof. And just as we do not get to directly address her, neither does he, at least to the degree that we see him address the other women he meets along his way.

In these conversations, the amator is often forced to submit to the wishes of the women, although he tries to resist in a hyper-masculine fashion.25 Against Lesbia however, while she never makes a demand as clear as the other women do, he never tries to resist her wishes, accepting whatever she does as a cost to her love. Likewise, the distance with which he regards her allows him to begin an idealized perception of her as well, perhaps masking the true distance the two felt between their actual relationship.

25 In Carmen 10, he is forced to admit to his financial failings on his expedition, despite his bluster and the name calling he directs towards Varus’ girl. In 42, his aggressive posturing nets him nothing, and he is forced to change his tone. In 55 his searching nets no rewards. Only in 41 is he able to present this front and gain what he was seeking, but even this is directed towards Ameana’s family, not the girl herself.

16

Propertius

Out of all the elegiac puellae, Cynthia has the most developed character. Propertius allots to her over one hundred lines of speech, either directly quoted or indirectly reported (for reference, Catullus provides Lesbia some 15 such lines in his poetry26, while Tibullus offers

Delia none). This includes both shorter statements with a high degree of verisimilitude as well as longer, more elaborately prepared speeches throughout several elegies. Throughout Cynthia’s moments of direct speech, and the numerous passages in which the amator describes their relationship, the well-known image of Cynthia as a demanding lover is developed. In addition to this, her image as a dominant partner is strengthened by the rhetoric she uses to address the situation of women and their relationships during the Augustan period, primarily concerning the various Leges Juliae. This agenda matches Propertius’, which can be seen again in 2.7.1-4,27 which through both the approval of the amator and Cynthia seems to reflect the poet’s genuine opinion as well. This similarity should not be surprising, that the character’s in his elegies reflect the opinions of the poet. However it is important that Cynthia specifically acts as a voice for

26 See Carmina 7.1-2; 70.1-2; 72.1-2; 83.1-6; 92.1; and 109.1-2. It should be noted that all of these are Catullus indirectly describing a paraphrased version of Lesbia’s speech, never quoting her directly or indirectly as Propertius often does with Cynthia. Likewise, all of these sections of Lesbia’s speech are universally short, with Cynthia having several speeches which are significantly longer than Lesbia’s longest of a mere six lines. It should also be noted that the passage of 83.1-6 is more concerned with her actions than speech.

27 Gavisa est certe sublatam Cynthia legem, qua quondam edicta flemus uterque diu, ni nos divideret: quamvis diducere amantis, non queat invitos Iuppiter ipse duos (It is certain you are glad for the rescinded law, Cynthia, an edict which we lamented for many days, lest it divided us, since Jupiter himself should not separate two lovers). 17

these opinions, as this is not the only time where Cynthia’s speech, as well as her actions, are similar in form to what would be expected of a man in various social settings.

The most familiar of Cynthia’s speech patterns revolves around her most well-known feature, that she is depicted as a demanding, even over-bearing individual who dominates over the amator in their relationship. In fact, the first time Propertius allots her a direct speech is one such example, with five lines in 1.3 dedicated to her accosting Propertius’ late-night antics. This introduction to Cynthia, both in person to her character and to her voice, sets the tone for her relationship with Propertius. This power continues even beyond the grave, incorporating several of the common themes of elegy, such as establishing Propertius firmly in the grips of servitium amoris. Throughout all of her extant speaking lines, either direct, indirect or paraphrased, this is the most dominant theme, with some one hundred and nineteen lines28 presenting her in a position of anger over Propertius, combined with the ability to act on that emotion. Compare this to a, by comparison, paltry thirty-one lines29 where the predominant emotion Cynthia displays is something more amicable to Propertius, and the image of her personality becomes clear. While the anger Cynthia demonstrates in these lines may be something Propertius enjoys, or even allows her to display30 for his pleasure (an aspect of his personality Cynthia may exploit), the fact remains that, within the confines of their relationship, Cynthia’s most prevalent character

28 See Elegies 1.3.35-40; 1.6.7-10; 2.8.16; 2.15.8; 2.26b.24; 2.29b.31-38; 3.6.32-34; 3.23.12-16; 4.7.13-94; and 4.8.73-80.

29 These thirty-one lines alone still provide more direct speech than most other puellae receive in their entirety, however.

302.8a provides a glimpse, however brief, of the kind of violence the amator could threaten Cynthia with, let alone the freedom which the disparity in the pair’s social classes would have provided Propertius in the actual Roman world. Within the confines of a traditional Roman relationship, the amator would have had many means to avoid or stop Cynthia’s ire.

18 trait is her temper. Indeed, the first time the audience is introduced to her by a speaking part, she reveals this in a section of direct speech:

tandem te nostro referens iniuria lecto alterius clausis expulit e foribus? namque ubi longa meae consumpsti tempora noctis, languidus exactis, ei mihi, sideribus? o utinam talis perducas, improbe, noctes, me miseram qualis semper habere iubes! So then, is some other’s insult finally bringing you back to my bed, expelled from some shut doors? Where have you spent the long hours of my night, all spent yourself, now that the stars are all gone? Oh, would that you spend your nights like this one, you bastard, the same that you always force miserable me to endure! 1.3.35-40 Her anger most often stems from some slight, whether real or perceived, through which the amator has wronged her. The most common source of these wrongdoings is infidelity, either charged at the amator or a retort against her own, with laziness (“lente” being a specific, repeated term used to describe him)31 or some improper conduct being a close second. Along with this, the most common form of Cynthia’s retribution seems to be a series of stinging invectives against her partner and the refusal to meet with him, although physical violence was not entirely out of the equation, as 4.8 demonstrates. This reluctance reflects the control which

Roman males held over adulterous partners, with physical violence being legally permissible only in select cases.32 Her dominance in their relationship, however, is well-recognized by

31 Examples can be seen in 2.15.8, dixit ‘sicine, lente, iaces?’ (So, lazy, sleeping again?) and in 3.23.12 irascor, quoniam, lente, moratus heri. (I am angry because yesterday, lazy, you remained away).

32 The Responsa of Julius Paulus discusses these circumstances, that the father is permitted to kill the adulterer only when caught within his premises and in the act, and that, while some leniency should be permittable to the father and husband due to the emotional circumstances, outside of this particular setting, detainment followed by proper legal punishment is preferable. Husbands, for their part, do not have quite as much power, although they are still permitted a fair amount of leeway, even if they technically overstep their legal bounds. Note here that Cynthia in 4.8, while clearly not actually following through and killing the amator, fulfills none of these legal requirements, flying into the home of another and assaulting her partner outside of any actual adultery.

19 scholars33, with Cynthia acting in many ways which would have been expected of a typical

Roman male citizen. Likewise, the amator acts in multiple ways as the submissive partner, degrading himself through his descriptions and through acts which would have been expected of his sexual partners, but would have been socially inappropriate for himself.

The most common of her charges, however, those regarding infidelity, would have been of particular note when placed within the context of Augustan Rome. With the passage of several of the Leges Juliae, more and more aspects of Roman relationships were becoming matters of the public state, with criminal consequences, whereas before they would have remained primarily personal matters, soundly within the family sphere. These laws, among other things, prescribed standards of the age at which various classes of men and women ought to be married, promoted legitimate children to be born out of these marriages, and established punishments for adulterers within them.34 It is important to note here, that the various Augustan moral dictates did not much concern themselves with the status of infames, among which female prostitutes or courtesans were counted (meretrices, likely the closest equivalent Roman social status that exists to

33 Lyne maps the servile status of the amator in his work “Servitium Amoris”. Likewise, Sharrock explores how Cynthia’s presence forms a dominant theme throughout the first book of Propertius’ poetry, and by extension the mind of the amator, which owes a great thanks to the arguments presented within Wyke’s work. For more specific examples, 1.3 provides a perfect case study, as can be seen in Kaufhold’s work “Propertius 1.3: Cynthia Rescripted”, where the difference between the idealized sleeping Cynthia is contrasted with her realistic waking actions. Robinson also addresses this difference between the idealized sleeping Cynthia, heavily inspired by mythological comparisons, and the realistic anger she displays and the fear she inspires in the amator, throughout his work detailing the various literary connections that 1.3 draws upon, “Propertius 1.3: Sleep, Surprise, and Catullus 64”.

34 Livy (Per. 59.8-9) details Augustus repurposing a speech from a Quintus Metellus, to the effect of wanting to persuade everyone to marry and create children. Dio Cassius, in his Historiae Romanae, 56.16.1-2 describes Augustus instituting heavier taxes on unmarried men and women, while also providing incentives for not only marriage but begetting children. Suetonius further writes in his De Vita Caesarum, on Augustus, 34, that the princeps changed existing laws on several topics, such as adultery and chastity, but especially on the encouragement of marriage amongst the various classes. Julius Paulus also addresses these laws in his legal writings, specifying the consequences of adultery under the Leges Juliae. While the exact ages are unknown, Hunter Gardner discusses several inferences which can be drawn, establishing the early twenties for women and the mid-twenties for men.

20 compare Cynthia to).35 Instead they were much more concerned with the production of legitimate heirs, especially those of upper-class citizens.36 As such, her concern with the status of the law seems out of place, as in several of the possibilities it would have had little physical impact on her day to day life. It would have been much more appropriate for the amator to have these concerns, and, as much as a comparison can be drawn between the two, for the poet as well.

However, her jealousy about a rival lover can instead be interpreted as another traditional masculine feature; as the ‘masculine’ partner, she would have been expected to keep a tight rein on her partner’s sexual proclivities.

35 Within the 2006 Brill’s Companion to Propertius, Elaine Fantham shows in her study “The Image of Woman in Propertius’ Poetry” demonstrates the conflicting representation in regards to Cynthia’s social status. While never stating outright what her status was, Propertius describes her in a manner that would have been consistent with a courtesan: Unlike many of the other elegists, he never states that she is married, yet he describes her multiple affairs, often seen (by the amator at least) as fueled by greed. Likewise, 2.32 demonstrates her frequenting common areas for such hook-ups, such as the Portico of Pompey. Furthermore, the amator complains of Cynthia in 2.9.17 at tu non una potuisti nocte vacare (“You cannot be unoccupied for a single night”), however Fanthom notes that the use of the infinitive vacare could be seen to denote a vacancy, as though Cynthia cannot afford even a single night without a business meeting scheduled. Likewise, his rejection of expensive and needy girls in 2.23, although not specifically referencing Cynthia, still draws connections to Horace’s Satires 1.2, where he recommends cheap prostitutes over expensive and demanding mistresses. The slave Lydgamus, in his role as a go-between for the two lovers furthers this depiction, as Propertius openly sends his messenger to Cynthia. These aspects, however, are counter balanced by Cynthia’s education, and her infidelity is at times spoken of in terms reminiscent of marital infidelity, however the latter can be attributed to poetic license. Likewise, the unwillingness of the amator in 2.7 to simply wed Cynthia cannot be taken as an indicator of her status, as it merely reflects the amator’s unwillingness to follow the typical course of life, he simply cannot see himself marrying with two and a half children in the yard, to borrow the American equivalent. These two statuses cannot coexist obviously, so this quirk must be considered a result of Propertius’ crafting of Cynthia’s character: she appears to have the habits and traits of a simple courtesan, but her knowledge is equivalent to that of an upper-class citizen, often displaying knowledge that most Roman women likely would not have been expected to have. Indeed, it seems unlikely that a woman in Augustan Rome would have the education that Cynthia demonstrates, as well as having the freedom to attend to the numerous matters that she does, but this can be attributed to the creation of her character.

36 Hunter H. Gardner, Gendering Time in Augustan Love Elegy, 42-50. Gardner discusses some of these incentives, such as allowing men below the required age to embark on political campaigns, an incentive clearly targeting the upper classes. Likewise these men would be preferred to the unwed (caelibes) and the childless (orbi). Asides from these political disadvantages, the caelibes and orbi faced financial liabilities, particularly in regards to there ability to inherit wealth. Gardner notes however, that it is questionable how much these measures “would affect Roman males who opted out of a senatorial career” (43), beyond the cultural influence that any popular official would have over “the social and personal identities of those who fail to embody, or even reject, those ideals” (44). Propertius, as well as the amator, however, certainly seem to be the kind to actively reject such principles. 21

As an infamis member of society, if indeed she was, she would have had no expectations to marry and produce legitimate heirs. Despite differences in the laws, the same would apply if she were merely a lower class citizen; indeed she would only face real consequences if she were an upper class citizen, whether wed or unwed. Furthermore, with Propertius being unwed, she need not worry about the aspects of the law regarding adultery either, presuming she were unwed as well, so long as he would continue to patronize her. The only threat to this would have been the penalization eligible bachelors faced, which, should the amator wed another, would have faced her with a rival for his time, if not his affections. Even with this fear, however, it seems unlikely that the amator would not have suffered them and been forced into abandoning her with punishments he might reasonably face; and even if he had, Cynthia seemed to have enough suitors to keep from becoming destitute even if she did lose this one.

What would be more expected, however, would be for a member of the Roman upper class to have opinions regarding this, which we’ve already seen Propertius comment on more directly in 2.7.37 With Cynthia acting in this manner, however, she mirrors the concern upper class Roman men were having over the sexual fidelity of her partner, trying to limit his options of rival lovers. While this act may, on the surface, represent her attempting to play the role that

Propertius expects her to, or attempting to ensure his ‘loyalty to the brand’ in regards to her particular line of business, her controlling actions again can also be seen as her stepping soundly into the male sphere.

Whenever Propertius is even perceived to engage in sexual activities outside their relationship, his partner accosts him, at extreme times getting physically violent with him:

37 See note 14. 22

Cynthia gaudet in exuviis victrixque recurrit Et mea perversa sauciat ora manu Imponitque notam collo morsuque cruentat Praecipueque oculos, qui meruere, ferit (Cynthia returns from assaulting some of the amator’s new girlfriends) Cynthia rejoiced in her plunder, returning victorious and smacks my face with her hand, leaves marks on my neck, and draws blood with her biting, and especially goes after my eyes, which deserved it. On the reverse, Cynthia is able to defend herself from the narrator’s own accusations, retorting from a position of power. While they both show concern regarding the sexual practices of their partners, this is something we might expect from Propertius, due to his suddenly much more precarious position as an upper-class man during the reign of Augustus, as well as the typical social norm regarding the role of a Roman man. Cynthia’s concern however, mirrors not only the concern but also the control that married men found themselves trying to exert more and more during this time period.

This legal theme is continued in Cynthia’s accusations, especially those including the slave Lygdamus. In 3.6, Lygdamus returns from one of his trips to Cynthia on the narrator’s behalf, and directly quotes her accusation, which begins with language familiar to a legal charge.38 While Cynthia is referring to the promises made to her by the narrator, referencing punishments alongside the testimony of a slave would have drawn a particular response from the

Roman audience, continuing the image of a court scene. The testimony of slaves was only

38 3.6.19-20 haec te teste mihi promissast, Lygdame, merces? 20est poena et servo rumpere teste fidem. (“Lygdamus, is this the reward he promised for your testimony? There is a penalty to those who perjure, even with the testimony of a slave.”).

23 permitted under torture39, and so mentioning this punishment would have certainly struck a chord with Lygdamus.40

The relationship between Cynthia and Propertius has long been seen as showcasing the subversive nature of elegy in regards to the expected Roman sexual power dynamics. In this reversed dynamic, it is clear that the amator, instead of his partner, is the submissive member of the relationship. Cynthia steps not only into the role of the dominant partner, but her actions and speech go beyond this by reflecting what would be expected of an upper class Roman man. Her freedom to follow whatever sexual choices she wants, the high degree of education she displays, and her concern with legislation designed to disproportionately affect upper class men all reflect actions of hers that would traditionally be expected of men of the upper classes. The irony of her objection in 2.29b.32 is clear, me similem vestris moribus esse putas (“Do you think that I have the same manners as you [men]?”). Certainly, given how Propertius has chosen to present

Cynthia’s actions and words, the audience has no reason to consider her in any way but exactly that.

It should be noted here, that in 2.29b.32, the pronoun vestris could also be construed as a poetic plural, “Do you consider my habits the same as yours, Propertius?” Even when taken this

39 The Pandects (48.18.1) mentions how this process was beginning to be questioned during the time of Augustus, as the veracity of testimony achieved under duress was becoming suspect. However the Princeps still concluded that ‘interrogation’ was still the most effective means of seeking the truth in regards to slaves involves in more serious crimes. The practice is also mentioned in several other works, such as the Annals of Tacitus, who for example mentions it nonchalantly in 14.60, where he describes the process of having the fidelity of Octavia questioned. This involves the capture and torture of all of Octavia’s maid servants, showing that such a crime was still considered serious enough to warrant such procedures.

40 This legal language would have reflected the proper way to deal with adultery under the Leges Juliae, with Julius Paulus describing in 2.26 of his Responsa that the detainment of the adulterer is permitted for one day while witnesses are called and summoned against him. Lygdamus plays the role of the witness here, and the amator himself offers to be retained for a period of time as an act of good faith while Cynthia investigates what has been transpiring within his house. 24 way, however, her speech is instead contrasting her sexual control to Propertius’ promiscuity. As chastity was a virtue expected of a proper Roman male, as part of his masculine self-control, even when taken this way Cynthia still continues to present herself here as having a traditionally masculine attribute compared to Propertius’ lack thereof, continuing her depiction as the ‘man’ of the relationship.

As such, Cynthia, not only in her actions and status within the pseudo-relationship between herself and Propertius acts in a more dominant manner more befitting a man, but also reinforces this characterization in her speech as well. This can be contrasted by Catullus’ Lesbia, who, for her part, enjoys several traditional masculine privileges, such as her promiscuity and status. She does not exercise the typical masculine dominance over the amator, she merely does not allow him to exercise it over her. Cynthia, for her characterization, goes beyond these boundaries, employing even more of a masculine characterization in her speech and actions. By choosing topics that would have been pressing to the men of her age, Propertius as poet gains an appropriate vocalizer for his own opinions, one fit for his inverted world. Where one expects the man to be the dominant partner, to curtail and control his partner’s lifestyle, and to speak regarding social issues, he presents Cynthia in all of these cases. While Propertius as the amator also speaks regarding these issues, that Cynthia is also used as a fitting role for these traditionally masculine acts and opinions would not have been out of place for the course of life envisioned by the elegists outside the expected cursus honorum.

25

Tibullus

Tibullus, uniquely of all the Augustan elegists, attributes no lines to feminine speech throughout the first two books of the Tibullan corpus, which are traditionally ascribed to him.

Neither Delia in book one nor Nemesis in book two ever is shown to speak, directly or indirectly, either to the amator or to someone else; the closest the audience gets to seeing them speak is when the amator describes them speaking, and in doing so gives a hint to what the conversation was generally about.

Both puellae, when they are depicted, are typically shown only in relation to how they affect the amator. While each Augustan elegist presents the actions of his amator (or in

Sulpicia’s case, her amatrix) through that character’s point of view, Tibullus is most direct in this. Throughout the sixteen elegies of books one and two, he almost always keeps the focus on how the amator reacts to any actions, and what he hopes to come out of each situation. Tibullus never truly explores any of the other characters he interacts with to a comparable degree, especially when those characters are puellae figures. This feature is not a typical aspect of

Augustan elegy, as both Propertius and Ovid explore the words and actions of their puellae to varying degrees; even in the poetry of Catullus one can perceive an evolving relationship. Delia and Nemesis however, are even more distant than Lesbia, and certainly the audience receives a fuller representation of Cynthia and Corinna.

When Tibullus does depict interactions between the amator and either puella, the most common scenario is that the amator tells Delia or Nemesis what he expects them to do. This can

26 be seen almost immediately after Delia is introduced to the audience, when the amator begins to imagine how their lives together will look, and more significantly, how she will mourn his loss.

Non ego laudari curo, mea Delia; tecum Dum modo sim, queaso segnis inersque vocer… Flebis et arsuro positum me, Delia, lecto, Tristibus et lacrimis oscula mixta dabis… Tu manes ne laede meos, sed parce solutis Crinibus et teneris, Delia, parce genis (1.1.57-8; 61-2; 67-8) I do not want to be praised, my Delia; only that I should be with you, then I would want to be called lazy and idle…but when I am about to be cremated, you will weep for me, Delia, you will give to me kisses mixed with your mournful tears…but do not harm my soul, spare your unbound hair and soft cheeks, Delia This is the first time Delia is mentioned by name by Tibullus, and the repetition of her name sears it into the audience’s mind in imitation of the way it burns within the amator. Notably, however, they do not receive any actual indication of her, only what the amator hopes will happen. As such, while the audience is made witness to the apparent power Delia has over the mind of the amator, Tibullus affords her no actual agency in the narrative. She is never represented in the act of wielding any of this power; only the effect on the narrator is represented. As such, this discussion is invariably framed through the amator and his perceptions. While it would appear to most of the audience that Delia has a huge impact on the narrator, his apparent passivity masks his overwhelming agency in the narrative. While perhaps both Nemesis and Delia might have had a profound amount of control over the narrator, in how he crafts the narrative, he actively limits the agency the of the two women.

27

This trend continues41, and indeed forms the basis of how the two women are depicted in the majority of their appearances throughout the corpus of Tibullus:

Tu quoque ne timide custodes, Delia, falle. Audendum est: fortes adiuvat ipsa Venus. (1.2.15-16) And you Delia, do not deceive the guards timidly. You should be bold: Venus herself helps the daring. rura colam, frugumque aderit mea Delia custos, area dum messes sole calente teret, aut mihi servabit plenis in lintribus uvas pressaque veloci candida musta pede. consuescet numerare pecus; consuescet amantis garrulus in dominae ludere verna sinu. illa deo sciet agricolae pro vitibus uvam, pro segete spicas, pro grege ferre dapem. illa regat cunctos, illi sint omnia curae: at iuvet in tota me nihil esse domo. huc veniet Messalla meus, cui dulcia poma Delia selectis detrahat arboribus; (1.5.21-32) I will live in the countryside, and my Delia will be there as the custodian of the crops, while the ground sifts the harvest in the scorching sun, or she shall watch over my grapes in overflowing troughs, when the gleaming mush is pressed upon by quick feet. She will learn to count the flock, to teach the talkative little slave boy to play in the lap of a loving mistress. She will know what offering to bring to the god of agriculture; for grapes upon the vine, for heads of grain, and for the flock. She shall rule everyone, everything shall be her concern: it shall please me to be nothing in that household. There will my Messalla be, to him shall Delia pluck sweet fruit from the selected trees o ego, dum3 aspicerem dominam, quam fortiter illic versarem valido pingue bidente solum agricolaeque modo curvum sectarer aratrum, dum subigunt steriles arva serenda boves!

411.2.15, 31-2, 71-4; 1.3.23-4, 29; 1.5.5-8, 21, 31-2; 1.6.85-6; 2.3.50-52.

28

nec quererer quod sol graciles exureret artus, laederet et teneras pussula rupta manus (2.3.5-10) Oh, if only I could gaze upon my mistress (Nemesis), how resolutely I would turn over the fertile soil with my strong pick, and just like a farmer follow the curved plough, while the sterile oxen cultivated the land for sowing! Nor would I complain that the sun burnt my slender limbs, or that broken blisters tore through my tender hands. These passages constitute the amator imagining what will happen to him in the future, along with either puella. Whether that involves him instructing her to some end, or simply picturing some chain of events, there is a distance from the present. This distance in regards to the passage of time only adds to the distance from the audience that Tibullus provides by only depicting them through the mind of the amator. While the audience is told of their agency and the control they exhibit over him, he almost invariably shifts the focus to an idealized future, further reinforcing the distance of their agency.

While this trend is present, there are some exceptions to this general rule. The first exception to this is found within 1.3.9-12, where the amator depicts a concrete action that Delia has done for him in the past.

Delia non usquam quae, me quam mitteret urbe, dicitur ante omnes consuluisse deos. illa sacras pueri sortes ter sustulit: illi rettulit e trinis omina certa puer. Nor is Delia anywhere around, who, after she sent me from the city, it is said, consulted every god. Three times did she lift the sacred lots from the boy, and he returned each time that the omens were certain. Even here Tibullus makes sure to keep Delia’s actions distant from the audience, however, reporting them only via hearsay to the amator. This is one of the more detailed descriptions of

Delia’s activities, yet almost immediately after it, the amator returns to speaking of himself and how these actions affected him.

29

The next exception comes soon thereafter, where Tibullus depicts concretely the conundrum of Delia’s infidelity (1.6.5-8).

nam mihi tenduntur casses; iam Delia furtim nescio quem tacita callida nocte fovet. illa quidem iurata negat, sed credere durum est: Now the trap is laid for me, now in the silent night. cunning Delia furtively takes someone, I know not whom. She denies it, and even with an oath, but it is hard to believe her. This is likely the most tangible representation of Delia the audience is able to perceive, with

Tibullus details several actions as happening both directly to the amator as well as several that are likely to happen to others. However, the fact that the topic for this elegy is how this infidelity affects the men in these relationships, and what they should do about it, should not be lost, as the focus is still on the male in these various relationships. Immediately after this brief passage,

Tibullus returns to detailing how the amator handles seeing his own talents for love turned against him, and then has him begin to formulate a plan with her husband. Even Delia’s mother is included in these proceedings, but the woman herself is only briefly addressed once more

(1.6.55), and even then in a roundabout manner. That the most direct depiction of Delia throughout the works of Tibullus should be surrounded by those who would have tried to exert their control over her would be no coincidence. Here is perhaps the most direct example the audience sees of her agency in action, and it is surrounded by other characters attempting to limit this.

Tibullus follows the typical elegiac convention of asserting that the amator is so helplessly in love with the puella that she is able to exert almost complete control over him, yet he distances the amator from this control as much as possible. Tibullus clearly shows the amator as being firmly within the grips of ‘servitium amoris’, both with Delia and Nemesis. With each

30 puella, however, this power is never directly shown to be wielded by either woman. In regards to

Delia, the amator calls for this status to be given to him; nowhere does Delia directly impose it upon him.

ure ferum et torque, libeat ne dicere quicquam magnificum post haec; horrida verba doma. (1.5.5-6) Bring shackles and bonds, so that I may not be free to speak loudly whatsoever after this, subdue my horrid words. Notably here does the amator directly order Delia to do so, utilizing several imperative statements; while the audience is still being shown an image of the amator submitting completely to his puella’s desires, the amator is still the one exercising agency in the exchange.

Again with Nemesis, Tibullus removes her from having the final say in the servitude of the amator, instead focusing on how the amator feels when faced with his situation.

Hic mihi servitium video dominamque paratam: iam mihi, libertas illa paterna, vale. servitium sed triste datur, teneorque catenis, et numquam misero vincla remittit Amor, et seu quid merui seu nil peccavimus, urit. uror, io, remove, saeva puella, faces. (2.4.1-6) Now I perceive slavery and my prepared mistress waiting for me: Now goodbye my ancestral freedom. Sad slavery is given to me, I am held by chains and Love never relaxes his prisoner’s bonds, and burns me whether I deserve it or not. Oh, how I am burned! Cruel girl, remove the torches. Nowhere does he represent Nemesis doing anything to actually exert any type of pain over him; it is all by his own hand or the figure of Love himself that this comes. This is only reinforced by the number of passive verbs used throughout the passage, which again closes with the amator giving the puella a direct order. As with Delia, the audience is only told of the influence the

31 puella has over the amator, while he is the primary one exercising agency throughout the passage (with Love also exerting agency and influence over him).

One notable exception to this trend as it applies to puellae can be seen within the

Marathus cycle however. Here Tibullus presents the amator in a pederastic relationship with a young man named Marathus.

Tibullus allots Marathus a lengthy passage where he directly quotes his male lover.42 For eleven lines he provides the young man a direct outlet to air his grievances to the audience. This stands in stark contrast to the absolute dearth of such speech allotted to the female characters.

Within this passage, however, Marathus is not depicted in his role as the object of the affection of the amator, but rather in experiencing his own heartbreaks at the hand of some other woman.

In this regard then, he himself is acting in many ways as another amator, in this specific example experiencing the hardship of his puella playing hard to get. This is a common trope that the elegists depict their respective amatores going through, and so would be something that the narrator could easily relate to himself. As usual, we do not see how the puella that Marathus has fallen for reacts to any of this, only the way the male partner experiences the emotions of his relationship.

42 1.8.55-66, “quid me spernis?” ait. “poterat custodia vinci: ipse dedit cupidis fallere posse deus. nota venus furtiva mihi est, ut lenis agatur spiritus, ut nec dent oscula rapta sonum; et possum media quamvis obrepere nocte et strepitu nullo clam reserare fores. quid prosunt artes, miserum si spernit amantem et fugit ex ipso saeva puella toro? vel cum promittit, subito sed perfida fallit, et mihi nox multis est vigilanda malis. dum mihi venturam fingo, quodcumque movetur, illius credo tunc sonuisse pedes.” (‘Why do you spurn me?’ he said, ‘The guard could have been tricked, the god himself gives lovers the power to evade. Secret love is known to me, like how soft breath might be drawn, or how a seized kiss might give no sound. I am able to sneak up in the midst of night and stealthily unlock a door without a sound. But what use are these skills if a cruel girl spurns her miserable lover and flees from her bed? Or when she calls, but, perfidious, then deceives, my night becomes a vigil of many sorrows. And while I imagine her coming to me, everything that moves, I think to be the sound of her footsteps’). 32

In Marathus’ role as the object of affection for the amator, he functions in many of the same ways as the puellae. Only brief mentions are given to what Marathus has done to harm the amator, but the amator explains both his own emotions and what he hopes will happen to both himself and Marathus in great detail, which compromises the majority of the elegy.

With all of the love interests in the corpus of Tibullus, the agency remains firmly in the male partner, no matter the amount of infatuation they experience for their loves. While the amator is firmly within the thrall of both Delia and Nemesis, this servitium is presented as originating within his mind and influencing his fantasies. This aspect plays a key role in the fantasies of Tibullus’ amator, as, while other poet’s amatores may present themselves as in a similar situation, they do not reflect the same imbalance of agency as Tibullus. Propertius, for example, allots Cynthia agency and depicts her exercising this influence directly over his amator, while Ovid handles the topic in a much more rhetorical method than the others. Tibullus then stands apart from the others by presenting the puellae of his corpus as having so much power, while doing so little to showcase it. This situation then, paradoxically, seems to present at first glance a male lover completely enthralled by the powers of his puellae. However, by denying the audience any direct depictions of this being exercised, the narrator actually retains this agency throughout the narrative, in spite of how he himself might feel.

33

Ovid

Ovid, for his part, continues many of the trends established by the previous elegists, although he of course combines them into a form unique to his own hand. As with Catullus and

Propertius, Ovid introduces elements of feminine speech into his works to which the amator reacts. Although he does not utilize female speech as extensively as Propertius, Ovid is much more willing than some of his predecessors, such as Tibullus, to give women a voice in his works.43 This willingness is most evident in his Heroides, an entire work consisting primarily of the speech of aggrieved mythological women. Such a work was, in Ovid’s own terms, an entirely new genre; Vel tibi composita cantetur Epistola voce: Ignotum hoc aliis ille novavit opus.44 Ovid, however, also incorporates more veristic feminine speech into his other elegies, such as the

Amores. Throughout this work, he devotes a total of 101 lines to feminine discourse, all but one directly quoted, with the most frequent source being Ovid’s most prominent puella, Corinna, who is the speaker of six of a total eight individual instances. Corinna however only contributes

9 lines to this total, with the most prominent being a particular old woman (quaedam anus) by the name of Dipsas, who has a lengthy discourse of 86 lines. The final six are a mythological reference to Ilia.

43 Tibullus, for example, allots Delia no such voice throughout his Corpus.

44 “Or let a letter (i.e. one of the Heroides) be read to you in a composed voice: He (Ovid) made this work, unknown to others” (Ars Amatoria 3.345-6). It should be noted that the key verb of this sentence, novavit, could be construed as either ‘to make anew’ or instead ‘to renew’, which could be a tongue in cheek reference to previous works, such as some of Propertius’ elegies that are similarly lengthy letters from the voice of a woman to her love, such as 4.3. Regardless of Ovid’s intent here, credit is due to him if for nothing else as to attempt to revitalize such a minor aspect of the genre on such a scale as his Heroides. 34

In addition to this, although Ovid may never portray in any manner the speech of the puellae, it is possible in some cases to infer what she might have said. This typically comes in the form of the amator addressing the puella and mentioning the issues she has raised. Although the audience never is directly exposed to the puella in these instances, it is possible to glean what she might have been generally speaking about. An example of this can be found in Amores 2.7, where the amator defends himself from a multitude of charges of infidelity from Corinna, most aptly in regards to his affair with her maid Cypassis.

Within this style, even more of the focus is placed on the amator, as he is able now to present the conversation even more exclusively through his point of view. Whereas this focus might have previously been seen through the overshadowing of the feminine voice by the amator, and by distancing the sources from which that voice comes to the audience, as can be seen in the depiction of Lesbia by Catullus, here Ovid completely replaces the voice of Corinna with that of the male amator:

Ecce novum crimen! sollers ornare Cypassis obicitur dominae contemerasse torum (Am. 2.7.18-19) And look now, another new crime! Deft Cypassis, who helps adorn you, is thrown at me, accused of defiling the bed of her mistress. The effect is similar to a comedy routine in which an actor converses with an unseen person

(here, Corinna) using a prop telephone.

When the various puellae in the Amores do speak, however, there is one overarching element which the audience must keep in mind, the most prominent of all the examples of feminine speech within the Amores. This is Dipsas’ speech, prominently placed at the middle of book one of the Amores, 1.8. Throughout Dipsas’ speech, spoken in – what she believes to be – secrecy to Corinna, the older woman instructs the puella in detail regarding how she should act

35 so that she might more completely control the affections of the amator, in order to garner the most rewards out of him. In many ways, this speech sets forth a stereotype of the elegiac puellae, including such actions as feigned anger and ways to elicit jealousy among her various suitors, always with the goal of garnering the greatest number of gifts and prizes. This advice Corinna apparently takes to heart, as a mere 2 poems later, Ovid laments that she has now begun to ask explicitly for favors (munera) from him, a role classic to the amator (decrying that his puella is now corrupted by greed).45

Corinna, for her part, fulfills many of the typical roles of the puella as the character has been developed within the norms of elegy: flirting just out of reach of the amator (Am.2.2.5,7) encouraging his advances and so that he will desire her when she is absent (Am. 2.11.30), and chastising him when he fails to meet her expectations (Am. 3.7.77-80). These general situations are nothing new, as both Lesbia and Cynthia perform and speak in the same manner, however the situations that introduce them are unique. As James points out46 this template is common to multiple puellae and encompasses many of the standard interactions they have with the amator, with both Ovid (via Dipsas) and Propertius (via Acanthis in 4.5) outright describing many of the same stereotypical behaviors.

For example, one of the most circumstances in which an elegist introduces feminine speech is when a woman is angry with them, particularly when their puella is developed enough

45 2.10.9-11: Nunc timor omnis abest, animique resanuit error, nec facies oculos iam capit ista meos. cur sim mutatus, quaeris? quia munera poscis. (“Now my fear [that Jove might take you from me] is away from me entirely, and the wandering of my heart is healed, nor does your charm captivate my eyes. Why am I changed, you ask? Because you seek rewards.”).

46 James, “Ipsa Dixerat” 317.

36 to bring an accusation of adultery.47 Corinna is no different, and her chastisement in Amores 3.7 includes such an accusation at the end. However, the situation is much more explicit than the vagaries Catullus uses to describe Lesbia, and much more-light hearted than the tone in which

Propertius speaks of Cynthia’s rage. Rather than, as Cynthia is wont to do, jumping to this response without even hearing her lover’s side of the story:48

quid me ludis?” ait, “quis te, male sane, iubebat invitum nostro ponere membra toro? aut te traiectis Aeaea venefica lanis devovet, aut alio lassus amore venis (Am. 3.7.77-80) She exclaimed, ‘Why do you mock me? Who asked you, all out of your mind and unwilling, to place that member of yours in my bed? Either some witch, a new Circe has hexed you with a voodoo doll, or you come here exhausted from some other love Corinna’s reaction comes spontaneously from a particularly bad showing by Ovid in bed:

nec potui cupiens, pariter cupiente puella, inguinis effeti parte iuvante frui (Am. 3.7.5-6) And, although I was desiring her, and she was no less wanting me, I was unable to use that relevant part of my limp groin This lighter, more comedic situation is commonplace throughout Ovid’s work, and the situations

Corinna is presented in contribute much to this tone. Amores 1.4 is one of the most well-known examples of these kinds of comedic scenes, one of the two main attributes attributed to Ovid’s

Amores, the other perhaps being the promiscuity of the amator, exemplified by 1.15. Am.1.4, for its part, is also a prime example of how Ovid uses detailed descriptions of the actions of Corinna instead of her speech to define her character and her interaction with the amator. This use of

47 Catullus’ Carmina 83.1 and 92.1 in general, and Propertius Elegies 1.6.7-10, 2.8.16, 2.9a.31, 2.15.8, 2.29b.31-38, and 4.7.13-94 with a specific charge, among others, are prime examples of both levels of this in previous elegists.

48 Note that while this charge contains a standard charge of infidelity and laziness, the tone is completely different to the earlier elegists, such as the tone that Cynthia accuses Propertius’ amator with.

37 descriptions regarding the actions of the puellae is common as well, as Ovid is much more prone to describing the amator and the actions of Corinna than her words, as compared to Propertius with

Cynthia, as can be seen throughout 2.7, where the various ways she accuses the amator and his rebuttals take the majority of the focus.

All of Corinna’s actions, however, must be examined within the context of Dipsas’ instructions to her in the first book. Indeed, it is not until the beginning of the second book of the

Amores that Corinna has her first directly quoted speech. In contrast to this, Dipsas’ speech takes the majority of 1.8, which itself is prominently placed directly in the middle of the first book.

Furthermore, Dipsas’ lines are unique to women throughout elegy, as, firstly, she is not a puella figure; at best, due to her age and apparent knowledge of the subject, she could have once been a young courtesan, who has since grown too old to continue plying that trade. Compare this placement within the larger corpus to that of Propertius: While both poets include lenae in their works who instruct the puella, Propertius includes his revelation in the middle of his fourth book of elegies. Again, the particular elegy is prominently placed in the middle of the book, however

Propertius withholds this revelation until after three books where his amator and Cynthia are depicted as perhaps having a legitimate relationship, which is suddenly called into question. Ovid, however, introduces this question at the beginning of his work; the audience has no need to go back and re-examine his earlier verses as with Propertius. Ovid however makes this doubt a programmatic element of his elegies, immediately planting a seed of doubt regarding the motives of the puellae.49

49 See O’Neill for an examination of the evidence that Propertius’ work comes prior to Ovid’s, and therefor the latter’s is an educated imitation and response to the formers.

38

This attribution of a lengthy speech to a lena is somewhat unique, as typically the other women depicted in the Augustan elegies (disregarding the longer, more stylized speeches or epistles, and the mythological episodes) are either the puellae that the amator is yearning for, or some lower rank woman, clearly the target of contempt (as is the case with some of Catullus’ interactions). Even the amator in Propertius 4.5, the most direct comparison, curses the spirit of

Acanthis, rejoicing that he lived long enough to see her die, and offering sacrifices to Venus for that gift, and calling all other lovers to desecrate her grave.50 The most disparaging that Ovid treats her, however, is with terms that are merely descriptory: he refers to her as a lena (a procuress), and as anus (an old woman), as well as rugosa (wrinkled).51 These terms, while perhaps doing nothing to flatter Dipsas, do not themselves bring with them any exceptionally harsh personal judgement; other than his inference that Dipsas is a lena52 (which, given he recognizes her, could also be based upon his knowledge) the terms used to describe her are statements of physical fact.53

50 Prop. 4.5.67-9; 77-8: vidi ego rugoso tussim concrescere collo, sputaque per dentes ire cruenta cavos, atque animam in tegetes putrem exspirare paternas …quisquis amas, scabris hoc bustum caedite saxis, mixtaque cum saxis addite verba mala! (“I myself saw the coughing congealing in her throat, and the bloody spittle dripping through her rotten teeth, and that she drew her last putrid breath in old rags… And all you who love, pelt this grave with jagged stones, and and with the stones, toss your curses too!”). Note the dramatic difference in how the amator reacts to the actions and perceived injury caused by Acanthis in comparison to anything that Cynthia ever did to him.

51 Compare this to some of the terms which Catullus uses to refer to similar low-class women, such as moecha turpis (Carmen 42.3), “an ugly whore.”

52And even with this, prostitution was at least a legal business within Rome, even if it contained some common stereotypes for those who were involved with it. One such is the greediness of a pimp or procuress, which Dipsas apparently follows as well. His descriptions of her as both a witch and lena do not negate any societal reaction that both professions would garner among a typical Roman audience. However, this description is presented as a dispassionate listing of facts; unlike his predecessors, the amator refrains from adding any of his personal judgements to these.

53 The amator also describes her as having many of the typical powers of a witch, such as changing the weather (cum voluit, toto glomerantur nubila caelo; cum voluit, puro fulget in orbe dies; “When she wishes it, the clouds are gathered over all the sky; when she wills it, day shines in a clear sky) and changing her shape as well (hanc ego nocturnas versam volitare per umbras suspicor et pluma corpus anile tegi; “I suspect that she, having changed, flies through the shadowy night, with feathers covering her old body”). These are the most depreciatory statements the amator makes regarding Dipsas, and even these are supposedly based on his eye witness account, and his tone maintains the fearful respect and regard Romans had for magic and its practitioners. 39

Beyond this, however, Dipsas’ speech along with that of Acanthis are unique in how aware they are of the role of the puella. This is well crafted into the speech of Dipsas as an attempt to ensure that she herself is able to receive some of the gifts, but still her advice almost perfectly describes the general outline that all the elegiac puella take part in. While the specifics may change depending on the specific intentions of the poet, the major points still ring strikingly true. Unlike

Cynthia, however, the various puellae that Ovid’s amator encounter do not differ from this norm, and his amator as well seems exceedingly aware of this, as evidenced by the prominent placement of this revelation within the Amores. Again, unlike the amator of Propertius, the amator of Ovid does not have a lengthy affair with Corinna before having this revelation, causing both him and the audience to re-evaluate everything which happened prior. Instead this revelation happens almost immediately, informing their actions going forward through the numerous hook-ups the Ovid’s amator experiences. Her first piece of advice,

decet alba quidem pudor ora, sed iste, si simules, prodest; verus obesse solet (1.8.35-36) A blush looks good on a pale face, but one that you fake works best, the real one is often harmful. echoes many of the false responses the puellae give to their loves. She continues, advising her to be selective when she permits a suitor to see her,

saepe nega noctes. capitis modo finge dolorem,

et modo, quae causas praebeat, Isis erit. (1.8.73-74) Often deny your nights. Feign a headache now and then, and then let Isis be what provides you an excuse She continues on with the importance of showing her anger from time to time:

et, quasi laesa prior, nonnumquam irascere laeso—

40

vanescit culpa culpa repensa tua. sed numquam dederis spatiosum tempus in iram; saepe simultates ira morata facit (1.8.79-82) And, as if hurt before, be angry with him, who is actually hurt – fault, having been returned by your fault, vanishes. But you should not give a spacious time to your anger; lingering anger often makes copies Dipsas concludes by ensuring that not only the puella foster several loves, but also encouraging them to all act as rivals against each other,

Ne securus amet nullo rivale, caveto;

non bene, si tollas proelia, durat amor. (1.8.95-6) And do not let him love, secure, without a rival, and let him beware; love endures not well, if you should take away the battles. This especially rings true with Propertius describing himself as a soldier on the battlefield of love.

This reflects a key aspect of how dangerous Dipsas’ speech truly is to the amator: she understands the stereotypical rhetoric of the amator well enough to use it for her own ends. For example, one can see her advice to put a lover who brings a charge on the defensive (79-82) used right from the onset by the amator himself in 2.7:

Ergo sufficiam reus in nova crimina semper? ut vincam, totiens dimicuisse piget (2.7.1-2) So, am I always going to be the defendant for new crimes? Even when I prevail, it pains me to always have to defend myself so.

Indeed, all of her advice is either specifically adapted to counter, or directly adapted from, the arguments of the amatores. Even when fulfilling the stereotypes of a lena and puellae in the elegiac genre, Dipsas provides an unsettling (at least to the amator) examination of the methods and motives of the men of elegy as well.54

54 Gross, “Whose Amatory Rhetoric?” 41

Dipsas lays both characters’ stereotypical traits out plainly for the audience, and throughout the Amores the puellae fulfill these, when they are given speaking roles. As mentioned earlier, the amator decries the apparent greed exhibited by his puella a mere two elegies after Dipsas’ speech, however throughout the Amores the women the amator interacts with display these stereotypical actions of the puellae. They flirt with the amator and encourage his affections:

et mihi blanditias dixit dominumque vocavit, et quae praeterea publica verba iuvant (3.7.11-12) And she said sweet things to me, and called me master, and all the words which usually help However, these encouragements are always tempered by the reminder that the amator has other rivals for the attention of the puella:

rescripsit trepida “non licet!” illa manu; et, cur non liceat, quaerenti reddita causa est, quod nimium dominae cura molesta tua est… vir quoque non sapiens; quid enim servare laboret, unde nihil, quamvis non tueare, perit? (2.2.5-7; 11-12) She wrote back to me, ‘it’s not possible!’ and when I asked why not, she gave this cause, that your guarding of your mistress was too strict…But her man is a fool; for why should you labor to preserve something when, should you not do so, nothing would be lost? Ovid therefore, can be seen as being more up front to the conventions of elegy in general, and this can be seen in the speech of his female characters. Dipsas plays a large part in this, and, while the general theme of the scene can be seen as being inspired by Propertius, Ovid adapts the scene into a programmatic element of his Amores. Dipsas lays clear the motives and methods of both the puellae and amatores, while also affirming that both sets of characters will abide by the conventions of the genre. The amator, witnessing this, fulfills the convention of cursing Dipsas, as

42 established by Propertius, however his handling of her is in general much less vitriolic than

Propertius’ handling of Acanthis, bordering on disapproving bemusement.

This tone undercuts much of Ovid’s handling of his subject matter, and this can be seen in his feminine speech as well. While the lines spoken in any method by a woman conform to the conventions of their character, the situations and specific methods they utilize are in general much more comedic as well. In addition to this, Ovid undercuts the agency of his puellae by not focusing on their actions, but the manner he does this is fairly unique among the elegists. As opposed to

Propertius and Tibullus, Ovid focused much more on the physical anatomy of Corinna, and the reaction her appearance garners in the amator. This, combined with the comedic element, combines to give the puella a more veristic nature, as Ovid describes her features in such detail, and such specific scenarios, that the audience cannot help but feel that they come from experience.

However, as with Tibullus, throughout these scenes, Ovid removes from her the agency of the action, transferring the control of the narration to the amator.

For example, Am. 1.4 focuses on Corinna’s loss of hair from over using hair products.

Strikingly he begins the elegy:

Dicebam “medicare tuos desiste capillos!” (1.14.1) I used to say, “stop drugging your hair!” While a humorous image, the first person of the opening word of the elegy details both the narrator’s ‘I told you so’ tone, as well as reinforcing the fact that his words form the basis for the description. As with the other elegists, Corinna here is not afforded a space within the elegy to present her own emotions, whether he lamentations or a defense, it is all based within the amator.

He continues:

clamabam: “scelus est istos, scelus urere crines!

43

sponte decent; capiti, ferrea, parce tuo! vim procul hinc remove! non est, qui debeat uri; erudit admotas ipse capillus acus. I used to shout, “It’s wrong, it’s wrong to burn those locks! They are enough by themselves; iron-hearted, spare your own head! Away from there this instant! That is not something which ought to be burned; those locks could teach those very irons! Again the narrator reinforces his agency in the narration, giving himself control of the narrative agency, even though Corinna is the one physically doing the actions of dying and curling her hair.

Ovid’s focus on Corinna’s physical appearance does not rely only upon the comedic, however, as the poet continues to focus on her appearance even in more serious tones. Throughout Am.2.14,

Ovid details Corinna’s nearly disastrous consequences after an abortion attempt. This description, however, focuses almost solely on the woman’s physical state, and the emotional state of the amator. As with the story about her hair styling, nowhere is she given the agency in the narrative to recount her own actions, although the action was obviously undertaken by Corinna. Even Am. 1.5, one of the most popular of the Amores, can be see as merely reducing Corinna to a catalogue of body parts pleasing to the amator (although, strikingly, a description of her head or face is among these).55

55 James, Learned Girls and Male Persuasion, 166.

44

Sulpicia

Sulpicia stands at a unique junction within the realm of the Augustan elegists, being the only female poet from this time period. There has been ongoing debate on the actual origin of the works traditionally ascribed to Sulpicia, (ten elegies which survived within the third book of

Tibullus’ corpus) with scholars asserting that some, all, or even none of the works56 were penned by Sulpicia. Furthermore, until relatively recently,57 it can be said that her poetry did not receive a serious examination, considered well beneath the other Augustan elegists. Despite these and multiple other debates that Sulpicia raises in modern scholarship,58 it suffices for the current discussion that they were written from the perspective of a woman, no matter the gender of the author. Certainly a female poet would bring a different set of experiences than a male poet would, which would influence her particular usage of feminine voice. However, this influence is beyond the scope of this examination.

56 On the one end of the spetrum lie the often feminist interpretations of Sulpicia, which can be see within the works of scholars such as Hallet, “Women as Same and Other in Roman Elite”; Flaschenriem, "Sulpicia and the Rhetoric of Disclosure," and Wyke, "Taking the Woman's Part.” On the opposite end of the spectrum can be seen in the works of Habinek, The Politics of Latin Literature, Holzberg, "Four Poets and a Poetess”; and Hubbard, "The Sulpicia Cycle as Epithalamic Dedication."

57 The change in the critical evaluation can be traced back to Santirocco. Before him, the previous consensus was that her works were typically to be interpreted through the lens of a well-meaning amateur, rather than a skilled poet.

58 See the introduction of Keith for a brief examination of several of the developing trends in how Sulpicia is viewed. 45

While these works may struggle at times with how to handle the reversal of conventions that the inverted gender of the narrator brings, they still try to adhere to the standard style and conventions of the other Elegists, especially Tibullus. This can be compared to an alternative sub-genre such as the epistles as created by Propertius and Ovid, which also were written with a female point of view for the narrator, although the author for these works is certainly male.

These two factors alone place the elegies of Sulpicia in a unique position, in addition to the content they provide.

With this inversion in mind, the methodology used to examine the previous elegies up to this point can stumble a bit. On the one hand, it can be said that every line of Sulpicia’s corpus deals with and represents feminine speech, due to the gender of the narrator. On the other, insofar as the narrator fulfills the standard role of the amator, Cerinthus then fulfills the traditional role of the puella, or in more general terms the love interest, and his words would then fulfill this typical role. When viewed this way, the narrator’s love interest is given no actual chance to speak himself, in much the same way that Tibullus affords no such opportunity to

Delia or Nemesis. Both aspects will be examined.

Throughout her elegies, the narrator, although female, ‘Sulpicia’, as her character within the elegies, demonstrates varyingly characteristics of both the amator figure, and the puella

(henceforth referred to as amatrix to denote the narrator’s persona). In addition to this, her unique status allows the audience to see a female character interact with someone outside of the confines of her relationship with an amator. While the other elegists depict women interacting with people other than their amator, the interactions are typically influenced by their relationship in one way or another (either in a situation created by him, or seeking some end from him),

46 whereas the amatrix within Sulpicia’s corpus, although heavily influenced by her relationship with Cerinthus, does not always do so.

An example of this can be seen within 3.14, in which the amatrix addresses her uncle

Messalla, lamenting her journey away from Rome, and more importantly Cerinthus, during her birthday. As is typical within elegy, this dilemma has a happy conclusion immediately within the next elegy, 3.15, where the amatrix happily tells the change in plans to her lover and friends.

While this general trend is nothing new59, with the two poems taken chronologically presenting a plan to undergo a trip, some unforeseen time between the two, and then a change in plans, it is not impossible to note a cause and effect relationship between the two as well.

The various rhetorical strategies of 3.14 have been noted previously60, and when taken this way, one can see the change of heart her various arguments seem to have on Messalla, who, although his response is not given, can be assumed to have relented by the reaction of the amatrix. This is the key difference between these twin elegies and those that influenced it, where the audience is able to infer the influence of the amatrix on men other than the amator to adjust her fate. Indeed, when viewed this way, the amatrix is importantly shown to be a able to persuade a man that she does not have a romantic relationship with, something that none of the other elegiac puellae seem to have.

In regards to her romantic relationship with Cerinthus, however, the amatrix can be seen at times performing roles expected of both the amator and the puella. When examining the

59 Note the same with Propertius 1.8a and 1.8b, with Cynthia planning to take a distant journey, only to be immediately cancelled. Tibullus, with his influence on Sulpicia, handles the same topic in 1.5, detailing the amator’s separation from Delia. Like the others, this separation is resolved in the subsequent elegy, although this reunion is far from happy in this instance.

60 Santirocco, “Sulpicia Reconsidered” 232. 47 character archetypes designed from the earlier elegists, the amator typically finds himself helplessly in love with a beautiful woman, who is able to manipulate him using various means.

The puella then finds herself as the controlling partner of the relationship, using one of several methods to string along his affections and to inflict varying degrees of embarrassments upon him, which are made only more stinging due to the divide in their social status. Throughout the poems which she addresses her lover, the narrator fulfills both of these roles to varying degrees depending on the instance.

Insofar as the amatrix acts in a manner similar to the stereotypical amator, she can be seen falling into several of the archetypal pitfalls. Sulpicia depicts the narrator as being hopelessly in love with her partner, Cerinthus, using language which would be right at home spoken by a male amator:

uror ego ante alias. iuvat hoc, Cerinthe, quod uror, si tibi de nobis mutuus ignis adest (3.11.5-6) I am burnt before all others, but what burns pleases me, Cerinthus, so long as the same fire is in you as in me The narrator already knows that there is nothing which can abate this, and she can only hope that her affections will be returned in earnest. Likewise 3.17 can be seen as a clever allegorical representation of a fewer of passion instead of disease that burns within the amatrix, and instead of seeking medical care, she instead wishes to see confirmation that Cerinthus returns such a passionate love for her as well. She finds herself threatened with being drawn away from this love interest by circumstances out of her control, and typically due to the standard proscribed course of life that elegy so often pits itself against. Then, after much pleading, the lover is

48 thankfully reunited with their love interest, without ever having left.61 And, perhaps most universally, the amator faces the infidelity of their love and must decide how to address the fact that he (she in Sulpicia’s corpus) cannot be their only partner:

sit tibi cura togae potior pressumque quasillo scortum quam Servi filia Sulpicia: solliciti sunt pro nobis, quibus ilia doloris, ne cedam ignoto, maxima causa, toro (3.16.3-6) A toga and whore, carrying a basket, may be more worthy of your care than the daughter of Servius, Sulpicia. But they are worried on my behalf, to whom the greatest cause of grief is that I might lie on an unworthy bed. All of these situations are certainly more characteristic of an amator than a puella, insofar as many of the affections of many of the other puellae are at least questioned, as well as the authenticity of their actions. It is typically the puellae who are permitted to have relationships outside that of the one with the amator due to his powerlessness. Furthermore, if the amator also engages in these relations, he is almost certainly punished in some manner as soon as she finds out (as Cynthia does within the corpus of Propertius), so he must strive to keep them as long as possible secret (as Ovid does). When the narrator of 3.16 faces this situation, her only course of action is to consider staying away from Cerinthus for a while, a threat which, just like any other amator, she knows she cannot continue long.

However, the narrator does not always describe herself as the mostly powerless lover than many of the other amatores are, despite her lovestruck nature. She does threaten some degree of pain upon Cerinthus, or at least some means by which she can make him cry.62 While

61 As mentioned earlier, the entirety of 3.14 and 3.15 detail the inception, resolution, and aftermath of this problem.

62 3.10.15-18: pone metum, Cerinthe; deus non laedit amantes. tu modo semper ama; salva puella tibi est nil opus est fletu; lacrimis erit aptius uti, si quando fuerit tristior illa tibi (Put away fear, Cerinthus, God does not harm 49 this is not unheard of from the male amatores, as even Propertius, the elegist who displays the power of the puella in the most concrete manner, still allows his amator the briefest opportunity to threaten her with a murder-suicide when finally pushed too far by Cynthia’s infidelity:

sed non effugies: mecum moriaris oportet; hoc eodem ferro stillet uterque cruor (2.8.25-26) But you will not escape, you will die with me; both our blood will drip from this sword. However, threats such as these are certainly something more likely to come from the mouth of a puella who makes use of her power over her lover, especially with the context of their conversation where she seeks to encourage him to look after her. Likewise, even though she admits to her uncontrollable desire for Cerinthus, the narrator is able to, at least briefly, deny him from seeing her, no matter how much she might personally enjoy their meeting.63 This again is something that one would expect from a puella, trying to encourage stronger affections from an amator. She admits to encouraging him thus, in much the same manner as the puellae encourage the male elegists to continue their poetry, wishing for them to utter their love aloud so that she might hear.64 Furthermore, her invectives within 3.10 can be argued to contain carefully veiled insults as regards to the social class of Cerinthus, a typical combination of archetypes of both the amator and the puella.65

lovers. Always love her, and your girl is safe. There is no use for weeping, it will be better to use tears if she is ever angry at you).

63 3.18 shows this. Although she speaks of her regret at the decision, this elegy shows that the narrator is in fact able to go against her physical impulses. What the elegy does not detail is the original reasoning for her decision.

64 3.11.17-18: optat idem iuvenis quod nos, sed tectius optat; nam pudet haec illum dicere verba palam. (The young man desires the same as me [i.e. the relationship], but desires to stay concealed, for it is shameful for him to say the words aloud).

65 Santirocco (233) notes that the entire elegy revolves around the contrast of cadam within the first couplet and cedam within the last, detailing the difference between falling in love, and then out of favor, although who is doing what is debatable. The multiple references to the low class of Cerinthus’ new girlfriend (togae, pressum 50

The audience, however, never gets a chance to hear these words, as Sulpicia reports none of Cerinthus’ speech. Just like Tibullus, her focus is almost universally on how the narrator responds to the various events which happen to her. While the audience can perceive some of

Cerinthus’ words or actions by examining the words and actions of the narrator, the focus is still almost exclusively placed on the emotions of the narrator. And, just as with the amator of

Tibullus, whenever any of these other agents do force a response out of her, whether it be

Cerinthus, Messalla, or some other, the focus quickly changes back to the narrator’s response to these events.

As such, the focus always remains on the narrator, as with the other elegies, however, the unique status as a woman affords the amatrix an equally unique position. As with her predecessor Tibullus, Sulpicia keeps the agency of the relationship firmly in the realm of her narrator; just likeTibullus’ amator, no matter how much Sulpicia’s amatrix is infatuated and tormented by Cerinthus, the poet does nothing to show his deeds in action. This style clearly shows the influence of her predecessor, and Sulpicia tries to adhere to the conventions of the genre as much as possible. However, under this veneer one can see the unique manner in which the inverted genre of her narrator combines with these conventions. Her narrator, while presenting herself in as much the same manner as the other amatores as she is able, still manages to introduce elements into her speech which belies the power she still maintains throughout her relationships. At varying times the amatrix displays elements reminiscent of both the previous

quasillo, and scortum) are starkly contrasted with a bold reminder of Sulpicia’s own aristocratic lineage (Servi filia Sulpicia). Furthermore, Sulpicia cleverly includes a potential reference to Cerinthus’ own status, ignoto toro, in which she questions the worthiness of his bed now. In addition to this, if the solliciti mentioned are rival lovers, she proclaims her own ability to find someone new as well. In this passage one sees the male amator shamed for his love affairs and the difference in status between the puella and himself, however here it is the puella who is from the higher class, as well as the typical induction of jealousy in rivals. This concern with the different reputation of the two lovers can be seen again in 3.13.10: cum digno digna fuisse ferar (“May I be said to have been a worthy woman with a worthy man”). 51 amatores and their puellae, even going so far as to be able to influence men outside of her romantic relationships. While viewing puellae who are well versed in rhetorical skills in not uncommon (Dipsas in Ovid both dissects the standard arguments of the amatores and counters with her own), that Sulpicia takes this skill into an environment outside of the ‘bedroom’ is unique to her amatrix.

52

Epistles and Longer Elegiac Speeches

Thus far, I have examined the briefer, more veristic speeches of women, however these instances do not encompass all of the examples of feminine speech within the corpus of elegy.

An additional genre, broadly defined as epistles, contains longer, more elaborately crafted speech, typically from a woman addressing an absent lover.66 In addition to this, some longer soliloquies can be considered as parallel to this genre, where they occur within other elegies, such as Catullus 64, which contains a long soliloquy from Ariadne to Theseus, as well as

Propertius 4.4 with Tarpeia addressing Tatius can be seen as examples of this style. From the poets previously examined, Sulpicia’s corpus comes the closest to this sub-genre, as, due to the gender of her narrator, each elegy can be seen as a longer, female crafted soliloquy. However, despite the inverted gender of Sulpicia’s amatrix and her lover, she still follows the conventions of the traditional elegy, especially modeled off of Tibullus.

Although these soliloquies lack some of the traditional features of Roman epistles, such as a formal introduction and greeting, they still contain carefully crafted speeches by women to an absent love, and can still be broadly referred with similar terms.

In regards to the examples which follow most closely a traditional epistle, all of the women are writing because of a separation from their lovers, although the causes, length, and outcome may be different for each situation. More specifically, the writers speak of their desire

66 Propertius 4.3, written from the perspective of Arethusa to her love Lycotas, as well as Ovid’s Heroides are the most well-known examples of this.

53

to be reunited with their distant loves, although, again, the means by which they cope with the separation and how they try to end it vary widely. In this sub-genre, several broad categories can be observed, especially in the Heroides. For the majority of the women Ovid showcases, their separation is permanent, with only Hermione and Penelope being the exceptions. The causes for this separation are more varied than the outcomes, however. For some, their lover simply abandons the narrator, as is the case with Dido, Ariadne, Deianira, and Medea. For others, some outside force tears the two lovers apart, as can be seen happening to Penelope, Hermione,

Briseis, and Laodamia. For still others, it is some aspect of social convention that separates the woman from her love, either the restrictions it brings on what is an appropriate relationship in regards to Phaedra, or the consequences for breaking those norms, as Canace experiences. The reactions of each woman are the most varied, with each ranging from Laodamia writing to her already dead Protesilaus, to Deianira concocting her plot which would eventually lead to her despair. Arethusa, for her role in Propertius 4.3, employs several images depicting her despair at the constant expeditions of Lycotas, attempting to persuade him. However, in her case, the audience is unable to know her eventual fate, since her case is not based upon any mythological example.67

The other soliloquies follow much the same pattern, with the women concerned primarily with their lovers. However, since the circumstances surrounding them vary so much, their reactions vary an equal amount, from the rage of Ariadne at Theseus’ betrayal, to the complete devotion of Tarpeia to Tatius.

67 Farrell, 310. 54

Within the epistles, several themes can be seen as common to them, such as the prevalence of tears, often mentioned in a reference of blame for any smudging of the ink.68 This imagery reflects a deeper aspect of these epistles, namely, that they contain some rhetorical aspect; they are trying to persuade the recipient of something. This imagery reflects a common tactic that women are shown to utilize throughout the sub-genre, namely, an appeal to the pathos of their target. While Sulpicia’s amatrix does not make use of this specific imagery, her narrator still makes use of the rhetorical device. For example, the technique is common throughout 3.14, where she uses it to (successfully) persuade Messalla that she should not travel for her birthday.

However, within the conventions of the typical elegy, it is not gender which determines the use of this tactic, but rather the lover’s status, with amatores being much more likely to use this than their puellae. For example, Propertius attempts to persuade Cynthia from going on a journey without him thus:

Tune igitur demens, nec te mea cura moratur? an tibi sum gelida vilior Illyria? et tibi iam tanti, quicumquest, iste videtur, ut sine me vento quolibet ire velis? (1.8a.1-4) Are you demented? Does no concern for me still keep you? Am I worth less to you than that frozen wasteland Illyria? And does that bastard, whoever he is, matter so much to you, that you would go without me upon any wind that blows? Catullus likewise, although he rarely depicts his amator directly addressing Lesbia, still makes frequent uses of language that evokes pity from the audience, especially when he is struggling away from Lesbia, trying to decide whether to go back to her or not. Tibullus also engages in the tactic, attempting to highlight his plight:

68 Arethusa, Tarpeia, Phyllis, Briseis, Phaedra, Oenone, Hypsipyle, Dido, Hermione, and Ariadne all make use of this imagery in order to make themselves seem more moving to their loves.

55

omnia persolvi: fruitur nunc alter amore, et precibus felix utitur ille meis. at mihi felicem vitam, si salva fuisses, fingebam demens, sed renuente deo. (1.5.17-20) I gave everything, and now another enjoys my love, and now he happily takes advantage of my prayers. But once, crazy, I used to believe that, if you were spared, there would be a happy life for me. But apparently some god denied me that. Even Ovid at times presents his amator as despondent in order to evoke a reaction:

Me miserum! monui, paucas quod prosit in horas; separor a domina nocte iubente mea. nocte vir includet, lacrimis ego maestus obortis, qua licet, ad saevas prosequar usque fores. (Am. 1.4.59-62) Oh, miserable me! I advise only what can help for a few brief hours; I am separated from my love by a commanding night. Your man will shut you up at night, but I, all upset and with tears streaming forth, shall follow you as far as I can: right up to those cruel doors. (The amator continues from the image with what he wishes the puella to do for him in this circumstance) Each of the amatores uses this method of rhetoric to get a specific reaction, either from a specific character in the elegy itself, or more broadly from the audience in general. That Sulpicia’s amatrix does so as well, and that the women in the epistolary sub-genre also do, is more indicative of their position within the relationship, as opposed to their gender. With the amatores often being presented as the powerless members of the relationship, they too must resort to appeals to their companion’s pity. That Sulpicia presents her amatrix doing so in regards to

Messalla, who was certainly the one with the power in that dynamic, reinforces this, as she at times allows her amatrix to display more direct power over Cerinthus.

This use of rhetoric also reflects Ovid’s actual advice to lovers in various points of books one and three of his Ars Amatoria (to men and women, respectively), on how to properly make use of letters to woo a lover:

56

disce bonas artes moneo, Romana iuuentus, non tantum trepidos ut tueare reos: quam populus iudexque grauis lectusque senatus, tam dabit eloquio uicta puella manus (Ars. 1.459-462) Learn the arts that I lay out, young men of Rome, learn well, but not only that you might defend nervous defendants, but, just like the voters, the serious judge, and the elected senate, so a girl will give in, conquered by your eloquence. For women however, Ovid recommends a slightly different style: munda sed e medio consuetaque uerba, puellae, scribite: sermonis publica forma placet. a, quotiens dubius scriptis exarsit amator et nocuit formae barbara lingua bonae! (Ars. 479-482) Women, write in a decent but typical style, the regular style of speech works well. Oh, how often an unsure love caught fire from a letter, while a barbarian tongue ruined loveliness! While this likely references the number of foreign women in Rome at this time, it still shows the difference in methodology: men are meant to characterize themselves by their eloquence

(although this is not to go to extremes)

sit tibi credibilis sermo consuetaque uerba, blanda tamen, praesens ut uidear (Ars. 1.467-468) Your style should be believable and diction straightforward, but still charming, so you seem to be there speaking. Women however are instructed to prefer plain diction much more heavily – men are advised that they will be more charming with a simpler style, women are warned that they will appear barbarous if they show a lapse in their mastery of the language. Sulpicia’s amatrix, although not directly writing a letter to her lover, follows this advice broadly as well, with her narrator carefully constructing any rhetorical arguments, and not immediately resorting to any overly flowery diction.

57

It would be improper to assume that the characters of elegy were following any actual advice, nonetheless the Ars Amatoria provides a glimpse into Ovid’s opinion on the proper use of letters within a relationship between lovers who are separated by outside forces, which may inform our vision of how each female ‘author’ uses them as well. While obviously each elegist maintains the lofty standards of their own writing for each work, they largely refrain from allotting to female characters such rhetorical speeches as would be more typical of a Roman man.

Within the conventions of this subgenre, then, one can see that one of the most prominent distinctions is the direct manner in which all of the epistles are addressed to a lover. While at times the broader elegies can be construed in this way, this is by no means a convention, as sometimes the distance between any conversation can be a programmatic element. The women in this sub-genre, however, typically find themselves in a more traditional power structure in regards to their relationship, and their place in society. This stands in stark contrast to elegy, which often inverts these norms. For example, in a standard elegy, the male amator is powerless at the hands of his mistress. In the epistle, however, the women are unable to bring about the changes they wish as easily as their counterparts. In this regard then, they are stylistically similar to the amatores, in that they are comparatively powerless when compared to their partners. They go about their problems in a roughly similar way as well, relying largely on appeals to pathos as opposed to traditionally masculine rhetoric. As such, while some specific conventions may differ, the power dynamics remain largely the same, although the actors may differ between the two.

58

Conclusion

As has been discussed in previous scholarship, a key aspect of elegy is the emphasis on the male lover, completely enamored with female beauty. As James states, this beauty forms the basis of two key aspects of elegy, that it is the “generating agent of the lover-poet’s sexual desire and the physical target of his anger when he realizes that he cannot control the puella.”69 A key aspect of this, however, often revolves around removing the agency from the puella figure in the narrative events of the elegy.

Ovid’s amator is focused on both the physical details of his puella and the reaction that, together, they evoke within the narrator. While Corinna is described as performing numerous actions, these actions are always framed through the judgements and reactions of the narrator.

Tibullus is in many ways similar, although he focuses much more on the puella as a figure in his pastoral dreamscapes. Perhaps even more so than In Ovid’s poems, any description of either

Delia or Nemesis quickly turns into the narrator musing on some scene of a happy life somewhere on a farm. Catullus, in many ways the predecessor to the Augustan elegists, fulfills many of these conventions, although perhaps in a rougher manner (which, when the more nebulous state of the genre at his time is considered, is not surprising). This is one instance where his practices were followed by the subsequent poets, as Lesbia is one of the women given the least direct agency throughout his corpus. While other, lower class women are permitted to speak, Lesbia herself is seen primarily through her influence on the narrator. This is a trend

69 James, Learned Girls, 167. 59

which all three follow closely. Delia and Nemesis are not permitted any direct speaking lines, although they dominate the thoughts of the amator; Corinna is described with a level of detail so veristic that the audience cannot help but see some degree of verisimilitude in her, however her voice and depictions are almost always filtered through the impact and reactions of

Ovid’s amator.

Propertius is perhaps the elegist who breaks this mold the most, and it is no coincidence that his amator can perhaps be best described as being most enthralled by Cynthia’s character. It is therefore this aspect that is most developed throughout the Propertian corpus, just as Ovid most develops Corinna’s physical beauty and Tibullus most develops his dreamscape. Cynthia, however, is afforded the most direct speaking lines of any of the puellae, through which

Propertius develops her personality. This is the aspect that dominates the thoughts of the narrator, and, while his reactions and interpretations still play an important part in the forming of the elegiac narrative. While other elegists such as Tibullus and Ovid may detail the influence the puellae have over their narrators, the careful framing of their poetry prevents this from ever taking a true hold. Cynthia’s character can be seen as so strong that Propertius cannot fully remove her agency even in this form. Indeed, Cynthia exhibits many traits that would have been more at home in the traditionally masculine partner, and while all elegy presents an inverted world of societal norms, Propertius perhaps takes this to the furthest degree.

This inversion, however, is another key aspect of elegy, and Sulpicia exemplifies this to the fullest. In a genre that, by its very nature, is focused around the relationship between a male narrator and a female object of affection, Sulpicia’s narrator from her inception faces an additional inversion due to her gender. In this regard, Sulpicia follows and adapts as best she can the conventions of elegy to her purposes, and the influence of Tibullus on her corpus is evident.

60

Just as her predecessor did, she affords no direct speaking to her lover, Cerinthus, instead framing all of their interactions in the form of how her amatrix reacts to them. When taken in this light then, her works follow convention in that the narrator maintains agency over the formation of the narrative. Her narrator, however, while experiencing many of the situations common to the other, male, amatores (such as her hopeless infatuation with her lover), still manages to maintain some of the power common to the women in elegies as well. When viewed from this opposite viewpoint, her work is unique in that a female maintains complete agency over her actions in the narrative. It is this struggle between the two sides of convention that perhaps best summarize Sulpicia’s corpus.

When viewed holistically then, the elegies can therefore be seen firstly as a genre where a narrator is obsessed with some aspect of his/her love, and deals with their relative powerlessness in relation to that aspect. However, in the framing of these narratives, Catullus, Tibullus, and

Ovid, retain the agency firmly in the hands of their narrators, with Propertius and Sulpicia and partial exceptions. While various techniques may be employed to mask this by focusing the audience on a particular aspect of the puellae and showcasing their influence over the narrator, they still lack the agency over their depictions. Even Sulpicia and Propertius, perhaps the two poets who break this mold the best, still fall into using these depictions to further their narrators’ infatuation with their lovers.

61

Bibliography

Drinkwater, Megan O. “The Woman’s Part: The Speaking Beloved in Roman Elegy,” Classical Quarterly, 63, No. 1 (2013) 329-338. Dutsch, Dorota, Feminine Discourse in Roman Comedy: On Echoes and Voices, (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2008). - “Genre, Gender, and Suicide Threats in Roman Comedy,” The Classical World, 105, No. 2, (Winter 2012) 187-198. Fantham, Elaine, “The Image of Woman in Propertius’ Poetry,” in Brill’s Companion to Propertius, ed. Hans-Christian Gunther, (Brill Academic Pub, 2006). Farrell, Joseph, “Reading and Writing the Heroides,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 98 (1998) 307-338. Flaschenriem, Barbara L., “Sulpicia and the Rhetoric of Discourse,” Classical Philology, 94 (1999), 36-54. Gardner, Hunter H., Gendering Time in Augustan Love Elegy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Gibson, R.K., “How to Win Girlfriends and Influence Them: Amicitia in Roman Love Elegy,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 41 (1995), 62-68. Gross, Nicolas P., “Ovid, ‘Amores’ 1.8: Whose Amatory Rhetoric?” The Classical World, Vol. 89, No. 3 (Jan. - Feb., 1996), pp. 197-206. Habinek, Thomas, The Politics of Latin Literature, (Princeton: Princeton University Press 2001) Hallet, Judith P., “Martial’s Sulpicia and Propertius’ Cynthia,” The Classical World, 86, No. 2 (Nov. – Dec. 1992), 99-123. - “Sulpicia and Her ‘Fama’: An Intertextual Approach to Recovering Her Latin Literary Image,” The Classical World, 100, No. 1 (Fall, 2006), 37-42.

- “Women as Same and Other in Roman Elite,” Helios, 16 (1989), 59-78. - “Women’s Voices and Catullus’ Poetry,” The Classical World, 95, No. 4 (Summer 2002), 421-424. Holzberg, Niklas, “Four Poets and a Poetess or A Portrait of the Poet as a Young Man? Thought on Book 3 of the Corpus Tibullianum,” The Classical Journal, 94 (1999), 169-191.

62

Hubbard, Thomas K., “The Sulpicia Cycle as Epithalamic Dedication,” APA Abstracts 132 (2001). James, Sharon, Gender and Genre in Roman Comedy and Elegy, (Lubbock: Texas University Press, 1998). - “ ‘Ipsa Dixerat’: Women’s Words in Roman Love Elegy,” Phoenix, 64, No. ¾ (Fall- Winter 2010). - Learned Girls and Male Persuasion: Gender and Reading in Roman Love Elegy, (University of California Press, Berkley, 2003). Kaufhold, Shelly, “Propertius 1.3: Cynthia Rescripted,” Illinois Classical Studies, 22 (1997), 87- 98. Keith, Alison, “Critical Trends in Inerpreting Sulpicia,” The Classical World, 100, No.1 (Fall 2006), 3-10. Kutzko, David, “Lesbia in Catullus 35,” Classical Philology, 101, No. 4 (October 2006), 405- 410. Lyne, R.O.A.M., “Servitium Amoris,” The Classical Quarterly, 29 No. 1 (1979), 117-130. O’Neill, Kerill, “Ovid and Propertius: Reflexive Annotations in ‘Amores’ 1.8,” Mnemosyne, 52 (June 1999) 286-307. Papaioannou, Sophia, “The Poetology of Hairstyling and the Excitement of Hair Loss in Ovid, ‘Amores’ 1.14,” Urbinati di Cultura Classica, 83, No. 2 (2006), 45-69. Robinson, Matthew, “Propertius 1.3: Sleep, Surprise, and Catullus 64,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 56, No. 1 (2013), 89-115. Santirocco, Matthew S., “Sulpicia Reconsidered,” The Classical Journal 74, No. 3 (Feb – Mar. 1979), 229-239. Sharrock, Allison, “Constructing Characters in Propertius,” Arethusa, 33 No. 2 (Spring 2000), 263-284. Tatum, Jeffrey, “Friendship, Politics, and Literature in Catullus: Poems 1, 65 and 66, 116,” The Classical Quarterly, 47 No. 2 (1997) 482-500. Wyke, Maria, “Written Women: Propertius’ Scripta Puella,” The Journal of Roman Studies, 77 (1987), 47-61. - “Taking the Woman’s Part: Engendering Roman Love Elegy,” in Roman Literature and Ideology: Ramus Essays for J.P. Sullivan ed. A.J. Boyle (Bendigo North: Aureal Publications 1995) 110-128.

63