Sulpicia’s work is uniquely transformative for challenging the prevailing stereotype of women being subservient and easily controlled. In a time where social power was concentrated on men, her writings stand as testament to the agency of women. Mary Beard’s comment on women in power, facing perceptions of “taking something to which they are not quite entitled," resonates with the challenges women like Sulpicia must have confronted. Sulpicia grapples with these conflicts by using her poetry to both navigate her romantic relationship and journey through the male-dominated literary form of elegies. Beyond merely adopting the forms of elegy, Sulpicia raises her female poetic voice by expanding the idea of traditional elegiac authorship as she questions the masculinity associated with certain actions. Her second elegy hints at the suffocating gender norms, while the fourth and fifth elegies blur the lines between her personal relationship and elegy, thus boldly portraying her emotions, something women were discouraged to do.
In Sulpicia 2, Sulpicia delves into the difficulties women endure in normative Roman society. Through the phrase invisus natalis (“hated birthday” 2.1), Sulpicia initiates social commentary, using the common idea of a birthday to engage readers. Without any indication of whose birthday it is or any other details, the phrase transcends its literal meaning. As a woman, she grapples with the limitations imposed by Messalla, her uncle and legal guardian, whose excessive governance is highlighted in the phrase Messalla mei studiose (“Messalla eager of me” 2.5). The genitive usage of mei reflects possession, which indicates how he treats her as if she belongs to him. Her limiting social power continues with the passive in the word abducto (“having been taken away” 2.7) and quiescas (“let you relax” 2.5), emphasizing the temporary loss of her voice. The jussive subjunctive serves as a polite command, indicating Sulpicia’s failure to express her voice fully due to social norms. Since she does not consistently write in the passive voice, social norms could silence her until she regains her voice. Furthermore, Sulpicia’s struggle extends to her physical body often could not control her physical body since she was forced to relocate from the city to the country. The chiasmus in Arretino frigidus amnis agro (“cold stream in the Arrentian field” 2.4) underscores her dilemma as the words in the middle (frigidus amnis) resembles an image of Sulpicia standing in the middle between conforming to social expectations and pursuing her passion for writing elegies. The city, associated with elegies, becomes a symbol of not just separation from her lover but also from her literary pursuits. Sulpicia also refers the city dulcius (“sweeter” 2.3), which aligns with the idea that Cerinthus, her lover, could mean bee-bread, an ingredient for the tabellae Sulpicia used to write elegies with, interweaving the idea of love and elegies.
Sulpicia’s defiance continues in the fourth elegy where she openly mentions her lover while asserting her own power. Expressing jealousy through words like quasillo (“small basket for wool” 4.3) and scortum (“prostitute” 4.4), Sulpicia challenges the notion of what is appropriate for women to discuss. Rather than simply dismissing the subject as a frantic woman driven by jealousy, it is crucial to reflect on the courage it took for Sulpicia to voice her emotions and demand attention from her lover. Although she describes herself as servi filia Sulpicia (“daughter of Servius, Sulpicia” 4.4), tethering her identity to her father as if she must depend on a male authority, Sulpicia nonetheless asserts superiority over her lover and his potential lover, refusing to tolerate dishonesty and juxtaposing herself with the prostitute (scortum). The last line ignoto [...] toro (“on an unknown bed” 4.6) adds another layer to demonstrating her power in the realm of both love and her literary agency. She seeks