corpus inscriptionem latinarum iv. 5296

archaeologists found this poem inscribed into a wall in the entranceway to a house in pompeii (ix. 9 f., now blocked to the public due to extensive damage to the block).  pompeii has an extensive and well preserved tradition of graffiti that serves as an excellent source for how poetry, literature, and song functioned in the everyday roman’s life.  for this reason alone CIL iv. 5296 is worth considering.  general consensus among classicists is that this poem is a mish-mash of misquotations from “high literature” like propertius, contemporary folk songs, and possibly some original composition.  however, what i find much more exciting about this poem is what it might reveal about the lives of women in rome, especially women who loved other women.

my translation doesn’t explicitly carry this through, but the genders of various adjectives in the original latin reveal that both the speaker of this poem and the love interest to whom the poem is addressed are women.  feminine grammar and vocabulary is used to describe both of them (perdita for the speaker, pupula for the love interest).  in all likelihood this could be the only extant piece of love poetry in the roman world written by a woman for a woman!  it’s amazing!!  of course, scholars have tried to weasel around the possibility of a “lesbian” reading of the poem.  some think it’s a piece of friendly advice from one gal pal to another, some think it’s a man speaking to a woman.  some even propose that the speaker is an artificial character created by a male author/poet/graffitist.

while it’s certainly not unprecedented in roman poetry for men to write from the perspective of women, they usually do so in the context of a larger narrative.  at least, they signal the fact that they the author are separate from the female persona they assume for the purpose of writing.  besides, assuming that the author is a woman opens some really interesting avenues for interpretation of the piece.

the use of diminutive language (braciola, labellis, pupula; “little arms,” “little lips,” “little girl”) is specifically concentrated into the first portion of the poem.  this leads one to believe that such vocabulary is not the poet’s natural tendency, but an intentional move.  women are often depicted in roman literature as typically using these blanditiae (essentially flattering baby talk distinguished by diminutives) in romantic contexts.  the artificially constructed language of the opening leads me to believe that a female author might be taking a jab at this assumption, parodying male assumptions of women’s speech (and thus writing) before moving on to the rest of her poem.

another roman cliche about women and love is that they are flighty.  in fact, the imagery of winds blowing away promises or desires is commonly evoked by male love poets when they lament the unfaithfulness of their women.  the author of this poem takes up that imagery and gives it a spin, asserting that it is men (virorum) who cannot be trusted.  the fickleness of men is then immediately contrasted with the sleepless nights of the ever-faithful female speaker, who, crushed by love, wishes that she could have the opportunity to give the unconditional love a man could not.  this instability is further underscored when the author invokes the goddess fortune, who flings her (masculinely gendered) victims from the heights of success to the depths of despair.

kristina milnor argues in graffiti and the literary landscape in roman pompeii (from which i paraphrased heavily) that this hyper-awareness of gender roles in roman poetry and erotic discourse may point toward a female author.  “an additional proof, and perhaps a more interesting one, is the ways in which throughout the poem she marshals and redeploys negative stereotypes about women to frame her suit: from the lisping diminutives in the opening lines … to the winds which will carry away not a woman’s faithless promises but her hopes for an enduring love affair, to the ‘natural’ instability which, it turns out, marks the lives of men rather than women … a female poet may (indeed, must) have a different relationship to poetry and poetic discourse from her male counterparts.”

(via tinycatfeet)