Talk:Sulpicia

Habinek and Keith on Sulpicia
I feel as though I shouldn't be the one to edit it (because I know him so it feels like I am biased), but "Habinek... suggest[s] that the poems are too sophisticated to have been written by a woman" seems to be a misrepresentation, both of his book, and of Keith's interpretation of his book. The issue Keith raises is that Habinek discusses some of the ways in which the cultural context limited women's poetic production, but he neglects to discuss exceptions, such as Sulpicia. Keith sees this as an effacement of Sulpicia as an author, which is problematic in its own way (although I think there are some issues with her reading of Habinek as well), but she never claims that he thinks the poems were written by a man, and I certainly haven't seen him make this claim anywhere. Would somebody else check this, and fix it if I am correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.237.66 (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sulpicia was a poet
"Sulpicia was a poet" – surely this is a highly contentious statement for an encyclopedia. The issue is by no means decided as to whether the poems were written by a poet called Sulpicia, or were written by someone else (probably Tibullus himself) adopting the persona of Sulpicia. This entire article is written from a tendentious point of view. A far more neutral point of view is required, with arguments stated on both sides, not just on one side. Kanjuzi (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Authorship
Regarding some of the language in the article, such as "many scholars have argued that her poems are not the product of Sulpicia herself" -- it's my understanding that this reflects a very outdated consensus among scholars, which has shifted substantially since the 1970s. This is not a field I know anything about, so I'm reluctant to make any changes myself; but I'd urge those more familiar with relevant scholarship to consider updating the way the questions about her authorship are framed. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Far from outdated. Hubbard's article doubting the existence of Sulpicia was published in 2004. Of course it doesn't fit in with modern fashions in academic circles, but it isn't very old. Kanjuzi (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)