icted here is truly representative of reality. The reason for this is that both Propertius and Tibullus were exploring a genre of art formerly unrecognized in society. In their attempts to make their works viable, they likely engaged in subtle exaggeration and overstated the power and liberty of women in order to understate their own (Peradotto, 252). Their points could not have been made clearer without the use of role reversal; it seems that in their works the man is invariably relegated to the role of slave and the woman is keeping him at her beck and call. She need not answer to him for her unfaithfulness and may flaunt her infidelities as she wishes. Apparently conventional love was not painful enough without the addition of bondage themes, slavery, infidelity and diminishment of male status. These sensational characteristics maximized the pain and pleasure of love as represented by Propertius and Tibullus and thus made their works more valid and appealing (Peradotto, 252).The implications of this are that the current-day reader cannot accurately gauge the actual extent of women's freedom to engage in sexual relationships. Although, it is probable that they could choose lovers at will (Pomeroy, 172), it is less likely that they enslaved men with a single look or used powers to keep men under their will. They were still women. In addition, due to inconsistencies in setting and personal traits, it is suspected by many that the works of Propertius refer to a series of women. Perhaps these women were of different places in life and society, it is difficult to say. Their class and identities are well-hidden (Fantham , 286).In conclusion, for the purposes of the current discussion, the poetry of Propertius and Tibullus are identifiable as commentaries on women and not just on love. In addition, the sexual freedom of women is still likely quite less than that of men, however much more liberated than the Roman women of earlier eras. It is ...
