Cornelia Africana - Problems in Reconstructing The Historical Cornelia

Problems in Reconstructing The Historical Cornelia

The historical Cornelia remains somewhat elusive. Reconstructing the historical Cornelia proves problematic in that the figure portrayed in Roman literature likely represents more what she signified to Roman writers than an objective account. Complicating matters, this significance changed over time as Roman society evolved, in particular the role of women. The problems in interpreting the literature are compounded by the fact only one work allegedly attributed to Cornelia herself survives, and classicists have questioned its authenticity since the nineteenth century. The Cornelia Fragments, detailed above, purport to constitute what remains of a letter written in 124 BCE to her son, Gaius, and were preserved later in the manuscripts of Cornelius Nepos, who wrote on the Gracchi. In the letter, Cornelia expresses strong opposition to Gaius’ intentions to stand or the tribunate. She also urges him not to continue the revolutionary policies of his older brother Tiberius Gracchus, which led ultimately to his death. The fragments were likely included in Nepos’ Life of Gaius Gracchus, now lost.

Controversy over the Fragments’ authenticity has focused on the letter’s style and content. While a consensus seems to agree that the fragments do resemble the writing style and language of an educated Roman aristocrat of the late second century BCE, several observe Cornelia’s rebuking of Gaius’ policies in the letter seems to conflict what is understood about her positions preserved in other sources. The vehemence with which she addresses Gaius seems to conflict, to some scholars, with what is believed regarding her maternal devotion. Because of these doubts, some scholars hypothesize the Fragments constitute either a later forgery created by someone wishing to separate Cornelia’s political ideologies from those of her sons, while others suggest they are a much later fabrication, representing a “rhetorical exercise” wherein the writer attempted to recreate what Cornelia might have said, and the letter was inadvertently included as legitimate source material in Aemilius Probus’ edition of Nepos’ works in the 5th century CE. These theories themselves prove problematic, as the letter constitutes only one data point, and are therefore insufficient in reconstructing broad conclusions about Cornelia’s political ideals or making inferences about nebulous ideas of “maternal devotion.” As has also been pointed out, if they do in fact represent the work of a forger, he was an expert in the grammar, language, and writing style of the late 2nd century Roman elite. A majority seems to believe that the Fragments are authentic and represent a private letter written by a highly educated woman, who never intended her stern rebuke to be read by anyone but her son.

With the Fragments being the only primary source material produced by Cornelia that survive, the reconstruction of the historical Cornelia relies mainly on how later Roman writers saw her. This is problematic because Roman depictions of Cornelia clearly change over time. The earliest image of Cornelia, painted largely by Plutarch’s views, is of an aristocratic woman, spending much of her time living extravagantly in her family’s villa, who because of her family’s wealth, opportunities, and interest in education (particularly Greek), receives the best-possible education in Latin and Greek rhetoric. She is somewhat controversial, both for her sons’ political policies and for having developed (and frequently making use of) such strong rhetorical abilities, despite being a woman. These early accounts emphasize her education and abilities but place comparatively much less emphasis on her maternal role.

Over subsequent centuries Cornelia evolves in the eyes of Roman writers. Her educational achievement and abilities become de-emphasized and subordinated to her place as an example of “idealized maternity.” Her education becomes incorporated into her role as the ideal mother: she achieved her education not for its own sake but in order to pass it on to her sons. She becomes excised from the political controversy that surrounded her family and is transformed into an idealized, one-dimensional figure. The Cornelia of history ultimately became adapted to fit into the moralistic agendas of later Roman writers, who used her as a vehicle to present their ideals on motherhood. As the historian Emily Hemelrijk concludes, “the Cornelia we know is to a high degree a creation of later times.” The historical Cornelia has largely been lost in this process of her transformation into a heroine, an idealized example for aristocratic women of later periods to pattern themselves after.