MOH: Week 1, "Animula Vagula Blandula" and "Varius Multiplex Multiformis"

[Melissa_W Moderator]

Please use this thread for discussion of the first two sections of Memoirs of Hadrian.  Please clearly mark a SPOILER WARNING if necessary.

[Melissa_W Moderator]

Although I've been trying to teach myself Latin (for fun), I still only know church Latin (from when I used to sing) which isn't very useful.  So I did some Googling regarding the chapter headings from Memoirs of Hadrian.

The first heading "Animula Vagula Blandula" comes from a poem thought to be written by Hadrian near the end of his life (as found at Hadrians):

animula vagula blandula
hospes comesque corporis
quae nunc abibis in loca
pallidula rigida nudula
nec ut soles dabis iocos!

"Little soul, wandering and pale,

guest and companion of my body,

you who will now go off to places pale,

stiff, and barren, nor will you make jokes

as has been your wont."

[Peppermill]

Perhaps the following from the New Yorker article you cite in the last week, Melissa, might tempt one or more to tackle this book:

"In 1981, six years before her death, Marguerite Yourcenar became the first woman ever inducted into the Académie Française, and that weighty honor has been hanging around the neck of her reputation ever since. Every book jacket, every review, speaks of it. But that wasn’t all that set her apart from other mid-century writers. She was an extremely isolated artist. A Frenchwoman, she spent most of her adult life in the United States, on Mount Desert Island, off the coast of Maine, where, to isolate her further, she lived with a woman. Her background, too, made her seem different. She came from the minor nobility and didn’t hide it. Most of the people who knew her, even friends, addressed her not as Marguerite but as Madame. Add to that the fact that she wrote not in English but in her native French, and in a style that was often magisterial, in an old-fashioned, classical way. (People compared her to Racine. This was at a time when we were getting Bellow and Roth.) Add, moreover, that though she was a novelist, she was not primarily a realist, that she never mastered dialogue, that her books were ruminative, philosophical. Add, finally, that her greatest novel, Memoirs of Hadrian (1951)—which Farrar, Straus & Giroux will reissue this spring as part of its new FSG Classics series—was a fictionalized autobiography of a Roman emperor, and it comes as no surprise that nearly every essay on Yourcenar speaks of her work as 'marmoreal' or 'lapidary.'

"Actually, some of Yourcenar’s prose is marmoreal, but not so that you can’t get through it. Also, it is beautiful. What made her remarkable, however, was not so much her style as the quality of her mind. Loftiness served her well as an artist: she was able to dispense love and justice, heat and cold in equal parts. Above all, her high sense of herself gave her the strength to take on a great topic: time. Time was an obsession with her immediate predecessors in European fiction, but whereas those novelists showed us modern people altered—made thoughtful, made tragic—by time’s erasures, she erased the erasures, took us back to Rome in the second century or, in her other famous novel, The Abyss  (1968), to Flanders in the sixteenth century, and with an almost eerie accuracy. Yourcenar regarded the average historical novel as 'merely a more or less successful costume ball.' Truly to recapture an earlier time, she said, required years of research, together with a mystical act of identification. She performed both, and wrought a kind of trans-historical miracle. If you want to know what 'ancient Roman' really means, in terms of war and religion and love and parties, read Memoirs of Hadrian.

"This doesn’t mean that Yourcenar, in her novels, conquered the problem of time. All she overcame was the idea that this was the special burden of the modern period. Human beings didn’t become history-haunted after the First World War, Yourcenar says. They were always that way."

(Before you read more, note that the entire article may contain spoilers.  That is why Melissa put it in the last week.  I have not read it all yet.)

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214crbo_books?printable=true#ixzz1DOxpujg2

mar·mo·re·al 
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin marmoreus marmoreal (from marmor marble) + English -al or -an
1 : of, relating to, or resembling marble or a marble statue especially in coldness, smoothness, or majesty : STATUESQUE <art is not a marmoreal calm -- Irwin Edman> <his conception of marmorean stillness -- D.A.Stauffer>
2 : made of marble <those marmoreal domes -- Robert Browning>


"marmoreal." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (8 Feb. 2011).

[Melissa_W Moderator]

This is a much harder phrase to source.  It surfaces in descriptions of Hadrian (although I was having trouble finding the original source to link to) and no one translates it for me, so here goes with the online translator:

varius : various, varied.
multiplex: manifold, many-fold, many times / tortuous

Multiformis doesn't have an exact match:

multi : many, numerous / the common herd.
multiplex: manifold, many-fold, many times / tortuous
multipliciter : in many ways, in various ways

[Peppermill]

Here is a bit on Hadrian:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian

"Publius Aelius Hadrianus (24 January 76 – 10 July 138), commonly known as Hadrian and after his apotheosis Divus Hadrianus, was Roman Emperor from 117 to 138. He is best-known for building Hadrian's Wall, which marked the northern limit of Roman territory in Britain. In Rome, he built the Pantheon and the Temple of Venus and Roma. In addition to being emperor, Hadrian was a humanist and was philhellene in all his tastes. He was the third of the so-called Five Good Emperors."

From Emory University:

http://www.roman-emperors.org/hadrian.htm

But probably most intriguing and worth your time (although the downloads can be difficult) are these videos from an exhibition in 2008 at the British Museum:

http://www.britishmuseum.org/system_pages/holding_area/whats_on/hadrian_empire_and_conflict/videos_a...

[Peppermill]

Okay, where are the people who voted for this!

I got into the second chapter this morning.

Such luscious writing!l  Even if you aren't interested enough to read the whole thing, I strongly suggest checking out a copy and savoring even a few pages.

For today, a bit on Trajan, a figure I don't know:

Marcus Ulpius Trajanus
(AD 52 - AD 117)

Marcus Ulpius Trajanus was born on 18 September at Italica near Seville, most likely in the year AD 52. His Spanish origin made him the first emperor not to come from Italy. Although he was from an old Umbrian family from Tuder in northern Italy which had chosen to settle in Spain. So his family was not a purely provincial one.

His father, also called Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, was the first of the to reach the office of senator, commanded the Tenth Legion 'Fretensis' in the Jewish War of AD 67-68, and became consul in around AD 70. And in about AD 75, he became governor of Syria, one of the key military provinces in the empire. Later he also was to be governor of the provinces of Baetica and Asia.

Trajan served in Syria as a military tribune during the governorship of his father. He enjoyed a thriving career, gaining the office of praetorship in AD 85. Soon after he won command of the Seventh Legion 'Gemina' based at Legio (Leon) in northern Spain. It was in AD 88/89 that he marched this legion into Upper Germany help in suppressing the rebellion of Saturninus against Domitian. Trajan's army arrived too late to play any part in crushing the revolt. Though Trajan's swift actions on the emperor's behalf won him the goodwill of Domitian and so he was elected as consul in AD 91. Such close ties to Domitian naturally became a source of some embarassment after the loathed Domitian's murder.

Domitian's successor Nerva though was not a man to hold a grudge and in AD 96 Trajan was made governor of Upper Germany. Then, late in the year AD 97 Trajan received a handwritten note from Nerva, informing him of his adoption.

If Trajan had any form of advance knowledge of his impending adoption is not known. His supporters in Rome may well been lobbying on his behalf.

Trajan's adoption was naturally pure politics. Nerva required a powerful and popular heir in order to prop up his severly shaken imperial authority. Trajan was highly respected within the army and his adoption was the best possible remedy against the resentment much of the army felt against Nerva.

But Trajan didn't come speeding back to Rome in order to help restore Nerva's authority. Rather than going to Rome he summoned the leaders of the earlier mutiny by the praetorians to Upper Germany. But instead of receiving a promised promotion, they were executed on arrival.

Such ruthless actions made it quite clear that with Trajan as part of it, Rome's government was not to be messed with.

Nerva died on 28 January AD 98. But Trajan once more felt no need for hasty, potentially undignified, action. Far more he went on a tour of inspection to see the legions long the Rhine and Danube frontiers.With Domitian's memory still held dear by the legions it was a wise move by Trajan to bolster his support among the soldiers with a personal visit to their frontier strongholds.

Trajan's eventual entry at Rome in AD 99 was a triumph. Jubilant crowds rejoiced at his arrival.
The new emperor entered the city on foot, he embraced each of the senators and even walked among the ordinary people. This was unlike any other Roman emperor and perhaps grants us a glimpse of Trajan's true greatness.

Such modesty and openess easily helped the new emperor gain yet more support during the first years of his reign.

Such humility and respect for the senate as well as for the simple people showed when Trajan promised that he would always keep the senate informed about the affairs of government and when he declared that the emperor's right to rule was to be compatible with the freedom of the people who were ruled.

Trajan was an educated but not an especially learned man, who no doubt was a powerful, very masculine figure. He loved hunting, ranging through forests and even climbing mountains. Further he possessed a true sense of dignity and humility which in the eyes of the Romans made him an emperor of true virtue.

Thoughout Trajan's reign there was an ever-increasing programme of public works.

The roads network in Italy was renovated, sections which passed through wetlands being paved or placed on embankments and many bridges were built.

Also provisions for the poor were made, especially for children. Special imperial funds (alimenta) were created for their upkeep. (This system would still be in use 200 years later!)

But with all his virtues, emperor Trajan was not perfect. He tended to overindulge on wine and had a liking for young boys. More still he seemed to truly enjoy war.

Much of his passion for war came from the simple fact that he was very good at it. He was a brilliant general, as shown by his military achievements. Quite naturally he was very popular with the troops, especially due to his willingness to share in the hardships of his soldiers.

Trajan's most famous campaign is undoubtedly that against Dacia, a powerful kingdom north of the Danube in modern Romania.

Two wars were fought against it, resulting in its destruction and annexation as a Roman province in AD 106.

The story of the Dacian Wars is illustrated in a the impressive relief carvings which spiral upwards around 'Trajan's Column', a monumental pillar standing Trajan's Forum in Rome.

Much of the great treasure conquered in Dacia was used to build public works, including a new harbour at Ostia, and Trajan's Forum.

But Trajan's passion for military life and warfare would grant him no rest. In AD 114 he was at war again. And he should spend the rest of his life campaigning in ths east against the Parthian empire.

He annexed Armenia and spectacularly conquered the whole of Mesopatamia, including the Parthian capital Ctesiphon.

But Trajan's star then began to fade. Revolts among the Jews in the middle east and the recently conquered Mesopotamians weakened his position to continue the war and military setbacks tarnished his air of invincibility. Trajan withdrew his troops to Syria and set out back to Rome. But he should not see his capital again.

Already suffering from circulatory problems, which Trajan suspected were due to poison, he suffered a stroke which partially paralyzed him. The end came shortly after when he died in Selinus in Cilicia on 9 August AD 117.

He body was taken to Seleucia where it was cremated. His ashes were then carried back to Rome and were placed in a golden urn into the base of 'Trajan's Colum'.

Trajan's fame as the near perfect Roman ruler was remembered for time to come. His example was what later emperors at least aspired to live up to. And during the fourth century the senate still prayed for any new emperor to be 'More fortunate than Augustus and better than Trajan' ('felicior Augusto, melior Traiano').

http://www.roman-empire.net/highpoint/trajan.html

Don't know the accuracy of this site, but it is a place to start. 

Domitian -- perhaps a bit on him next time.

[Melissa_W Moderator]

Pepper, I have a sinking feeling it might be just you and me!

Com'on peeps!  This is a good book

[Peppermill]

---

Melissa_W wrote:

Pepper, I have a sinking feeling it might be just you and me!

Com'on peeps!  This is a good book

---

And, although I suggested the author in a post, I didn't even nominate the book and was totally surprised when it appeared and even more so when it was selected!

But let's enjoy the journey and hope some come along. The sentiments expressed in these first pages are gorgeous and profound.

I read most of the last pages this morning where the author describes how she went about writing the book.  Oh, my!   Worth reading for that alone, if one is at all interested in historical writing.

Pepper

[KathyS]

I know this is a little early for me to jump in, in that I'm only on page 7, and I didn't want to read these posts for fear I would see something I shouldn't...I'm not sure what is fact, and what is fiction, though.  Animula, Vagula, Blandula....I'm presuming this is Latin?

I found myself, in just these few pages, following my wandering mind.  I was thinking about Hadrian, thinking about his life.....reaching an age in illness, and an age of reflection.  This was a topic that came up this morning, in my writers' group.  Memoirs, talking about things and people from the past, and since there were just three of us this morning, and in this older category, it became moments of reflection.  I think this happens to all of us at a certain age.  And One thing was decided, never put off what you think you should do, until later.  Later is now, and regrets will happen.

One man is writing true stories, and having been a horse trainer for years, each of these horses he has given the prominent place of being a character.  I haven't read his stories, as they are not yet published, but this Memoirs of Hadrian made me think of a relationship between a man and his horse.  To become one with a living, breathing entity, is gaining a love that is unconditional.  

I was also thinking about Hadrian's distaste for killing animals, after he lost his friend.  Sometimes, it's just sharing with another person, that forms the bonds.  It can make a distasteful act seem palatable.  

Maybe this is all vague and bland about animals, but reflection is what I seem to be doing these days.....As we all have had someone, and most recently, pass on, it does give us pause to do just that, reflect.  But, we can't live in the past, just learn from it, good or bad.  I'm waiting to hear more from this man, Hadrian, and the people who enter his life.  And, I'm looking forward to reading these posts.....

Kathy

[KathyS]

---

Melissa_W wrote:

Although I've been trying to teach myself Latin (for fun), I still only know church Latin (from when I used to sing) which isn't very useful.  So I did some Googling regarding the chapter headings from Memoirs of Hadrian.

The first heading "Animula Vagula Blandula" comes from a poem thought to be written by Hadrian near the end of his life (as found at Hadrians):

animula vagula blandula
hospes comesque corporis
quae nunc abibis in loca
pallidula rigida nudula
nec ut soles dabis iocos!

"Little soul, wandering and pale,

guest and companion of my body,

you who will now go off to places pale,

stiff, and barren, nor will you make jokes

as has been your wont."

---

Thanks Melissa, I posted my other post before I saw this one..  I love the poem!  I wasn't exactly close in the meaning, at all!  Ha!

[Peppermill]

Kathy -- so glad you joined us!  Hope you will be able to slip in the time to be able to continue to enjoy!

We will perhaps learn a smidgeon of ancient history together.  I have studied very little history; only a few patches here and there. As Dulcinea has helped me understand, I do read more for application to today and the future than for immersion in the past, but she also is helping me appreciate the pleasure of both.

For today's "lesson," I'm going to pull a bit on Domitian, who seems to have had a prominent role in the period.  Maybe by tomorrow I can tell myself what period we are addressing -- sometime after the birth of Christ and the final destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem about 70 CE.

"Domitian, Latin in full Caesar Domitianus Augustus, original name (until ad 81) Titus Flavius Domitianus  (b. Oct. 24, ad 51—d. Sept. 18, ad 96, Rome [Italy]),  Roman emperor (ad 81–96), known chiefly for the reign of terror under which prominent members of the Senate lived during his last years.

"Titus Flavius Domitianus was the second son of the future emperor Vespasian and Flavia Domitilla. During the civil war of ad 69 over the imperial crown, Domitian remained unharmed in Rome, but on December 18 he took refuge in the Capitol with his uncle Flavius Sabinus, escaping into hiding when the Capitol was stormed by supporters of Vitellius. On the entry of his father’s supporters into Rome two days later he was saluted as Caesar, and he became praetor next year. He attempted to turn the repressive military campaign of Petillius Cerialis in the Rhineland into a triumphal operation of his own; and for this and other excesses he is said to have required his father’s pardon when the latter arrived at Rome in autumn ad 70.

"Domitian, however, was princeps juventutis (an imperial prince) and was consul six times in Vespasian’s lifetime; moreover, it was recognized that he would eventually succeed his brother Titus, who had no son and was 11 years older than Domitian. On Vespasian’s death, in June 79, Domitian expected the same position as Titus had received under Vespasian, in particular, tribunician power and some form of imperium. These were not granted, and Domitian was evidently antagonistic to his brother and is alleged to have hastened his death, which occurred on Sept. 13, 81.

"As emperor, Domitian was hated by the aristocracy. From the Trajanic writers  Tacitus and  Pliny the Younger (Suetonius is less partisan) it is hard to disentangle stock vituperation from genuine belief, but it seems certain that cruelty and ostentation were the chief grounds of his unpopularity, rather than any military or administrative incompetence. Indeed, his strict control over magistrates in Rome and the provinces won Suetonius’ praise. In his secretariat he used both freedmen and knights, some of whom retained their posts after his death; and his consilium of close advisers, including senators, involved no departure from precedent. In legislation he was severe, and he incurred censure for attempting to curb vices from which he himself was not immune. It might be fairer to criticize him for undue paternalism. An edict ordaining destruction of half the provincial vineyards was typical: it was designed to encourage the growing of grain and to limit the importing of wine into Italy (where, meanwhile, no increased output was permitted), but Domitian was unable to carry the matter through. Pliny the Younger’s letters to Trajan show that Domitian’s administrative decisions were not usually revoked.

"His military and  foreign policy was not uniformly successful. Domitian was the first emperor since Claudius (43) to campaign in person. Both in Britain and in Germany advances were made by the Romans early in the reign, and the construction of the Rhine-Danube  limes (“fortified line”) owes more to Domitian than to any other emperor. But consolidation in Scotland was halted by serious wars on the Danube, where Domitian never achieved an entirely satisfactory settlement and, worse still, lost two legions and many other troops. This, though admitted even by Tacitus to be due to the slackness or rashness of his commanders, was naturally held against Domitian at Rome. It did not affect his popularity with the army, however, whose pay he had wisely raised by one-third in ad 84.

"The real issue was his own constitutional and ceremonial position. He continued his father’s policy of holding frequent consulates (he was consul ordinarius every year from 82 to 88); he became censor for life in 85, with consequent control over senatorial membership and general behaviour; he wore triumphal dress in the Senate; and he presided, wearing Greek dress and a golden crown, over four yearly games on the Greek model, with his fellow judges wearing crowns bearing his own effigy among effigies of the gods. According to Suetonius, a grave source of offense was his insistence on being addressed as dominus et deus (“master and god”).

"The execution of his cousin Flavius Sabinus in 84 was an isolated event, but there are hints of more general trouble about 87. The crisis came with the revolt of  Antonius Saturninus, governor of Upper Germany, on Jan. 1, 89. This was suppressed by the Lower German army, but a number of executions followed, and the law of majestas (treason) was later employed freely against senators. The years 93–96 were regarded as a period of terror hitherto unsurpassed.

"Among Domitian’s opponents was a group of doctrinaire senators, friends of Tacitus and Pliny and headed by the younger  Helvidius Priscus, whose father of the same name had been executed by Vespasian. Their Stoic views were probably the cause of Domitian’s 

  expulsions of 'philosophers' from Rome on two occasions. At least 12 former consuls were executed during his reign, but there is no reason to think they were Stoics.

"Domitian’s financial difficulties are a vexing question. Cruelty came earlier in his reign than rapacity, but eventually he regularly confiscated the property of his victims. His building program had been heavy: Rome received a new  forum (later called Forum Nervae) and many other works. Then there were Domitian’s new house on the Palatine and his vast villa on the Alban Mount. Meanwhile, the increased army pay was a recurrent cost. Probably only his confiscations averted bankruptcy in the last years. The execution of his cousin Flavius Clemens in 95 convinced his closest associates that no one was safe. The conspiracy that caused his murder on Sept. 18, 96, was led by the two praetorian prefects, various palace officials, and the emperor’s wife,  Domitia Longina (daughter of Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo). Nerva, who took over the government at once, must clearly have been privy. The Senate was overjoyed at Domitian’s death, and his memory was officially condemned, but the army took it badly; the next year they insisted on the punishment of those responsible."

Guy Edward Farquhar Chilver, Ed.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/168802/Domitian

[Peppermill]

Do know these background forays are not necessary to enjoy the novel.

[KathyS]

I've taken a bit of a long side tour this morning, by reading some of these posts...historical backgrounds.  Some interest me, some not.  I'm not much for names and dates, they really don't hold a lot of meaning for me. Too dry. I watched one of the videos...an interesting love affair.....

What I am interested in is, both the writing style of this author, and her take on disclosing facts from ancient times, mixing them with fiction....all which hovers on this author's imagination. 

But, whatever, I'm finding the wanderings of a philosophical mind, a woman's interpretations of an Emperor's voice, in text.  Some of it I find tedious to read, because my mind shuts down when too much wandering takes place.  I get filled to overflowing, and then find my own mind wandering all over of these subjects and speculations she presents, just to empty my self's mind.

I'm not sure how to approach this kind of text.  From an historical view, a writer's view, or a readers view of fact and fiction.  Where do you begin, and where do you end?....as I said, I'm not that interested in these character's history, unless this author can make them live, becoming real to me.  Can she, or can't she?   Seems like I was in this same muddle when I tried to talk about VW's Orlando!  Nap time!

[Peppermill]

I'm not that interested in these character's history, unless this author can make them live, becoming real to me.

I am in much the same place on that one, Kathy.  I'm not yet convinced Hadrian is a character, historical or fictional, that totally interests me.  But, I think he is growing on me.

I'm finding the wanderings of a philosophical mind, a woman's interpretations of an Emperor's voice, in text.  Some of it I find tedious to read, because my mind shuts down when too much wandering takes place.  I get filled to overflowing....

I suppose you have  to be right about a "woman's interpretations of an Emperor's mind," but I doubt I would be likely to say a "man's interpretations of a woman's mind," so I am not sure of the significance.  Do you see Youncear's gender getting in the way or unduly influencing the interpretations?  For example?

Personally, I love stumbling across the startling insights, different than ones I would have made on the same subjects or circumstances, yet recognizable immediately in their exactness or insight or appropriateness.

I do agree that it is writing that can be approached from a variety of perspectives.  I thought of you because a) it is writing of such a different type and calibre than we have recently encountered elsewhere, and b) some of the insights, while different, remind me of ones I have gleaned in the past from your writing, sparkling gems embedded in the matrices of the drudgeries and joys of ordinary and not so ordinary living.  (Yes, a little discipline or simple meditation techniques of returning to the center are sometimes needed to not go wandering off into one's own mental journaling.)

[KathyS]

---

Peppermill wrote:

I'm not that interested in these character's history, unless this author can make them live, becoming real to me.

I am in much the same place on that one, Kathy.  I'm not yet convinced Hadrian is a character, historical or fictional, that totally interests me.  But, I think he is growing on me.

I'm finding the wanderings of a philosophical mind, a woman's interpretations of an Emperor's voice, in text.  Some of it I find tedious to read, because my mind shuts down when too much wandering takes place.  I get filled to overflowing....

I suppose you have  to be right about a "woman's interpretations of an Emperor's mind," but I doubt I would be likely to say a "man's interpretations of a woman's mind," so I am not sure of the significance.  Do you see Youncear's gender getting in the way or unduly influencing the interpretations?  For example?

I feel this author taking liberties as a woman.  How can she not help to personalize this man with her own personality?  I'm not complaining, just finding it not what I would expect a man to say, or talk about.

Personally, I love stumbling across the startling insights, different than ones I would have made on the same subjects or circumstances, yet recognizable immediately in their exactness or insight or appropriateness.

Yes, I've enjoyed these insights, but it's not a book I can read like a novel, or fast.  It may take me months to finish it!

I do agree that it is writing that can be approached from a variety of perspectives.  I thought of you because a) it is writing of such a different type and calibre than we have recently encountered elsewhere, and b) some of the insights, while different, remind me of ones I have gleaned in the past from your writing, sparkling gems embedded in the matrices of the drudgeries and joys of ordinary and not so ordinary living.  (Yes, a little discipline or simple meditation techniques of returning to the center are sometimes needed to not go wandering off into one's own mental journaling.)

---

Pepper,  Yes, I was ready for a different calibre of writing....I do love how you describe me in my writing....ha! I have no, or very little, discipline...I've been working, off and on all day on two poems (made a mess of them), and one short story (straightened it out)....I went out to dinner with friends....came home, sat down at my computer and stared at a blank page.....do you want to know what I just now wrote?  What goes on in this pea brain of mine...feeling mentally bored in my writing....pathetic.....

As stale as an old piece of bread

as dry as crust

as inspired as mold

as brittle as crumbs

collecting dust

sweet milk, sour wine, bland water

a drop of this or that

wheat bread, white bread, rye bread

cold or hotter?

open the door, close the door

warm air, cold air, hot air

vomiting stale, old pieces of bread

on the floor

[Peppermill]

I feel this author taking liberties as a woman.  How can she not help to personalize this man with her own personality?  I'm not complaining, just finding it not what I would expect a man to say, or talk about.

Well, the little bit I have read of Cicero, I feel as if Yourcenar is to some extent mimicking what and how he talks.  (Now, you may incent me to go and check whether I still agree with that assessment, but not tonight.  )

I also feel as if the text reads a bit like the reflective essays of Montaigne, although it has been awhile since I have spent any time with him either. But it is those two touch points that keep MoH from seeming feminine to me.  Still, I think I understand where you are coming from, because each of those two authors touch on subjects different and in different ways than I have encountered in most masculine conversations -- but not all.

I also agree about the difficulty of sustaining a novel's pace in reading this.  I had to finish The Complete Persepolis for this past Saturday and haven't gotten back to Hadrian yet today.  (Persepolis was the first graphic novel I had tackled.  I had been doing it bit by bit, but when I finally concentrated on the last three quarters, it went quickly.  All of us who discussed it seemed rather pleasantly and unexpectedly surprised with the experience -- the ability to capture profound emotions with graphics and a rather simple story line.)  We shall see how this (Hadrian) unfolds -- obviously a very different experience!

Essays

Thank you for the poetry.  I can relate it, appropriately or inappopriately, to our reading of Hadrian.  As well as respond to it totally independently.

PS -- are you sure "vomiting" is the word you want?  Somehow, the imagery falls apart for me, or shifts -- is the bread any longer "stale, old pieces" in this scenario?  But, I am struggling with the meaning or the intent in envisioning alternatives.

[KathyS]

Pepper, I appreciate your comparisons of these writers, although, I don't feel like I'm an intellectual, which I feel these books fall into that category.  This is not my normal reading.  I'm finding I'm more and more drawn into the odd imagery of writers, and writing.  I haven't read Hadrian for the past two days, feeling guilty, but also letting all of my thoughts settle into some sort of meaning I can translate into a visual I can get a hold of.  My left and right brain can be at odds! 

Thank you for the poetry.  I can relate it, appropriately or inappropriately, to our reading of Hadrian.  As well as respond to it totally independently.

PS -- are you sure "vomiting" is the word you want?  Somehow, the imagery falls apart for me, or shifts -- is the bread any longer "stale, old pieces" in this scenario?  But, I am struggling with the meaning or the intent in envisioning alternatives

Yes, I struggled with that word, a bit, but it was the only word that fit.  Throwing up, or out, seemingly meaningless crap onto the floor (paper), maybe it's no longer stale, once it is out there for all to see?  Embarrassing, yes, but meaningless?  The stale bread starts to hold together, becoming a substance with meaning, a sign, after it is turned over inside one's mind? 

Edit:  There is more to it than this, but I don't want to turn this into a discussion about  me.  To write becomes an emotional investment, give and take...I must leave it at that.

[Peppermill]

Pepper, I appreciate your comparisons of these writers, although, I don't feel like I'm an intellectual, which I feel these books fall into that category.

Think of them as being about wisdom, not about intellect, and I think you can enjoy them.  (I perceive you as about "wisdom."  I am blessed to have a decent head on my shoulders, but I don't think of myself as an "intellectual.")

I haven't touched Hadrian either for a few days.  I just hope I haven't convinced you into something that you will consider a waste of your money.

Thanks for the thoughts on your poetry.

[KathyS]

---

Peppermill wrote:

Pepper, I appreciate your comparisons of these writers, although, I don't feel like I'm an intellectual, which I feel these books fall into that category.

Think of them as being about wisdom, not about intellect, and I think you can enjoy them.  (I perceive you as about "wisdom."  I am blessed to have a decent head on my shoulders, but I don't think of myself as an "intellectual.")

I haven't touched Hadrian either for a few days.  I just hope I haven't convinced you into something that you will consider a waste of your money.

Thanks for the thoughts on your poetry.

---

P....

hmm, something to think about...how to define an intellectual.  I think you have a wonderful mind....you have something I don't have, and wish I did. 

Thank you for your good thoughts about wisdom, how to look at these writings.  I'll keep this in mind.

Wisdom, this is what I feel, glean, when I read and write.  But, I sometimes find I overlook something, something more I can't see, (or spend too much time looking....the tree in the forest syndrome?) but can only feel.  Maybe it's that I don't have the capacity in my thoughts to translate and write these words that I see, in a light that more people can understand..... a conundrum.

And, sometimes, I spend more time looking for answers, than finding them....One hurdle down. Yes, you did convince me, but no, you didn't waste my money. 

K.

[Melissa_W Moderator]

I've been thinking about what you wrote about voice (work has been hellacious these two weeks so thinking is all I've been doing).

I think Hadrian's voice is a difficult one to find, he is neither "masculine" or "feminine" in the sense that we have today.  I find he reads almost as "asexual", if that makes any sense.  Hadrian's voice is strong, wise, experienced but I don't get that soaked-in-testoterone feel that I get when I watch something like Rome.

---

KathyS wrote:

What I am interested in is, both the writing style of this author, and her take on disclosing facts from ancient times, mixing them with fiction....all which hovers on this author's imagination. 

But, whatever, I'm finding the wanderings of a philosophical mind, a woman's interpretations of an Emperor's voice, in text.  Some of it I find tedious to read, because my mind shuts down when too much wandering takes place.  I get filled to overflowing, and then find my own mind wandering all over of these subjects and speculations she presents, just to empty my self's mind.

---