Cellini/Aciman Reading Journal Entry

How do the two authors portray themselves differently in their autobiographical works?

In Cellini’s autobiography he seems to portray himself as a person who is making a mark on the places he lives and goes in Italy whereas Aciman portrays himself as being profoundly shaped and affected by the city of Rome itself. Cellini also first tells the story of his parents before he talks about himself, yet after that he gives himself a heroic image. For instance, this is apparent when he writes of his memory of picking up a scorpion and refusing to give it up at the young age of five (p20), and when he describes his bravery when attempting to protect his brother who got involved in a brawl: “But I stayed my ground till some tough soldiers came up from the San Gallo gate and, astonished at finding such great courage in someone so young, rescued me from that furious mob” (p24).

In contrast, Aciman writes as though he is constantly humbled by Rome, with its amazing sites, culture, history, and atmosphere. He writes about his life in Rome as though it is a dream, and as though the city of Rome has more control over him than he does over it. For instance, he writes, “And this, without question, is the most beautiful city on earth, just as it is the most serene. Not only is the weather and everything around us serene, but we ourselves become serene. Serenity is the feeling of being one with the world, of having nothing to wish for, of lacking of nothing. Of being, as almost never happens elsewhere, entirely in the present.” This is a much more humble outlook about himself and his life in Italy.

Which one is more conscious of the reader’s presence (wants to make a particular impression on audience)? Why do you say this?

I think Cellini is more conscious of the reader’s presence and wants to make a particular impression on the audience for the same reasons that I stated above. Aciman seems to want to make the reader just as enchanted with Rome as he is, but Cellini shows that he wants the reader to think particular things about him (i.e. that he is talented, heroic, brave, intelligent, special, etc). Cellini also addresses the reader directly at times, which is certainly successful at engaging the reader further. For instance, he writes, “Now as far as the few honours that I myself have won for my family—living the sort of life that we know is lived today, and by means of my art, although it does not amount to much—I shall talk about them in the appropriate place” (17). Here, Cellini is guiding the reader through his story, making sure that the reader understands what he is telling and what he plans to tell in the near future. For me, Cellini’s piece speaks to me as a story-telling, with addresses to the reader, dialogue, and flare. Even though Aciman does a great job of describing things, he does not engage the reader as much as Cellini does.

Which author is more convincing or believable? Why?

I think Cellini is more convincing because he really does show more than he tells. He does this through dialogue, through occasional mentioning of places, through a tone and a voice that comes off as someone telling you a story in person. He even shows some negative qualities about himself from time to time during the course of his writing, like his tendency to be a little conceited or rude. Rather than simply describing a city and how it affects him—like Aciman—Cellini focuses more on people and characters within the cities that the reader can easily imagine. Cellini’s unique and personal characteristics are revealed more in his writing than in Aciman’s, which for me, makes the story much more convincing and believable.