I would expect to lie this, from its subject, but somehow I just can't get into it. ( )

Yourcenar began first writing this book in the period 1924-1929; she destroyed all those manuscripts; she abandoned and then returned to the theme, on and off, for the next 20 years or so and then she was seized by it, began writing, and published the book, in French, in 1951. She wanted to write not a standard biography of history of Hadrian, but rather, as much as possible, to explore his world through his eyes and his thoughts. This is an ambitious undertaking: how does one remain true to what the historical figure did say/do, or might have said/done, when all historical knowledge (except, e.g. for very straight-forward things such as the date of a specific battle) is filtered through the lens of perhaps self-serving memoirs or subsequent telling or descriptions or impressions, all of which themselves are coloured by the biases, weaknesses, or political motivations of the witnesses? How to neutralize the effect of the writer’s knowledge of subsequent historical events? How to account for the writer’s own biases? These are challenges any writer of this type of historical novel would face; Yourcenar is well aware of them (as she attests in notes at the back of the book) but I think she, by and large, manages the challenges well, although she does in places give a little more reign to her subsequent knowledge. As Yourcenar herself put it: “One foot in scholarship, the other in magic arts, or, more accurately and without metaphor, absorption in that sympathetic magic, which operates when one transports oneself, in thought, into another’s body and soul.”

The book tracks Hadrian’s life and accomplishments, as known to history, closely. And I think the best we can say is that Yourcenar constructs very plausible scenarios and philosophies for the thrust of Hadrian’s thinking, his hopes, his fears, his evolving sense of life and politics as he ages and faces his physical weakening and his death (he died at 62).

There are many themes and lines of enquiry and investigation and contemplation in this novel. For instance, what does it mean to be a man, with all of a man’s weaknesses and prejudices and strengths and desires and needs, and then to become venerated as godly with the power of life and death over people; for some that way lies madness, for others, such as Hadrian, a strong sense of duty and self-awareness as a Stoic and Epicurean philosopher, provided sufficient ballast to let him maintain an even keel. Except for the Second Roman-Jewish War, Hadrian’s reign (AD 117-138) was marked by peace; his efforts were much more directed to strengthening the borders of the empire, eschewing military adventure and glory, and a preference for negotiation as opposed to conflict.

Hadrian evinces a fatalism concerning the passage of time and the inevitability of change in the lives of people, states and empires, he takes very much the long view in considering history. In Yourcenar’s words, Hadrian is thankful to the gods, “ for they had allowed me to live in a period when my allotted task consisted of prudent reorganization of a world, and not of extracting matter, still unformed, from chaos, or of lying upon a corpse in the effort to revive it. I enjoyed the thought that our past was long enough to provide us with great examples, but not so heavy as to crush us under their weight; that our technical developments had advanced to the point of facilitating hygiene in the cities and prosperity for the population, though not to the degree of encumbering man with useless acquisition; that our arts like trees grown weary with the abundance of their bearing, were still able to produce a few choice fruits. I was glad that our venerable, almost formless religions, drained of all intransigence and purged of savage rites, linked us mysteriously to the most ancient secrets of man and of earth, not forbidding us, however, a secular explanation of facts and a rational view of human conduct. It was, in sum, pleasing to me that even these words, Humanity, Liberty, Happiness, had not yet lost their value by too much misuse.”

An erudite, thoughtful, book with much to provide for further thinking and pondering.

My second favourite Emperor - very interesting read ( )

A fictional memoir of the Emperor Hadrian, tending towards the philosophical rather than a straightforward historical narrative. There are some lovely passages here, wistful meditations on astronomy, history, the living of life, and sensual passion. In this telling, Hadrian comes across perhaps more as an existentialist than a stoic.

This novel utilizes the biography of Hadrian from the Augustan History (Lives of the Later Caesars in the Penguin edition), but downplays the subjects more vile characteristics, which were probably somewhat exaggerated in the original telling anyway. 12/97

I adored this book, really and truly. Yourcenar’s prose, even in translation, is a triumph. The novel takes the form of a letter written by Hadrian to his heir presumptive, the young Marcus Aurelius; and in it, she really manages to capture some of the stately elegance of which Latin is capable, even though she was writing in another language. Her prose flows beautifully; it’s such a joy to read.

For a biographical novel concerned with the life – and the leaving of it – by a Roman emperor, she never really goes into too much detail on the facts of his reign, or the people by whom he was surrounded. Yourcenar is much more concerned with how Hadrian sees the world around him, his philosophy of life, and the function which he sees the empire as having. For all that some of his actions would seem reprehensible, and some of his ideas mistaken, to a modern reader, I always found myself sympathising with him because Yourcenar conveyed his world view so well. There is a very real sense of inhabiting the (mental) world of ancient Rome for a time when reading this.

Such a brilliant psychological study, and a very persuasive and plausible recreation of what Hadrian might have been like as a man. Highly recommended. ( )