Memoirs of Hadrian (FSG Classics)

This is a fictional narration of Hadrian, nearing death, looking back. He talks of the personal and the political. He tells of his regrets in love and life and you get the feeling he has satisfaction, more than pride, in his accomplishments. He has a long view. From the notes on the sources and the author's notes at the end, you can see that this book results from a thoughtful digestion of thorough scholarship. Since I knew little of Hadrian (perhaps should have read Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome first) there was a lot new to me.

While many give this book rave reviews, I am more tempered. Perhaps Robert Grave's I, Claudius : From the Autobiography of Tiberius Claudius, Born 10 B.C., Murdered and Deified A.D. 54 (Vintage International) is an unfair comparison since the narrators are two different personalities. Graves' Claudius is a keen observer of the people and times around him, Yourcenar's Hadrian gives us only cameos and glimpses, even of the beloved, Antinous. For me, the Graves book is the 5 star standard.

Hadrian's views on slavery, women and war seemed to be very modern, particularly in the way they are expressed. In my opinion, there has to be a less linear reach from the advanced thinking of Hadrian's time to our modern thought. For instance George Washington's views on slavery and race were slightly different from Abraham Lincoln's. The gap between Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson, though, is no longer nuanced. Yourcenar seems to bring Hadrian from his time directly into ours.

In fairness, Yourcenar has had to construct Hadrian from very little primary material. Most who read Walt Whitman's poems and some contemporary commentary would conclude that he would be an abolitionist. For Whitman, though, there is a large record letters and of accounts of conversations that show his views were not very modern. With few documents left to add nuance or dimension we can only speculate. I could not help but wonder how Hadrian would feel about this rendering of himself.

The text was probably wordier than an administrator/warrior like Hadrian would have had it. Also, I thought the author (or translator) should have inserted some grammar every now and then to give the impression that this had been translated from the Latin.

If you don't already have an interest in the Roman Empire, you will not develop one with this book. I recommend it for those with some knowledge of the Roman Empire and enjoy reading about its leaders.

Marguerite Yourcenar brings with panache Hadrian, a 2nd century Roman Emperor, back to life. Impersonating Hadrian, Yourcenar imagines that he is writing a series of letters to the attention of Marcus Aurelius, his successor. The dying emperor is pondering over his own life and legacy to the world, as any contemporary reader will do one day. Although Hadrian knows that his contribution to humanity is as fragile as his own existence, he wants to remain optimistic about the destiny of Rome and the future of human race.

A literary masterpiece which Yourcenar first drafted in 1924 and finally published in 1951 and for which she was awarded in 1952 the Prix Femina Vacaresco. Memoirs of Hadrian, as Yourcenar once said, is not properly a novel, but a narrative situated on the limits of historiography. I have reread her work several times in its original version and also in English and Spanish translations, it is a work that will enrich anyone open to discover one of the great French writers of the 20th century.

Marguerite Yourcenar wrote about a man, who is looking to his life. The old emperor is a man, not a hero. He look at his life even if it escapes: he accepts everything that has happened. The best (and the most difficult) word that a man can say resounds in the end of the book: patientia. Life and death are mixed in everybody and Hadrian sees that and want to go in his new land ("in loca/ pallidula rigida nudula...") with open eyes. My favourite book.

I purchased the Memoirs of Hadrian by Marguerite Yourcenar, Grace Frick(Translator)on a chance it might be good. I was not let down. The book though fictional poses a very realistic intimate peak at Hadrian the man and the Emperor. Focusing on the man (rather than a whitewashed idealistic view of the Emperor), the author's attention to detail and painstaking research makes this work believable and thoroughly enjoyable. In the "Memoirs" you learn something about roman politics, psychology, and philosophy. Also, you get a closer look at the eternal issues of life and death, what every human must face.

According to Wikipedia, Marguerite Yourcenar, the author ". . . first thought of the idea for the book between 1924 and 1929. She then worked on various drafts intermittently between 1934 and 1937."

My late high school Latin teacher, to whom I loaned this book. once told me that the author "received" much of the book's content while falling into a trance during a railroad journey.

This excerpt from the Feb. 14, 2005 issue of "The New Yorker" explains the circumstances:

"Before she left Europe, Yourcenar had deposited a trunk in storage at a hotel in Lausanne. She had been trying for years to get it back, and one day in 1949 it arrived. Opening it, she looked first for some valuables, but they had vanished. All that was left was a bunch of old papers. She pulled her chair up to the fireplace and started pitching things in. Then she came upon the drafts of a novel about Hadrian that she had begun when she was twenty-one and had later put aside. At the sight of those pages, she said, her mind more or less exploded. It is hard to understand how she managed to produce “Memoirs of Hadrian” in two years. In a bibliographical note appended to the novel, it takes her seventeen pages to list the sources she consulted (mostly at Yale) in order to make her account factually correct: ancient texts by the score; histories in English, French, and German; treatises on archeology, on numismatics. Then, there was the matter of writing the book, but she said that she composed it in a state of “controlled delirium.” She recalled a train trip she took at the time:

**Closed inside my compartment as if in a cubicle of some Egyptian tomb, I worked late into the night between New York and Chicago; then all the next day, in the restaurant of a Chicago station where I awaited a train blocked by storms and snow; then again until dawn, alone in the observation car of a Santa Fe limited, surrounded by black spurs of the Colorado mountains, and by the eternal pattern of the stars. Thus were written at a single impulsion the passages on food, love, sleep, and the knowledge of men. I can hardly recall a day spent with more ardor, or more lucid nights.

"Clearly, she was simply ready to write this novel, as she had not been at twenty-one. She herself said that the crux was time: “There are books which one should not attempt before having passed the age of forty.” She was forty-five when she went back to Hadrian."

I'm a lifelong bookworm and this book has catapulted to the very short list of my favorite works. I bought it in a bookstore in Rome to have as a book to read while traveling. Within pages I was telling my companions it was one of the greatest books I had ever read. You are in the presence of a magisterial mind when you read this book. I'm at a loss and may have to begin it again.

A panel of 100 writers from 54 countries assembled by Norwegian Book Clubs picked the 100 best works of fiction in existence and this book was on the list so I thought I would read it. It took some getting into, and I found it helpful to read encyclopedia entries on Hadrian, making this fictional (but solidly based on the known facts) memoir much more interesting. The prose is liquid and evocative, and grows on one as one reads. The pagan morality of Hadrian offends, but as Roman emperors go he was a success. By the time I finished reading this, I was interested in doing more reading in Roman history. I think this book may be better-done than Robert Graves' I, Claudius (read in the spring of 1959 by me) and his Claudius the God (read 26 May 1981).

Written in the form of a letter, memoir-tutorial to his nephew, the young Marcus Aurelius. Succeeding the stern super-centurion, Trajan, the Emperor comments on a wide variety of issues; his discourse on vegetarianism is highly illuminating and even amusing.
I will neither deny nor excuse the few comments of an anti-semitic nature but her training and skill as a historian makes this book exceptional for its depiction of classical Roman civilization.(or lack thereof) Maybe the best history as fiction ever written.

Yourcenar wrote this book at 24 (her first book) and could not got better. Perhaps the best first novel ever to be published, this is not just Adrian's love for Antinoo but a reflexive, complex anaylsis of power and education. Platonic and non platonic love for a person of a same gender can be seen as nromal, despite the books setting. One of the best books I ever read

The edition lacks any sort of introduction, but the translation itself simple yet breathtaking. Yourcenar has clearly presented her translator with a very thoughtful and delicate portrait of a man 'almost-wise,' and Frick makes great use of her source's intentions, capturing the great internal struggles of a man at the center of public life. Philosophy, romance, drama and (some) comedy intertwine within this work of engaging historical fiction.

Written as a series of letters by Hadrian, Yourcenar's novel is an intriguing look into life in Ancient Rome. Although the historical fiction parts of the novel sometimes are quite dry, it's the analysis and thought-provoking reflections that come from it, especially towards the end of the book, that make this book one of the 100 Best Gay & Lesbian Novels. Including political and social influences, as well as Hadrian's relationship with Antinous, Yourcenar crafted a marvelous fictional memoir of a man mired in his own life.

Yourcenar does one thing better than any one else who's ever written a novel: avoid plot and dialogue. The very idea that someone could write a "novel" of some 400 pages consisting almost entirely of nothing more than rumination is absurd; the fact of its mystical readability is shocking. Yourcenar sits alone like an anti-Cervantes, but she plies open the psyche with a skill equal to his. "Memoirs of Hadrian" is unmatched in its full-on, stripped-down exploration of existence confronting the eventuality of its undoing. A classic, and not a minor one.

Emperor Hadrian is truly one of the most fascinating, intelligent, and passionate individuals in history. The author of this book does a beautiful job with bringing the reader into Hadrian's thoughts. The emperor is a man full of wisdom and understanding, able to confess both his strengths and weaknesses. The most present element in this book, however, is Hadrian's intense love for Greece and his passion for the beautiful Antinoos. The chapters on Antinoos and the aftermath of their relationship are especially moving. A truly incredible book.

This historical novel is a historical novel like no other. Doing away with obvious and explicit references to the Roman world, Yourcenar weaves an extraordinary story out of a historic figure, and in doing so, provides a penetrating perspective on the great questions in life. The novel is exceedingly and effortlessly erudite, and the prose, academic, seeminly simple, and beautiful. Memoirs of Hadrian is a study of a man and his reflections and thoughts on life. While he may have lived in the second century, his thoughts and impressions are as close to us than many a novel of this century.

A modern classic. Yourcenar captures the spirit of the times and, I believe, the spirit of this complex and unique Roman Emperor. This book was a joy to read; when I was finished reading it, I found the re-created Hadrian to be a boon companion and was sad that our journey together had ended. Highly recommended.

"My dear Mark," the author begins, immediately establishing her fictional structure: Hadrian, approaching death, is recollecting his life expressly for the tutelary benefit of his "heir," the subsequent Emperor of Rome, the young Marcus Aurelius. There follow 295 polished and deeply imagined pages that weave across continents and plunge in and out of the most intimate recesses of his being to reveal the French Academician's artful conception of Hadrian: the boy, the athlete, the hunter, the lover, the Emperor, the near-suicide, a man. I immediately went out and looked for another book by this engaging and masterful author.

Whoever thought Yourcenar wrote this when she was 24 is completely mistaken. She may well have conceived it then. But it took an awfully long time, and she pursued the project to what some might regard as lunatic extremes, compelling herself to truly take on the character of the emperor hadrian, that is, project herself into a roman man living in the 2nd c ad. As such it is a fascinating work; but at the same time a paradox, leaves a dry taste in the mouth, as it hammers on relentlessly about the darker aspects of existence, spoiled love, death, the ultimate meaningless of things even for this great man who designed the parthenon and elected marcus aurelius as one of his heirs. Definitely worth a look. But don't be foolish and read it instead of a classic like Stendhal's 'Charterhouse of Parma', the greatest book in French.

A perfectly created historical novel. A long-life letter From Adriano to his sucessor, where the prose is immaculate and brilliant. A work perfectly balanced between story, writing style and charachter. The latter being incredibly interesting, perhaps even more interesting and 'real' than the real Emperor. A powerful and enchanting reflection upon every possible issue in life. A masterpiece of literature.

Critically acclaimed first novel by the most renowned female author France has ever produced.
Hadrian, a 2nd Century Roman Emperor, addresses a long letter to his successor, Marcus Aurelius. He muses upon his own life, power, his vision of the Roman Empire and a myriad of other topics. Yourcenar ends up providing a complex portrait of Hadrian and his times, however, the story is so internal that it's somewhat static.
GRADE: C+

Marguerite Yourcenar, the author of the ambitious Memoirs of Hadrian, apparently was the first woman to be elected to the Académie Française, so she was no dummy. She must have guessed, for example, that an autobiographical-style novel about a Roman emperor would sell a lot more copies than a scholarly work about the life of a Roman emperor. At least, this is the only explanation I can imagine (I'll admit I haven't tried very hard) for Mme Yourcenar's decision to try to write this book from Hadrian's point of view, which is, in my opinion, its failing.

Yourcenar's impressive research is apparent throughout the work, giving the background to Hadrian's memoirs quite an authentic feel, at least to my decidedly amateurish, er, feelers. The point of view just doesn't work, though. Too often it is painfully apparent that a female attempting to be a male is writing the work--and I might as well say now that, no, I don't think I could any more successfully write from the point of view of a woman, and, yes, it is possible that I'm allowing some bias to influence my judgment here, since I did in fact know that a woman wrote this book before reading it. I can only tell you that I did not begin reading this book with a predisposed notion that a woman couldn't possibly write it from the point of view of a man, and you'll have to believe me. I think a woman probably could have pulled it off successfully, but Yourcenar did not.

Another problem with the book's point of view is that some of Hadrian's shockingly accurate predictions about the future make it slightly too apparent that "his" memoirs are being written by a modern person. Also, we occasionally have Hadrian--ostensibly writing his memoirs in a letter to his successor, Marcus Aurelius--explaining himself with his 20th/21st Century audience in mind, having to elaborate things that really would not have needed any elaboration. One brief example, as he writes, remember, to Marcus Aurelius:

Quote:

...I had you elected, out of friendship for your family, to the sacred college of the Arval Brethren, over which the emperor presides, and which devoutly perpetuates our ancient Roman religious customs."

Marcus Aurelius, of course, would have wondered why any of the sentence beyond "Arval Brethren" was necessary. This is just a trifling thing, but it is one of many examples in which Yourcenar had no other choice but to stop pretending to be Hadrian writing his memoirs, and had to be a scholar explaining something to her modern audience.

I should say that I did, in fact, enjoy this book, eventually, but I struggled with it much more than I had thought I would. Since I have some interest in history and the Romans, I had thought this would be an easy read; however, the point of view issue really did irritate me, leaving me wishing that Yourcenar had just written the scholarly treatise about the life of Hadrian that I mentioned in my opening paragraph. So, setting aside the work's unsuccessful point of view, let's move on to the good bits.

As I have said, Yourcenar's research into the life of Hadrian, and into the state of the Empire during his reign--its customs, quality of life, etc.--are impressive. For those of us who learned most of our Roman history, initially at least, in neat, glossed-over eras in our school textbooks, this personal view of Roman life is effective. Perhaps this is the one manner in which Yourcenar's chosen point of view is successful, because a third-person narration might have made the attention to detail more awkward. Yourcenar also is successful in her insightful presentation of Hadrian as Emperor and, particularly, as Human--and Hadrian undeniably is one of history's extraordinary figures, due to his actions as Emperor (determined, of course, by his thoughts and feelings as a human) and it is unfortunate that he is known primarily--if at all, thinking of the US here--for a wall he built on the outskirts of the Empire, something not even deemed worthy of a mention in this book. Some of his ideas and philosophies, while not necessarily his own originally, would be considered quite progressive today, and Yourcenar's portrayal shows him to be a shrewd, intelligent, businesslike man with an overriding desire to preserve the Empire by finding the best ways to make all of its citizens play nicely together, to render it simplistically.

The personal side of Hadrian is, as I have said, portrayed fairly successfully, but Yourcenar falls down again, I am afraid, when it comes to love. This could have been an area in which the author's ill-conceived (in my opinion) idea to write from Hadrian's point of view could have served to flesh out the character and the work quite well; instead, I once again sense the author struggling--and, in this case, I think it was a knowing struggle--with point of view. Hadrian's beloved is the young man Antinous, of whom he was clearly quite fond, considering that, upon Antinous's death, Hadrian established a religious cult based upon him which lasted several centuries, and the Emperor founded a city named after him, as well. Genuine affection never quite comes through in Hadrian's account, however, which I will put down to Yourcenar struggling mightily to put herself, a modern French woman living at a time homosexuality was considered an aberration, into Hadrian, a man who had lived centuries before during a time that homosexuality was considered to be normal...and then to express genuine emotion. This was--let's face it--a difficult task, and it is yet another reason why the point of view just doesn't work.

All in all, this is a good read and an excellent work of scholarship by Mme Yourcenar. As a supposed autobiography of Hadrian, its voice never feels right, and this left me struggling my way through it at times. I would still say it would be rewarding reading for anyone with a fascination with history, particularly with Roman history.

Through research i can only fathom, Yourcenar attempts to get into Hadian's brain. And while it is impossible to really understand what anyone (especially someone dead for 2000 years) thinks, she makes logical assumptions in her readable attempt.

One thing, the reviewers, and more disturbingly the blurb on the book's back got the name of "Mark" wrong. The letter is to Marcus Antoninus (who was called, as emperor, Antoninus Pius due to his devotion to Hadrian's memory) not to Marcus Aurelius.

It's strange that no one has pointed this out the publisher yet.

This is an inspiring and moving account of the Emperor Hadrian and a subtle paen to the virtues of the classical world.
Some of the greatness of Greece and Rome lives again in these pages. The darker side is present, but also the light of thought and reason.
An antidote to those who only see "answers" and "morality" in religion.

Congratulations to the author for such an extensive and accurate historical essay. "Memoirs of Hadrian" is not only an inside trip into the inner life of a very prolific Roman Emperor, but also a fascinating adventure into the Roman Empire's most exciting edges.

Her research is quite evident. But when I finished the book I still had the feeling that I didn't really understand the inner man.

It's interesting to note how an author can cause you to feel sympathy for a man who ordered the deaths of tens of thousands of people and who ethnically cleansed Judea of Jews even going so far as to change the name of the country. If he were alive today he would be condemed as a muderous dictator.

Overall, I think that Robert Graves did it better.

Unless you are a scholar, an academic or someone who has a special interest in Hadrian and/or olden times of ancient Rome, don't go here...

Yes, it has good material and interesting information, but finding that good stuff is like looking for a needle in a haystack....a big, big haystack. The book is wordy, verbose and long, long, long, long...

Unlike today's historical novels, this one, written or translated in the 1950s, really shows its age...writing style and even layout and page presentation add to its difficulty.

Yes, there is interesting material here...but it may well best be found by reading a Cliff Notes type summary...Bookrags has a good one...

The Roman Emperor Hadrian was one of the most savage, ruthless and bloodthirsty rulers of all the Caesars. He persecuted the Christians and Jews on a large scale, carrying out massacres that are legendary. To make him the protagonist/hero of a book and ignore all the evil that he did is in very poor taste, and it smacks of apologetics. "He carried out genocide...but he put up jolly good buildings" seems to be the overall picture.
Of course there is room for historical fiction that is imaginative, but unlike Robert Graves' rightly celebrated "I, Claudius" this is not entertaining. The writing is wooden, monotonous and lacking in any convincing spark of life or feeling. Hadrian is supposed to be a terribly intellectual guy, and the book is full of supposedly profound reflections such as this: "To build is to collaborate with earth, to put a human mark upon a landscape, modifying it forever thereby; the process also contributes to that slow change which makes up the history of cities." Yeah, that's what we thought it was. Unless you put up invisible buildings standing on nothing that's sort of bound to be the case. To me this is just a string of tiresome platitudes.
Hadrian's homosexual relationship with the boy Antinous is presented in a morally vacuous way and even the boy's suicide is simply narrated as a rather poignant, awfully regrettable event, for which the older man who made use of him against nature, takes no responsibility. I think this is a shallow view of life.
It is incredible to think that this book won a literary prize. The only explanation is that to gain literary success and academic prestige, a woman writer of Yourcenar's generation had to pretend to be a man. If she pretended to be a homosexual man, so much the better. She was vicariously making herself into one of the elite.