What do you think?
Beloved and God: The Story of Hadrian and Antinous
Who was Antonius? Why did he become a god? Lambert's Beloved & God tackles all the mysteries the story presents. With many illustations of the people & places concerned in the affair & of the splendid & fascinating artefacts which it produced, this account, based on thoro research, is a compelling read.
This book investigates the mysteries that surround how this obscure Greek boy came to dominate the powerful emperor Hadrian. The author recreates the glory & decadence of the Roman Empire ripe for decline. Antinous was the lover of the Roman emperor Hadrian. The author demonstrates that Hadrian's private sexual life & his obsession with his young lover Antinous did have an impact on policy & his public actions, particularly the establishment of Antinous as a state sponsored god, to be worshiped by the citizens of the Roman Empire. When Antinous, around age 20, was accidentally drowned on the Nile, the 54 year old Hadrian was devastated & his grief changed the Empire
This book investigates the mysteries that surround how this obscure Greek boy came to dominate the powerful emperor Hadrian. The author recreates the glory & decadence of the Roman Empire ripe for decline. Antinous was the lover of the Roman emperor Hadrian. The author demonstrates that Hadrian's private sexual life & his obsession with his young lover Antinous did have an impact on policy & his public actions, particularly the establishment of Antinous as a state sponsored god, to be worshiped by the citizens of the Roman Empire. When Antinous, around age 20, was accidentally drowned on the Nile, the 54 year old Hadrian was devastated & his grief changed the Empire
Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
January 20, 2015
This book appears to cover everything there is to cover about the relationship of the Roman emperor Hadrian and his early-deceased, then immortalized, young male companion (probably lover) Antinous. While virtually everything is in doubt author Lambert does adduce a series of plausible hypotheses regarding the nature of their relationship and the circumstances of the youngster's death. In addition, the text pays a great deal of attention to the many and varied artistic representations of Antinous.
I found the lengthy discussions of art, mostly sculptural, to be rather boring and suspiciously subjective. Lambert reads a heck of a lot into the pieces, aspects of meaning that often were not suggested to me at all by the photographic plates provided for some of the items. Other aspects of the book were of much greater interest.
Most interesting, and very well done, was Lambert's succinct treatment of pederasty in the classical world. Not only does he manage to make sense of it, he also fairly distinguishes between its practice and social roles in Greek and in Roman cultures. Unlike some other treatments, his is sympathetic.
Also of interest were the comparisons drawn between the figure of Antinous, who died in 130 C.E., and Jesus. These comparisons begin, so far as the evidentiary record goes, with the patristics, all of whom strongly rejected the comparisons. Still, that such comparisons could be made raises intriguing questions about the place of Christ Jesus in the early church.
I found the lengthy discussions of art, mostly sculptural, to be rather boring and suspiciously subjective. Lambert reads a heck of a lot into the pieces, aspects of meaning that often were not suggested to me at all by the photographic plates provided for some of the items. Other aspects of the book were of much greater interest.
Most interesting, and very well done, was Lambert's succinct treatment of pederasty in the classical world. Not only does he manage to make sense of it, he also fairly distinguishes between its practice and social roles in Greek and in Roman cultures. Unlike some other treatments, his is sympathetic.
Also of interest were the comparisons drawn between the figure of Antinous, who died in 130 C.E., and Jesus. These comparisons begin, so far as the evidentiary record goes, with the patristics, all of whom strongly rejected the comparisons. Still, that such comparisons could be made raises intriguing questions about the place of Christ Jesus in the early church.
January 11, 2013
A comprehensive and highly readable account of the Emperor Hadrian's love for and deification of Antinous. Perhaps there is rather too much speculation, though this is inevitable given the limited and ambiguous surviving textual evidence, much of which is Christian and therefore hostile. I would have liked to have seen a transcript of the obelisk inscription included as an appendix, rather than the many quotes scattered through the book. Also an exploration of the archaeological context, such as Antinoopolis and Hadrian's villa at Tivoli, would have been welcome. But, there is an excellent set of references to support further research.
December 19, 2011
Sometimes we just have to face it - we don't always know all that much about something. Not even if we wished for it to be otherwise.
January 8, 2023
This is probably one of the best English language histories/biographies of Hadrian and Antonius. It deals in facts and examines what is known, what is not known and doesn't try to pretend that he can tell us things it is impossible to know. The subject is fascinating the life of Hadrian has inspired great writing (Margaret Yourcenar's Memoirs of Hadrian for example) but has been the inspiration for some of the most awful writing. There are books available purporting to describe the rituals and prayers used in the religion of Antonius - of course it is complete rubbish - the over excited vapourings of middle aged roues who believe they have found a justification for slavering over the firm thighs and peachy buttocks of adolescent boys. Let it be said and heard by all - although it is quite likely they were lovers we do not know absolutely what the relationship between Hadrian and Antonius was. But it was important. Just like the cult of Antonius was important - imperial favour may establish new Gods but to actually take root and thrive for over two hundred years needs real adherents.
The story of the emperor and his beloved, the inspiration for the last pre-christian cult and the model for some extraordinarily beautiful works of art, is fascinating. To be told what is truth, what is speculation and how the truth is sought in fragments of lost buildings and works of literature is truly remarkable. Far more remarkable then the smaltzy romantic bilge that over enthusiastic idiots bury and smoother it with.
The greatest weakness the book has is that it was published originally in 1984 and archaeology and research has come a long way since then. Even so it is a model of good sense and still worth reading.
The story of the emperor and his beloved, the inspiration for the last pre-christian cult and the model for some extraordinarily beautiful works of art, is fascinating. To be told what is truth, what is speculation and how the truth is sought in fragments of lost buildings and works of literature is truly remarkable. Far more remarkable then the smaltzy romantic bilge that over enthusiastic idiots bury and smoother it with.
The greatest weakness the book has is that it was published originally in 1984 and archaeology and research has come a long way since then. Even so it is a model of good sense and still worth reading.
August 14, 2019
This is an older work now, but still the most complete synthesis published in English on the topic. Lambert writes with a certain artistic flourish, and an inclination to enliven the dull, fragmentary sources that are par for the course when dealing with Hadrian's reign: something that makes for pleasant reading of dubious use. I am reminded in this of Mary Renault's The Nature of Alexander, also a biography dripping with love for its subject (or perhaps it is simply the long shadow that Yourcenar casts over everything to do with Antinous that brings Renault to mind by association).
I cannot speak to the academic value of Lambert's chapters on the cult or the statuary or the emperor himself, all of which lie outside of my area of expertise. The queer aspect, however, is rather deftly and capably handled; I find little fault with it and little to correct, despite the work of intervening decades.
A worthwhile acquisition for those interested in the topic, if one bears in mind the paucity of evidence left on this period, and the men in question in particular.
I cannot speak to the academic value of Lambert's chapters on the cult or the statuary or the emperor himself, all of which lie outside of my area of expertise. The queer aspect, however, is rather deftly and capably handled; I find little fault with it and little to correct, despite the work of intervening decades.
A worthwhile acquisition for those interested in the topic, if one bears in mind the paucity of evidence left on this period, and the men in question in particular.
August 16, 2020
An enthralling scholarly work, both provocative and informative. Lambert's attempt to understand the psychology of both Hadrian and Antinous is the best part of the book. Truly fascinating and respectful of their likely deep love. Placing the cult of Antinous and its Greek cultural underpinnings within the context of the rise of Christianity was also well-done.
August 3, 2024
pretty interesting honestly. a lot is uncertain but i think overall i learned a lot about theories and vite of history i didn’t know
August 2, 2026
If you know me, you know I do not PLAYYY about Antinous. I have brought him up at least once to everyone I know. I was telling ppl in the bar line about him last weekend. Now Ive known myself to not care for biographies (though I lovedddddd the Who Is? books in elementary school), Im perpetually bored and have the attention span of a fruit fly. But, I fell in love with Antinous so badly that I dropped over 50 dollars on this book and I do not regret it in the slightest. Lambert is wonderful to read and while his prose can be very wordy at times, I think thats more out of him being very knowledgable in the subject rather than a lack of skill in writing. I did come into this biography with a lot of doubt, which was worrying because this is the ONLY published book on Antinous, but I have learned now to not trust the people of reddit. A lot of people like to say that this book likes to make a lot of bold claims and assumptions, and I really just dont understand that. Like theres an entire chapter that just says like “hey we have like no contemporary evidence of this guys life therefore nothing we have is truly credible and is all layered in prejudice and personal opinions.” Also with every point Lambert makes he provides like 3-4 alternate opinions and is like yeah i think this is the most probably one but idk man… could be any of these. All this aside though this does provide pretty good information of Antinous AND of general Roman life & history (and some brief art history) so if you are wanting to think about the Roman Empire more than once a day PICK THIS SHIT UP!!! However, my one qualm is the chapter about pederasty.. obviously when youre talking about Antinous you have to mention the culture of pederasty during the classical era but Lambert refers to it as the ideal and noble system… like lets not go that far Lambert! He also mentions the death penalty for those who engaged in sexual actions with unwilling boys and refers to it as the result of ‘severe morals.’ Hm….. and like I get it that would be pretty severe in the grand scheme of classical morality but like.. do we have to say it like that? But anyways, amazing book and TRUST one day there will be stuff about Antinous published under my name.
July 5, 2026
3.5 At least I enjoyed it, but it covered unnecessary stuff for me, too. But it was interesting. I learned a lot.
September 26, 2026
"Perhaps also Antinous heard about that fifteen-year-old girl, Isidora, who, only a year or so before, had been drowned in the Nile nearby. But because eternal life was the gift of the river to those who died in it, Isidora had become the centre of a local cult, assimilated to Isis in the Egyptian style or to one of the nymphs of the waters in the Greek one.?” page 126
There was a full spectrum of “canonization” for the drowned in the Nile, depending on the patron’s resources:
Lowest level: a poor, anonymous drowned person → a small local burial chapel, local veneration (this was the “everyday” case Lambert also writes about: “humble” people for whom “shrines and temples” were built—but these were local and modest)
Middle level: Pedeszi and Pihór → they were given an entire temple because an emperor (Augustus) decided to capitalize on it politically (to secure Nubian loyalty)
Top tier: Antinoos → an entire city (Antinoopolis) and a cult spread throughout the empire, because the patron himself was the supreme authority, with unlimited resources and a political-religious apparatus
The book isn't uniformly bad—it does contain very few solid, verifiable facts.
The Petesi/Paher (Pedeszi/Pihór) Case – SPECIFICALLY VERIFIABLE AND TRUE: the Dendur Temple (which is now housed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, having been relocated due to the construction of the Aswan Dam) was indeed dedicated to two Nubian brothers—Pedes and Pihor—who drowned in the Nile, by decree of Emperor Augustus, around 23–15 B.C.
AND NOW THE BAD THINGS.
What you’re reading here isn’t history, but fiction—Lambert writes about feelings as if he were exploring the psychological motivations of a fictional character.
Imgine entire paragraphs composed like this:
- "seemed to have disliked"
- "seems to have been nurturing"
- "might just have been"
- "must have felt"
- "may have been more exacting"
- "Perhaps... also grated"
The author dedicates entire paragraphs to penning what is essentially fiction about the purported personalities of these figures, all based on sculptures (not even entirely realistic ones, mind you). The insane level of voyeurism is very uncomfortable. There is no need to write paragraphs about specific sexual deeds(!) only to add in the end: by the way, guys, we still have no idea what happened, and it is totally not relevant to the events.
Overall, I'm disappointed with the book.
Let me share one example.
What actually happens in Catullus’s poems, which Lamber tends to take word by word to support his narrative:
Carmen 10 and 28 are about the trip to Bithynia, where Catullus served in the retinue of the governor Memmius—and both poems complain that the trip yielded no financial gain (young Romans typically joined a governor’s retinue in the hope of getting rich). Catullus uses the word *irrumator* to refer to Memmius—this is a crude, sexually charged insult or curse word, roughly meaning “that faggot who screwed us over,” not necessarily a literal account of an actual act.
What you need to know about Catullus, however—and why you need to be cautious—is that he was the most obscene, most provocative Roman poet (think of the famous 16th carmen, which openly threatens his critics with anal/oral rape)—so his style is, by its very nature, exaggerated, performative, insulting, and not a restrained autobiographical confession. He explicitly engaged in literary play and provocation with these expressions, which is why a literal reading is particularly risky.
I originally wanted to give this book more stars, but that’s impossible.
1.) Chronological inconsistencies (anachronisms within the text). Boudicca’s (Boadicea’s) rebellion took place in 60–61 CE, during Nero’s reign—he himself died at that time. Domitian reigned from 81 to 96, and Hadrian was a young man at that time (born in 76). In other words, Lambert inserts an event or quote from approximately 20–30 years earlier as “evidence” of the morals that prevailed “during Hadrian’s youth”—yet Boudicca had already been dead for two decades by then.
2.) The source-critical problem with the Cassius Dio quotation. This is the most significant error: Cassius Dio wrote much later, at the turn of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and according to ancient historiographical convention, historians routinely attributed fictional, rhetorically composed speeches into the mouths of historical figures—not a verbatim record, but the author’s own conception of what the person “might have said.”
3.) An Orientalizing, value-laden framing. The phrase “bisexuality seemed the norm among the upper classes now steeped in the mores and culture of the east” is a classic 19th- and 20th-century Orientalist trope: attributing the decline of Western/Roman “purity” to “Eastern” influence and “Eastern decadence” is a long-standing, ideologically charged narrative
4. Overgeneralization everywhere without concrete data. Emotional assertions lacking specific statistical or documentary evidence
The list is endless, to be honest.
Using Juvenal’s 15th Satire as a historical source is more than problematic.
(At the beginning of the satire, Juvenal at length mocks the Egyptians for their animal worship—crocodiles, ibises, cats, and the cult of the onion—which is part of a well-established Roman catalog of stereotypes based on the topos of “Egypt, the foolish, primitive country,” not a neutral description. This is followed by a cannibalistic scene.) It cannot be ruled out that such extreme atrocities, stemming from religious-ethnic conflicts, actually occurred in Egypt, but it does not in itself validate the authenticity of Juvenal’s specific account, and again, we are walking in the realm of Royston Lambert's (dirty) historical fantasy.
There was a full spectrum of “canonization” for the drowned in the Nile, depending on the patron’s resources:
Lowest level: a poor, anonymous drowned person → a small local burial chapel, local veneration (this was the “everyday” case Lambert also writes about: “humble” people for whom “shrines and temples” were built—but these were local and modest)
Middle level: Pedeszi and Pihór → they were given an entire temple because an emperor (Augustus) decided to capitalize on it politically (to secure Nubian loyalty)
Top tier: Antinoos → an entire city (Antinoopolis) and a cult spread throughout the empire, because the patron himself was the supreme authority, with unlimited resources and a political-religious apparatus
The book isn't uniformly bad—it does contain very few solid, verifiable facts.
The Petesi/Paher (Pedeszi/Pihór) Case – SPECIFICALLY VERIFIABLE AND TRUE: the Dendur Temple (which is now housed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, having been relocated due to the construction of the Aswan Dam) was indeed dedicated to two Nubian brothers—Pedes and Pihor—who drowned in the Nile, by decree of Emperor Augustus, around 23–15 B.C.
AND NOW THE BAD THINGS.
What you’re reading here isn’t history, but fiction—Lambert writes about feelings as if he were exploring the psychological motivations of a fictional character.
Imgine entire paragraphs composed like this:
- "seemed to have disliked"
- "seems to have been nurturing"
- "might just have been"
- "must have felt"
- "may have been more exacting"
- "Perhaps... also grated"
The author dedicates entire paragraphs to penning what is essentially fiction about the purported personalities of these figures, all based on sculptures (not even entirely realistic ones, mind you). The insane level of voyeurism is very uncomfortable. There is no need to write paragraphs about specific sexual deeds(!) only to add in the end: by the way, guys, we still have no idea what happened, and it is totally not relevant to the events.
Overall, I'm disappointed with the book.
Let me share one example.
What actually happens in Catullus’s poems, which Lamber tends to take word by word to support his narrative:
Carmen 10 and 28 are about the trip to Bithynia, where Catullus served in the retinue of the governor Memmius—and both poems complain that the trip yielded no financial gain (young Romans typically joined a governor’s retinue in the hope of getting rich). Catullus uses the word *irrumator* to refer to Memmius—this is a crude, sexually charged insult or curse word, roughly meaning “that faggot who screwed us over,” not necessarily a literal account of an actual act.
What you need to know about Catullus, however—and why you need to be cautious—is that he was the most obscene, most provocative Roman poet (think of the famous 16th carmen, which openly threatens his critics with anal/oral rape)—so his style is, by its very nature, exaggerated, performative, insulting, and not a restrained autobiographical confession. He explicitly engaged in literary play and provocation with these expressions, which is why a literal reading is particularly risky.
I originally wanted to give this book more stars, but that’s impossible.
1.) Chronological inconsistencies (anachronisms within the text). Boudicca’s (Boadicea’s) rebellion took place in 60–61 CE, during Nero’s reign—he himself died at that time. Domitian reigned from 81 to 96, and Hadrian was a young man at that time (born in 76). In other words, Lambert inserts an event or quote from approximately 20–30 years earlier as “evidence” of the morals that prevailed “during Hadrian’s youth”—yet Boudicca had already been dead for two decades by then.
2.) The source-critical problem with the Cassius Dio quotation. This is the most significant error: Cassius Dio wrote much later, at the turn of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and according to ancient historiographical convention, historians routinely attributed fictional, rhetorically composed speeches into the mouths of historical figures—not a verbatim record, but the author’s own conception of what the person “might have said.”
3.) An Orientalizing, value-laden framing. The phrase “bisexuality seemed the norm among the upper classes now steeped in the mores and culture of the east” is a classic 19th- and 20th-century Orientalist trope: attributing the decline of Western/Roman “purity” to “Eastern” influence and “Eastern decadence” is a long-standing, ideologically charged narrative
4. Overgeneralization everywhere without concrete data. Emotional assertions lacking specific statistical or documentary evidence
The list is endless, to be honest.
Using Juvenal’s 15th Satire as a historical source is more than problematic.
(At the beginning of the satire, Juvenal at length mocks the Egyptians for their animal worship—crocodiles, ibises, cats, and the cult of the onion—which is part of a well-established Roman catalog of stereotypes based on the topos of “Egypt, the foolish, primitive country,” not a neutral description. This is followed by a cannibalistic scene.) It cannot be ruled out that such extreme atrocities, stemming from religious-ethnic conflicts, actually occurred in Egypt, but it does not in itself validate the authenticity of Juvenal’s specific account, and again, we are walking in the realm of Royston Lambert's (dirty) historical fantasy.
September 13, 2020
Lambert’s preoccupation with Antinous is touching. He takes some liberties when psychologizing source material, but overall I found his resurrection of Antinous’ personality and biography more endearing than annoying. Lambert’s admiration of Antinous as Gay God shines in each speculation, and especially in his attempt to rescue the hero from later Christian persecution. Exhaustive bibliography as well. Worth reading!
July 29, 2024
primeiro livro q li sobre o adriano e o antínoo shoutout ao autor por falar de literalmente TUDO
Read
August 12, 2025Look, a history book can be a good read while not necessarily being great at the history. This isn't me saying that Beloved And God is bad history, per se. And it's certainly not a bad read.
Most of Royston Lambert's other published work is about periods much later in history. Beloved And God appears to be his only publication about Ancient Rome, and it's looking at the emperor Hadrian and his boyfriend Antinous, about whom there are very very few sources. From these meagre contemporary or near-contemporary sources, Lambert has extrapolated further than I (and a lot of other historians) would go in speculating on what Hadrian and Antinous were thinking and doing at the time.
On one hand, this means some bits of the book are a little jarring, especially the parts on Antinous's death, to which Lambert is very confident in attributing a cause which most historians today wouldn't. On the other hand, it's frankly delightful to see someone in 1982 being so up front in defending the queerness of Hadrian and Antinous against attempts to make them friends/relatives which Victorian historians were very keen to do. There's not much biographically that I can find about Lambert, but him being unmarried and dying aged only 49 in 1982 makes me wonder if he himself was gay and whether his death was an early AIDS one.
Read this if you are interested in Hadrian and Antinous but keep a pinch of salt ready for many of the later chapters.
Most of Royston Lambert's other published work is about periods much later in history. Beloved And God appears to be his only publication about Ancient Rome, and it's looking at the emperor Hadrian and his boyfriend Antinous, about whom there are very very few sources. From these meagre contemporary or near-contemporary sources, Lambert has extrapolated further than I (and a lot of other historians) would go in speculating on what Hadrian and Antinous were thinking and doing at the time.
On one hand, this means some bits of the book are a little jarring, especially the parts on Antinous's death, to which Lambert is very confident in attributing a cause which most historians today wouldn't. On the other hand, it's frankly delightful to see someone in 1982 being so up front in defending the queerness of Hadrian and Antinous against attempts to make them friends/relatives which Victorian historians were very keen to do. There's not much biographically that I can find about Lambert, but him being unmarried and dying aged only 49 in 1982 makes me wonder if he himself was gay and whether his death was an early AIDS one.
Read this if you are interested in Hadrian and Antinous but keep a pinch of salt ready for many of the later chapters.
Did Not Finish
June 8, 2024DNF'd on page 15
Super interesting topic, but written in such a pompous, insufferable way. Would love to see a modern historian write a nonfiction account of Hadrian and Antinous, but until then... I'm not gonna settle for this.
Super interesting topic, but written in such a pompous, insufferable way. Would love to see a modern historian write a nonfiction account of Hadrian and Antinous, but until then... I'm not gonna settle for this.
Read
September 9, 2019Atenção, esta edição corresponde apenas ao sexto capítulo de uma obra muito mais vasta, Beloved and God.
April 18, 2022
A slow and interesting book. Accounting for the impact of Antinous after his death.
I was hoping for more about Hadrian and Antinous life.
I was hoping for more about Hadrian and Antinous life.
October 8, 2023
Great, if a bit dense with a scholarly approach. Don't get me wrong, it's the best out there on this incredible man and one of the great love stories of all time.
March 16, 2025
Rigorous enough to engender a healthy distrust of any conclusions, audacious enough to excite the imagination and bring to life a fascinating episode emblematic of the decline of Rome.
September 1, 2011
For those who cannot get enough of the true story of Hadrian and his beloved Antinous.
A sad story.....a joyous story.......a story of a Lover and his Beloved who gave himself in more ways than one for his lover...Hadrian.
Beauty... love.... grace...Antinous had it all...and it was all for Hadrian.
A sad story.....a joyous story.......a story of a Lover and his Beloved who gave himself in more ways than one for his lover...Hadrian.
Beauty... love.... grace...Antinous had it all...and it was all for Hadrian.
December 29, 2010
Amazing read with many details about Antinous and many beautiful photos. The author did love his subject matter greatly and did an extensive research. For me the definite historical read for any Antinous/Hadrian lover out there.
February 25, 2014
Excellent telling of the story of both Hadrian and Antinous, also touching on its influence on early Christian development.
May 3, 2016
extremely interesting and well detailed. the author clearly is passionate and wants to tell the complete tale. lovely piece
March 10, 2019
In terms of context, research & style, exquisite. An excellent read.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews