A Spiritual Canticle by St. John of the Cross

I have been meaning to read this book for some times, but I have always dreaded I won’t have enough time to plough the depth of the canticle. So, I have decided to read the forty stanzas in forty weeks—one stanza a week. I read the Indonesian translation, along with comments that St. John added later, which I found very helpful to understand (a little more) the canticle.

Let me give you a peek of some earlier stanzas:

Stanza #1

Where have You hidden Yourself,

And abandoned me in my groaning, O my Beloved?

You have fled like the hart,

Having wounded me.

I ran after You, crying; but You were gone.

It’s about a soul’s search for unity with God—pictured as a bride who is seeking her bridegroom. It loves God so much that it hurts—longing for the perfect happiness, which is unity with God in Heaven. But when it is still on earth, it must be satisfied by just getting a glimpse of Him. Right when it feels Him, He would flash out of its reach; and this bleeds the soul so much more.

Stanza #2

O shepherds, you who go

Through the sheepcots up the hill,

If you shall see Him

Whom I love the most,

Tell Him I languish, suffer, and die.

The soul needs an intermediary (pictured as shepherds) to express its love lamentation to God (pictured as hill—or the highest peak). Here the commentator suggests that the intermediary could be its own longing and affection; or it could also means the angels—I am more inclined of the latter. So the soul begs the angels to speak about its sorrowful love to Him (whom the angels could reach easier than the soul) when the time is right for Him (or if God is willing) to listen to it (“if you shall see Him”). Here the soul does not demand anything; it just gives hints about its anguish and let the Lover do what He desires. By humbling itself, God would take more pity to the soul.

Stanza #3

In search of my Love

I will go over mountains and strands;

I will gather no flowers,

I will fear no wild beasts;

And pass by the mighty and the frontiers.

Laments and intermediary does not suffice the souls to reach its Beloved; it must move and take active action [‘searching’], i.e. by exercising contemplative life towards wisdom (mountains—higher place) and self-denials (strands—lower place). The soul decides to purify itself from vain pleasures which would block it from God (gather no flowers). Besides that, there are three other enemies that put the soul away from God: 1) The world (wild beasts)—which threatens the soul of losing its friends and belongings; 2) Satan (the mighty)—who will strive the soul from unity with God; 3) The natural rebellion of the flesh against the spirit (the frontiers)—the flesh is the frontier that hinder the soul on its spiritual journey. The soul determines to pass through all these obstacles to find its Lover.

Stanza #4

O groves and thickets

Planted by the hand of the Beloved;

O verdant meads

Enameled with flowers,

Tell me, has He passed by you?

After preparing the long journey to reach God (on stanza #3), the soul starts its spiritual journey by getting to know Him through His creations. It’s as if the soul begs the nature: show me how beautiful He has created you! It reflects the soul’s longing to grasp His traces/His touch on the creation. While it is still far away from the Lover, at least it can touch and adore His works. Just as a lover loves to touch or kiss a shirt belongs to the absent beloved one.

Stanza #5

A thousand graces diffusing

He passed through the groves in haste,

And merely regarding them

As He passed,

Clothed them with His beauty.

Nature answers the soul’s entreaty by revealing that God has created the creatures in a very fast [‘He passed…in haste’] and simple action, yet abundant in graces [‘a thousand’]. He created the creatures ‘in haste’ reflects that the universe is just a small act compared to the Incarnation of the Word and the mysteries of the Christian faith. ‘Regarding them’ means that God regards us through His Son. He bestows us graces and gifts to make us perfect (as is in the book of Genesis). [Clothed them with His beauty] means that when Jesus incarnated to man, God exalted mankind, and bestows them with beauty and dignity.

======

And the journey continues on till the fortieth stanza, where the soul finally united with God.

This is probably one of the most difficult books I have encountered. I could relate with only the early eight or ten stanzas. While I could imagine the soul’s longing for “marriage” with God (like in the Book of Song of Songs), I still can’t get how it possibly happen to ordinary people like us, whose focuses are much occupied by worldly matters. However, it is gratifying to learn that it is possible for man to achieve that holy unity with his Creator. And it certainly encouraged me to be a better person day by day.

3 / 5

The Black Tulip by Alexandre Dumas

After my little disappointment with Ivanhoe, I must thank Alexandre Dumas, père, for once again brought me into the excitement of elaborate plot and romances, through The Black Tulip. Dumas’ novels always make me wonder whether this and that are historical events/characters, or just fiction; as he mixed both in such a genius way you won’t find the boundary.

At first I thought it would be the story of de Witts: Johan the Great Pensionary of Dutch (Prime Minister) and his brother Cornelis, who were lynched by the citizen because they opposed William of Orange. The attack was quite terrible; and it was more so because then I was not yet familiar with the dark history. But after that painful part, came the story of the tulip fancier and his envious neighbor. It was really entertaining, but at that time I didn’t get the connection with the political side, except that Cornelius van Baerle, the tulip fancier, was the godson of Cornelis de Witt. But, as usual with Dumas, the plot slowly intertwined beautifully and closed satisfyingly at the ending.

The Black Tulip combined the history of Dutch political environment and Tulip Mania during the Golden Age. The hero was a bourgeois Doctor with a passion on agricultural, but particularly in growing Tulip. As he was rich, Cornelius equipped his mansion with all possible resources to grow the finest tulips in town. His neighbor, Isaac Boxtel, was also a Tulip fancier but much poorer, who grew envious to Cornelius’ unlimited resources. Then came a grand competition held by the Tulip Society of Harleem, who offered a hundred thousand guilders prize for anyone who succeed in growing a black tulip without a spot of color, which has then never yet been found. But as Cornelius was in the final step of growing his black tulip—spied maliciously by Isaac Boxtel—came instruction from William of Orange to capture and put Cornelius in jail for helping the ‘traitors’ de Witt.

Did Cornelius put his ambition down, then, to grow the black tulip, as he was a convict? How could he manage to continue the labor? And don’t forget the envious Isaac Boxtel who planned to steal the black tulip and claim it as his own, to snatch the prize! Well, just trust Père Dumas; he would spice up the politics and flower fancying with high adventures and romances, that it would be difficult for you to not believing it as a true history. And as usual, everything would be put in its place satisfyingly for all, and mostly for us, readers.

Again, Monsieur Dumas has satisfied me beyond my expectation in this novel. Romanticism—with its unreasonable heroism—usually does not impress me much, but with Dumas, well… it’s just different. Four and a half stars for The Black Tulip!

~~~~~~~~~

I read e-book from Project Gutenberg

This book is counted for:

7^th book for Literary Movement Reading Challenge:Romanticism

4^th book for Back to the Classics 2015: A Forgotten Classic

Macbeth

Frankly speaking, I was a bit disappointed with Macbeth. It turned out not as intense as I have expected. I have read somewhere that Macbeth is one of Shakespeare’s shortest tragedies, and maybe it is true, as the scenes seemed to be passing quickly before leaving deeper impression upon me. I have once seen some illustrations of the three witches; but in the play, they didn’t seem grim at all. The eerie atmosphere felt after Macbeth killed Duncan, and later on when Lady Macbeth was sleepwalking with candle in her hand. Maybe this play in particular would be much better when performed on stage, than read as a book.

Macbeth is a Scottish general, and after having won a battle, the Emperor Duncan praises him for his bravery. When he is chatting with his colleague Banquo, they meet three witches whom greet them with prophecies. Macbeth would become Thane of Cawdor (he is at present Thane of Glamis), and then a King; while Banquo is prophesied to beget a line of Kings though he himself will not. Almost right away someone tells Macbeth that he is now Thane of Cawdor after the previous one died. Macbeth instantly believes the prophecies to be true, and begins to build ambition for becoming a King.

When the King visits Macbeth’ castle, Lady Macbeth encourages the reluctant Macbeth to murder King Duncan. He did it although got disturbed after the deeds. As he is Kings nearest relative, Macbeth is soon crowned as King of Scotland. But he never rests assured about his throne as he still remembers what the three witches has prophesied about Banquo; so he sent murderers to kill him. Disturbed with guilt, Macbeth seeks assurance from the three witches; whom tells him that no one born of a woman will kill him but to be careful with Macduff—a lord. So when Macduff wants to take revenge for his family’s murder, Macbeth keeps calm as ‘none of woman born shall harm Macbeth. But is it possible for a human being to be invincible? Or is Macbeth deluding himself?

My favorite part from this play is Macbeth’s soliloquy after hearing the news of Lady Macbeth’s death: “Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow…”. It is perhaps the only one that really touched me. I can feel how desperate Macbeth is when losing his strong supporting wife while he must be prepared for the grand battle. I almost even felt sorry for him. Here are the full lines:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time,

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

It makes you thinking….do our days of life really signify nothing? Perhaps it doesn’t if you lead a wrong way to live. Just like Macbeth…

I must admire Shakespeare’s great influence in Renaissance literature. His did give a new structure and style to plays, remodeling the old Greek’s and making plays flow more fluently and dynamically. And his role in elevating English language is not to be questioned. But sometimes his lines can be vulgar, which reduce my admiration to him.

Three and a half stars for Macbeth.

 I read ebook from Feedbooks dot com

This book is counted as:

3^rd book for Literary Movement Reading Challenge2015 (Renaissance)

Play On Challenge 2015: February – Renaissance

87^th book for The Classics Club Project

Doctor Faustus

“If Shakespeare had died at the age Marlowe died, there would have been no question that Marlowe was the leading figure in English Renaissance drama”—I found this on the back of my copy of Marlowe’s The Plays. I have only read Doctor Faustus, so I could not fairly justify, but comparing Faustus with Shakespeare’s other non historical tragedies I have read so far, I must admit that (for me) Marlowe is in the lead.

I always feel Shakespeare’s humour was a bit tacky, while Marlowe’s was more elegant. Marlowe’s tragedy (again, I only read Faustus) is full of reflection, while Shakespeare’s are more dynamic. For people who like only to watch drama for amusement, Shakespeare’s would be more pleasant to watch. Marlowe’s is a bit darker and tends to make us think deeper. Maybe Marlowe’s are more suitable for reading.

Faustus is a learned man (he’s a Doctor anyway), and after having learned various sciences, he is not yet satisfied. So he learns necromancy and magic, with which he believes he could have limited power over the universe. He is guided by one of Lucifer’s servants, Mephistophilis, who promises him his unlimited service if he agrees to serve Lucifer. Despite of warnings from his own conscience and the good angel, Faustus blood-signs an agreement with Lucifer to swap his soul with power, knowledge, and pleasure.

Doctor Faustus is a reminder for us all how human fall to sin. Greediness is perhaps the seed of all sins; it is when man wants more than what he deserves to get. Faustus is provided for learning every science he wants, but it’s not enough for him. At this point the devil can easily buy him. But the fall of men to sin is usual story; the true tragedy lies in Faustus’ stubbornness in repentance, though God has offered His mercy.

There are two version of Doctor Faustus exists, the A-text (published in 1604) and B-text (1616), and it’s still on debate, which one (or both?) was really written by Marlowe. I decided to read both; so I started with the whole of A-text first; then continued on B-text but skip the same parts, only focusing on the alternate. I must say in the end that the B-text is slightly better. I loved particularly the ending in B-text, when the scholars found Faustus’ body ‘all torn asunder by the hand of death!’ . Maybe the A-text is more dramatic because, I imagine, were it performed on stage, Faustus’ last anguish shriek when he was brought by Mephistophilis would be heard as a hollow echo when everybody exited, before the chorus closed the play by announcing the horrific tragedy: ‘Cut is the branch that might have grown full straight’. But the scholars’ scene in the B-text allows us to feel the horror more intensely, although I think it would be too eerie to be performed on stage. But the best addition of the B-text is perhaps Scene 6 Act 4; the comical scenes of Robin and Dick, and Faustus and the horse-seller. It’s not as slapstick as Shakespeare’s, but it helped reducing a bit the dark atmosphere; funny but witty.

Interestingly, Marlowe put a historical figure in the play: Pope Adrian VI, who is dealing with his rival, Pope Bruno, whom was more favored by the Emperor. Only later did I learn that Pope Bruno was fictional character. I still did not understand why the Pope should be put here, other than became a ‘toy’ whom Faustus could chaff and play using his new power of magic (a symbol of how low Faustus has sinned, that he dared ridiculing a Pope?) . Or was Marlowe mocking or criticizing the political power of Catholic Church then?

Anyway, Doctor Faustus is a great tragedy from one of Renaissance greatest dramatists: Christophe Marlowe. The spirit of learning new things which colored the Renaissance era reflected in Faustus’ passion in knowledge. He has studied philosophies like many his contemporaries, but also economy, physic, law, and theology—which he finally put aside as they weren’t as tantalizing as necromancy. Play-wise, there was still trace of Greek plays in Doctor Faustus, i.e. the chorus at the start and the end. Besides that, Marlowe’s style was more freely flowing than Greek. His chaffing on Pope Adrian and the Church officials was perhaps reflecting how Renaissance era began to shake off the dominant power of the Church in Medieval era.

Five stars for Doctor Faustus, or originally The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I read the Wordsworth Classics paperback edition

This book is counted as:

2^nd book for Literary Movement Reading Challenge 2015 (Renaissance)

1^st book for Back to the Classics Challenge 2015 (A Classic Play)

Play On Challenge 2015: February - Renaissance

86^th book for The Classics Club Project

Don Quixote: Final Review

I have a mixed feeling about Don Quixote. On the one hand I quite enjoyed Cervantes’ wit and beautiful prose, but on the other I disliked the absurdities. I just could not force myself to believe there are people so contradictory like Don Quixote and Sancho Pança, who at a time were so wise, but at others so stupid. I know that Cervantes made it absurd on purpose, but that’s why I could never really like it.

Alonso Quixada was a gentleman who lived quietly in La Mancha. He was obsessed by books of chivalry in his personal library. The idea of knight-errantry poisoned his mind, that one day, in his thoroughly frenzied mind, he felt a strong impulse to become a knight and sought adventures in order to relieve the weak and oppressed from their sorrows. He followed every rule he had read from his books, and was suddenly transformed into a Don Quixote de la Mancha. He recruited a country farmer called Sancho Pança as his squire, and took a peasant woman to be his adored-lady—just because a knight in books used to have a squire, and a lady to whom he dedicated all his deeds. Mounting on his skinny horse—which he fancied as a stout one—he left La Mancha to seek adventures.

And indeed, a lot of adventures he got along the way. However, far from helping people, Don Quixote often ended up bringing trouble to others. It’s because he himself had fancied that those people were in trouble and needing his help—while in reality they didn’t. In the urge of having problems to solve, Don Quixote used to create them in his fantasies. In these fantasies, either people, or animals, or even things might become his worst enemies. One of his, probably, most memorable (and funniest) adventure is when he attacked some windmills which he imagined as giants! But you might wonder, if the adventures were mere fantasies, how did he react when they were failed? When things went wrong, Don Quixote blamed it on enchantment or works of a magician.

If he was so deluded, why didn’t his squire or others lead him to the truth? Sancho was quite a man of sense, but he was also deluded by illusion of power. He was so sure that one day Don Quixote would be a King, and would grant him island to govern. But other than that, Sancho was an amiable man. And maybe, besides his childish trust to his master, he was the most natural character of others, and has become my most favorite character in this book.

Now, along his adventures, Don Quixote met so many people. Interestingly, none of them seemed really appreciate Don Quixote’s main aim by entering knight-errantry profession, which was to help others. This was a noble dream, but people failed to see it as it was, and focused instead on the crazy ways he tried to achieve it. The curate, the barber, and the bachelor tried hard to bring him home and cure him. In their eyes, Don Quixote was a poor deluded old man who only humiliated himself by his knight-errantry. The Duke and Duchess were much worse; they put (too) much effort to create adventures for Don Quixote just to amuse themselves—it’s bullying, and I hate them for it! There were still many other characters, some were kind to Don Quixote and Sancho, but some were quite rude. But all of them saw the same thing from our knight: a mad man; either they pitied him or were annoyed by him.

So, that is how Cervantes saw the world in his era. The nobility and moral value had been decaying, and people only saw what appeared on the surface. The biggest irony in this story is how people regarded Don Quixote as a deluded man, while in fact it was they who were deluded. Strange and unreasonable as he was, Don Quixote was the only one who still strongly believed in nobility and the need of helping others; while the others—normal as they believed they were—could only see a strange old man, and failed to see his much deeper and important quality as a human being.

Only after I finished this book, did I see why Don Quixote has been a very important work in our literary world. Cervantes is indeed great in conveying his ideas through this entertaining satirical romance, which became the first complete novel ever published. Don Quixote is actually divided into two parts. In the first one Cervantes wrote it as if he presented us a history of a certain knight, written by a Moor called Benengali. Interestingly, in the second part, Cervantes took a more active role, by putting another author who has been writing the sequel of Don Quixote without his permission, and made Don Quixote met people who have read the false history of him. The meta-story style could also be found in part one; actually one of them: “The Impertinent Curiosity” is so engaging I even think I love it better than the original story! And this is very interesting, considering it was written some four centuries ago.

All in all, I realized that Don Quixote is a special and genius piece of literature, but somehow, I could not like it as I thought I would. I got bored many times, and used to skip few pages, before continuing. Maybe, if Cervantes didn’t put too many adventures, I would like it more. But in the end, three and a half stars are the best I could give for Don Quixote, one memorable story but too tedious for my liking.

~~~~~~~~

I read Wordsworth Classics paperback

This book is counted as:

2^nd book for 2014 TBR Pile Challenge

1^st book for Back to the Classics 2014

67^th book for The Classics Club Project

16^th book for WEM Self-Project

 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

Hamlet – Final Review

After reading Hamlet, I can officially announce that tragedy is my most favorite theme when it comes to plays. The story is more intense and there is less nonsense than in comedy. Although I tend to like historical tragedy (Julius Caesar, Antony & Cleopatra, Saint Joan and Richard III are my favorites), Hamlet is good, and I quite like it.

Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark. His father—Hamlet senior, the King—has just passed away, and now Denmark is ruled by Claudius, King Hamlet’s brother. Not only the kingdom, Claudius also took over the Queen—Gertrude—to be his wife. In his mourning, Hamlet was told by his friend Horatio that a Ghost that looked like the late King Hamlet has appeared lately. One night Hamlet saw, or rather met, the ghost of his father, who said that he has, in fact, been poisoned by Claudius while he was asleep, and he wanted Hamlet to take revenge for him.

Still unconvinced by the ghost, Hamlet arranged with a group of actors to perform a certain tragedy based on a story he wrote himself, the story of his father’s death (according to the ghost). Hamlet wanted to seek proof of Claudius guilt, and to justify his revenge plan. Claudius was angry and plannd to kill Hamlet, while Hamlet killed Polonius accidentally as he thought he was Claudius. Polonius’ son Laertes wanted to kill Hamlet to take revenge of his father’s death, and he was used by Claudius to kill Hamlet in an arranged duel, involving poisoned sword and poisoned goblet of wine. As in every tragedy, everybody died, leaving Horatio to tell the world the whole truth.

I like Hamlet for his smart tongue, it seems that he always wins from anyone who wants to pull something off him that he doesn’t freely give. His counter to Guildenstern’s unceasing pressing questions is one example. Hamlet insisted that Guildenstern should try playing a flute despite of the latter’s confession that he doesn’t know about melody. Hamlet then uses the flute playing to satirize his impending questions: “Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you cannot play upon me.” Clever!

And when he wasn’t roused by the passion for revenge, he could be quite romantic too I guess…

“Doubt thou the stars are fire,

  Doubt that the sun doth move,

  Doubt truth to be a liar,

  But never doubt I love.”

I wonder, did he actually love Ophelia? And if Claudius have not killed his father, would he marry her? Just playing “if”…. :P

His speech, when he and Horatio met a gravedigger, is quite interesting too; he talked about how men would all end in the same shape: skulls in the grave. It makes me reflect of how vain everything we think is important in this world, as it would be vanished when we are dead.

One rather contradictory thing: Hamlet did not kill Claudius when he caught the King praying. Is it a noble act? If refusing to attack someone unprepared is the reason, then I can see Hamlet as a gentleman. However, Shakespeare purposely wrote that Hamlet thought that killing a man while he was praying would hinder the victim from ascending to Heaven. Is this some moral conscience? But he was having revenge, which is against conscience. And he killed Polonius nevertheless (thinking he was Claudius) when he was hiding behind the tapestry, definitely unprepared. So why did the praying aspect make the difference?

Overall, Hamlet could be one of my favorite characters, if only he hadn’t taken Polonius’ accidental death rather lightly. I know that he didn’t mean that, and he must focus on his own mission, but I still think he didn’t care much that he has wrongly killed an innocent man. Well….is it possible that Hamlet, in his effort to be appeared crazy, has let his mind be poisoned with the revenge plot, as to become slightly unbalanced? Maybe….

Four stars for Hamlet, and this would be my last play I read for Let’s Read Play!

~~~~~~~~

I read e-book version from Feedbooks

This play is counted as:

 13^th book for Let’s Read Plays (October) theme: Shakespeare Tragedy

19^th book for What's In a Name Reading Challenge 2013

57^th book for The Classics Club Project

Twelfth Night [Review & Play Monthly Meme]

Orsino—Duke of Illyria—is wooing Olivia, a lady who is in mourning of her death brother and doesn’t want to meet any man. Meanwhile, Viola—also a lady—is stranded in Illyria as her ship wrecked, separated from her twin brother who was at the same ship before the wreck. She wants to hide her identity, so she disguises as a man and serves as Orsino’s attendant, Cesario. As she becomes the Duke’s favorite, Orsino sends her to woo Olivia for him, which is hard a task for her as she is actually in love with her boss. The plot becomes much more complex when Olivia rejects the Duke but falls in love instead with the messenger (Viola in disguise). Meanwhile Sebastian—Viola’s twin brother—has actually landed on Illyria too; and as he is Viola’s twin brother, it’s hard to distinguish one from another; and that adds to the complexity of the misunderstandings.

As always with Shakespeare’s comedies, this play is about misunderstanding, disguising, and coincidences. There are the ladies and gentlemen, but also the losers (Sir Toby Belch and Sir Andrew Aguecheek), and of course The Fool who is often cleverer and wiser than the others :). I’m not a fan of comedy, but this one was quite enjoyable as a light reading. However, I still cannot appreciate some vulgar humors of Shakespeare (and maybe I’d never do) in this play.

One character that annoyed me is Maria. The way she’s playing at Malvolio is, for me, too much. Maybe Malvolio deserves to be given a lesson by his colleagues for his haughtiness, but to false your boss’ handwriting to insult your colleague is ‘grossness’—the word Maria used to describe Malvolio’s appearance: “For there is no Christian that means to be saved by believing rightly can ever believe such impossible passages of grossness. He’s in yellow stockings.” And why must she use Christianity to compare such silliness? Ridiculous and not funny at all!

Play Monthly Meme August theme: Favorite Scene

I think the cleverer of them is Viola, and her dialogue with the Fool in Act 3 Scene 1 is very interesting. From the whole play, this scene is my favorite. I enjoyed the Viola-Fool dialogue, and also Viola (Cesario)-Olivia scene where Olivia is clearly attracted to Cesario, and how Cesario feels awkward about that. It’s funny really, when you see it being presented on stage. It’s funny that Olivia didn’t see how Cesario reacts (her body language most of all) just as women do. See here (it becomes more interesting because they staged it outdoor):

Three and a half stars, for I enjoyed the play, although it’s not too special.

P.S. I still don’t understand, why this play is titled Twelfth Night? Are the scenes really stretched in twelve nights?

~~~~~~~~

I read ebook version from Feedbooks

*This book is counted as:*

11^th book for Let’s Read Plays (August) – Shakespeare Comedy

52^nd book for The Classics Club Project

The Three Musketeers [Re-read]

This is perhaps my third reading of Alexandre Dumas’ first installment of D’Artagnan Romances series: The Three Musketeers. I read it first as a child (the illustrated abridged version), then read it again several years ago in Bahasa Indonesia translation, and now I got the chance to read it in the English unabridged version, together with Melisa, Maria and Althesia. Surprisingly, even having been familiar with the main plot—especially with the cold-hearted Milady—I was still surprised by some little details scattered within this 555 pages, which I thought I have never known before. Or, was it because I have read Twenty Years After and The Man in the Iron Mask before this that made those details more sense? Maybe….

Anyway, this time I put more attention to the historical facts of this story, The Siege of La Rochelle—the war between France and England in 1627-1628 during the reign of Louis XIII—which I have neglected in, at least, my second reading. La Rochelle was the last city which was inhabited by the Huguenots at that time, and the Cardinal wanted to take it to entirely clean France from the remnants of Calvinism. But this war was also believed (at least according to this story) to be triggered by personal interests of Duke of Buckingham and the Cardinal—who both tried to gain Anne of Austria’s love. Yes! That’s what happened when two powerful people from two countries played at a high stake.

Richelieu in "Siege of La Rochelle", 1881 by Henri Motte

The third reading enabled me to see Cardinal Richelieu as an honorable gentleman, and not merely as an antagonist who would like to destroy the queen, as I perceived before. Even d’Artagnan and the three musketeers paid some respects towards the Cardinal, despite of their dislikes. Richelieu had a mixed feeling towards the four inseparable musketeers, he admired their nobleness, brave, and intelligence, but on the other hand, he would not rest easy while they kept intercepting and ruining his plans. His last interview with d’Artagnan grew my admiration towards the Cardinal.

Rereading this book has also given me chance to follow d’Artagnan from the very early of his career. I could see that the young Gascon had already been possessing courage, intelligence, witty and prudence, even when he was scarcely twenty years of age. One quality that marked his youth off his future life as an adult was his uncontrolled amorous passion. While falling in love with Constance Bonancieux, he could also cultivate a madly attraction to Milady. I am wondering whether, if d’Artagnan met Milady when he was more experienced in his career, would he still be fallen to her charm?

In The Three Musketeers, Dumas poured out all his humour and wittiness in describing his young musketeers’ adventures. He forced me to laugh out loud several times everytime the musketeers were teasing each other; at Aramis, for example, who would be blushing a great deal when the others could guess that ‘a cousin’ means a lady he was courting, and ‘money from selling poems’ came in fact from his lover, instead of a publisher who bought his writing. It was also comical how the musketeers could never save their assets very long; for example when they got four beautiful horses from Duke of Buckingham. Athos—whose weakness was in wine and dice—put the horses at stake, and lost his and d’Artagnan’s; Aramis—with his delicate heart—sold his in low price; while Porthos—well…this is the most hilarious—he made his horse to be delicious foods which the four musketeers enjoyed very much without realizing it at first (except Porthos)! LOL, this scene is very funny indeed! =))

And in that witty manner, we came to know each musketeers’ personalities and secrets. Athos has a noble manner and heart which was sometimes senseless, but he also suffered from a huge burden that made him often drawn in his somber mood, then passed his time in drinking. It was revealed in the end, that he was actually Count de la Ferre, who came from a high rank family in the kingdom, and had a dark history concerning his marriage with Milady. Aramis was a ‘beautiful’ gentleman who adored glamorous style, and had a divine passion to serve the Church as an abbé. It was revealed later that his passion in theology appeared not of any divine reason, but rather as a gloomy reason when his lover was abandoning him! Aramis was the most hypocrite from the four, and whose life was full of mystery and intrigue, but he has the most delicate style in diplomacy—one of the best of all. Porthos was a simpleton whose intellectual was perhaps behind the others, but he was a loyal friend, and of course as brave as others. Porthos was depicted as a handsome and well-built young man who adored high fashion and exquisite gourmets.

From the four, d’Artagnan was definitely the most intelligent one, although his emotional was too unstable to be their leader—we should give that to Athos instead, for his perfect calmness. It’s remarkable to see how the trust between the four was built up so quickly, one solid foundation to their true friendship. Everytime d’Artagnan rushed to pursue something urgent, the others would unquestionably follow his step, always believed that he must have a good judgement for that. And look how the three musketeers gave themselves up to d’Artagnan when they accompanied the Gascon to England for returning the Queen’s diamond studs—an incident which could have had triggered a war between England and France, even before the siege of La Rochelle, had d’Artagnan didn’t possess his iron nerve! What a brilliant and heroic rescue that was!

Although not the best from the series, The Three Musketeers has set a good base for the d’Artagnan Romances; it’s less serious, it’s historical, it’s witty, it’s really entertaining. Four swords—instead of stars :D—from me for the four musketeers. I know now why Dumas gave the title “three” musketeers instead of “four”, it’s because d’Artagnan is the center of the whole series, so it should be: d’Artagnan AND The Three Musketeers, d’Artagnan: Twenty Years After, etc.

One favorite quote of mine, from the last intriguing interview of d’Artagnan and Cardinal Richelieu, a passage which showed d’Artagnan’s noble and brave character—which basically represented all the four musketeers’ characters. This interview was very crucial, because it would fix d’Artagnan future (life or death), and this was d’Artagnan's answer for his ‘defense’….

“My Lord, I swear to you that I have not for one instant thought of defending my head against your eminence. I will submit to whatever punishment your eminence may please to inflict. I do not cling to life sufficiently to fear death.”

~~~~~

*I read the Wordsworth Classics 1993 edition*

*This book is counted for*

3^rd book for Back To The Classics 2013

2^nd book for Read Big! Reading Challenge

1^st book for Historical Fiction Challenge 2013 -2015

36^th book for The Classics Club Project

King Lear

This is the third tragedy I read from Shakespeare; but unlike the previous two (Julius Caesar and Antony & Cleopatra), I did not find King Lear as I’ve expected. My biggest problem was the language. Being a non-English-native-speaker reader, I’m just beginning to get familiar to Shakespeare’s plays at Let’s Read Plays event. In two of three plays I’ve read since November 2012, I must sometimes consult the No Fear’s Shakespeare; only with The Merchant of Venice I read the whole play without any difficulties. With King Lear, unfortunately, I spent most of my readings with NFS. :(

King Lear is all about deception; it criticized how people like false, wordy and flowery declarations than true and honest confessions, and outer appearances rather than inner affections. The irony was that the elders—who are supposed to be wiser—were the worst victims of their children’s deception.

The play is about King Lear and Earl of Gloucester, and interestingly, both had had a similar faith. King Lear was going to divide his Kingdom to his three daughters, so he demanded them to declare their love level to him. The more they loved him, the bigger their share. Goneril and Regan both announced their exaggerated love declaration, while Cordelia—who deeply loved her father—could not find words to describe it. King Lear appreciated Goneril and Regan’s declarations, and granted them each along with their two husbands, half part of the Kingdom; while—being enraged with Cordelia who he thought didn’t love him—he banished the youngest princess.

On the other hand, Gloucester had two sons, a real one and a bastard one. The bastard Edmund—being hurt of how people talked about him as a bastard and envied his brother—accused his brother (Edgar) as a traitor. Gloucester—digested the case without further consideration—was enraged, that Edgar was forced to runaway in disguise. When the crimes were then revealed, both King Lear and Gloucester lost their insanity out of deep rage and regret—enraged to the traitors and regretted for bad treating the innocence. And just as typical tales, when King Lear and Gloucester were at their hardest times—both children they had rejected came to rescue them with a tender heart and forgiveness.

Besides that main plot, King Lear was also about loyalty vs infidelity. Kent, who had been serving the King, was banished when he defended Cordelia from his father’s banishment. However, instead of revenge, he return in disguise to serve King Lear as a lower attendant, while secretly was closely in contact with Cordelia about King Lear’s condition. Meanwhile Goneril and Regan had had affairs with the same man, Edmund. Goneril even asked Edmund to kill his husband, Duke of Albany, whom was a generous man, thus was different from his wife.

What confused me is the war between France and England. Was that really a war between two nations? Or was it merely Cordelia’s intention to set her father free, that King of France decided to send troops to England?

Actually I picked this play for its high ratings in Goodreads and positive reviews from others. I read it with high expectation, but left slightly disappointed, for the story was quite typical and ordinary. In fact I was wondering, is this play going to be enjoyable to be performed on stage? I feel that this play would be much better written as a novel than as play. I was also surprised at the vulgar comment about women here, which I found quite insulting.

“Down from the waist they are centaurs, though women all above. But to the girdle do the gods inherit; beneath is all the fiends'. There’s hell, there’s darkness, there’s the sulfurous pit— burning, scalding, stench, consumption!”

Three stars for King Lear. Not my favorite so far, and I’m now looking forward to Shakespeare’s history theme for February.

*I read the ebook version from FeedBooks dot com*

*This book is counted as*

January’s Freebie theme of Let’s Read Plays

2nd book for What's In A Name Challenge 2013

31^st book for The Classics Club

The Merchant Of Venice

The Merchant of Venice was the second comedy I have read from Shakespeare’s plays. After successively read two tragedies, it’s quite relieving to flow with a lighter story, with beautiful words. The main plot of this play was concerning Antonio—an honorable Venetian merchant—who wanted to help his dear friend Bassanio to pursue his love for a wealthy girl named Portia. Antonio agreed to be Bassanio’s guarantor as the later took a credit from a cunning Jewish moneylender named Shylock.

Being a Christian hater—especially to Antonio who always lent money gratis—Shylock was full of joy when he found out that Antonio’s ships had wrecked at the sea, that he won’t be able to pay back the money. Wanted to take revenge to Antonio, Shylock sued Antonio in court to be cut his flesh for exchange of the money.

Meanwhile, with the money from Shylock, Bassanio had departed to Belmont to enter a contest set by the late of Portia’s father to get a husband for his daughter. A suitor who could choose the right casket from three choices would become Portia’s husband. It was a great test indeed, for Portia was very rich, that his father was afraid she would get a greedy man as a husband.

And between those two situations, Shakespeare crafted witty and interesting scenes and acts to become this beautiful play.

This is the third play I read for Let’s Read Plays and I found at least one similarity from those three, that the servants—despite of being secondary characters—were wiser than their masters or mistresses, and the main characters often learned from them. Here is when Nerissa taught her lady, Portia, about how the balance of trouble and happiness would make live longer.

“It is no mean happiness, therefore, to be seated in the mean.

Superfluity comes sooner by white hairs, but competency lives longer.”

It’s interesting too how Shakespeare picked a Jewish as the stereotype antagonist; I wonder whether it did not stir many controversies from Jewish readers? Another thing, being a comedy, this play still made me a bit uncomfortable when Antonio asked Shylock to be a Christian (Act IV Scene I). When Antonio was asked by Portia: “What mercy can you render him, Antonio?” he replied: “..Two things provided more: that for this favor he presently become a Christian…” I could not understand how forcing somebody to have one’s religion can be regarded as a mercy. And that request changed my respect to Antonio.

Besides that annoyance, I found this play quite entertaining, especially whenever Launcelot was in the scenes, such as this one (talking to Gobbo—his father):

Gobbo: “..what a beard hast thou got! Thou hast got more hair on thy chin than Dobbin my fill-horse has on his tail.”
Launcelot: “It should seem then that Dobbin’s tail grows backward. I am sure he had more hair of his tail than I have of my face when I last saw him.”

Over all, Merchant of Venice was an exotic and intriguing play; it criticized men’s greediness. I found it funny in Portia’s father casket contest, and a bit tragic in Shylock’s judgment. Four stars for Mrchant of Venice!

*I read ebook from FeedBooks dot com*

Robinson Crusoe

[conclusion in English is at the bottom of this post]

361 tahun lalu, tepat pada tanggal 1 September 1651 seorang pria Inggris bernama Robinson Crusoe memulai pelayarannya yang pertama. Crusoe adalah putra sebuah keluarga pedagang menengah di Inggris. Ia tak memiliki bakat berdagang, namun kepalanya selalu dipenuhi impian untuk bertualang ke laut. Mengabaikan nasihat ayahnya, ia pun memutuskan untuk ikut dalam sebuah pelayaran. Tak lama kemudian terbukti itu keputusan yang salah, namun bukannya belajar dari pengalaman, Crusoe malah terlibat dalam pelayaran-pelayaran berikutnya—yang kadang berhasil memberinya keuntungan dari berdagang, namun kadang memberinya kemalangan seperti menjadi budak orang Moor (orang kulit hitam).

Bahkan ketika ia akhirnya berhasil memiliki perkebunan yang cukup sukses di Brazil, hasratnya untuk melaut lagi-lagi mengalahkan akal sehatnya. Maka tepat delapan tahun setelah pelayaran pertamanya yang gagal, Crusoe kembali melaut pada 1 September 1659. Pelayaran kali ini benar-benar membawa celaka, karena kapal mereka karam dalam sebuah badai, dan hanya menyisakan Crusoe seorang diri terdampar di pulau terpencil dan tak berpenghuni. Sendirian. Di tengah ancaman kanibalisme di perairan Karibia di abad 17.

Itulah inti kisah ini, yakni pergulatan hidup Crusoe selama dua puluh delapan tahun tinggal di pulau itu. Bagaimana ia bertahan hidup dengan memanfaatkan segala sesuatu yang ia ambil dari kapalnya sebelum karam, bagaimana ia membuat dengan tangannya sendiri segala kebutuhannya, mulai dari rumah, meja kursi, kuali, keranjang anyaman hingga piring-cangkir, termasuk segala alat bertukang yang ia butuhkan, hingga kano atau perahu; dan bagaimana ia bergantung pada alam.

Namun yang jauh lebih penting adalah bagaimana Crusoe bergulat dengan jiwanya sendiri menghadapi segala ketakutan, keputus-asaan, serta kesepian di sepanjang hidupnya di pulau, tanpa siapapun yang dapat ia ajak berdiskusi. Di tengah pergulatan itu, ia pun akhirnya mampu melihat Tangan Tuhan yang bekerja dalam setiap langkah hidupnya. Betapa, jauh dari sengsara, Tuhan justru telah menyediakan segala kebutuhannya dan melindunginya, serta terlebih-lebih memberikan kesempatan pada Crusoe untuk tetap hidup—ketika semua temannya mati dalam badai yang tak memungkinkan manusia untuk selamat. Dan untuk tujuan apakah semuanya itu dilakukan Tuhan? Di titik inilah pertobatan Crusoe terjadi. Bukan pertobatan yang gampang, melainkan melalui serangkaian pergulatan yang keras dalam jiwanya.

Defoe membuat Robinson Crusoe ini dalam bentuk semacam jurnal yang ditulis oleh Crusoe sendiri. Dengan sendirinya, bahasa Inggris yang dipakai adalah bahasa sehari-hari yang bisa anda bayangkan dipakai seorang pelaut dalam menulis jurnalnya, yang jauh dari sempurna dalam sintaksisnya. Karena itu, kalau anda menemui kalimat-kalimat yang agak aneh, kesalahan mungkin bukan terletak pada penerjemahan, karena versi aslinya memang tidak tertulis dengan sempurna. Inilah letak kehebatan Defoe, yang membuat anda berpikir buku ini adalah jurnal sungguhan, bukannya kisah fiksi.

Yang paling menarik bagiku adalah bagaimana Defoe bermonolog dalam jurnalnya, terutama pada bagian apa yang ia rasakan dan pikirkan. Bagian ini terasa sungguh hidup sehingga membuat pembaca seolah bisa melihat pergolakan emosi Crusoe yang sungguh…benar-benar melelahkan untuk diikuti, namun membuat kita menyadari betapa sulitnya manusia untuk melalui proses pertobatan; betapa panjang, rumit dan sabar Tuhan menuntun Crusoe pada keselamatan.

Yang jelas Robinson Crusoe mengajarkan pada kita untuk dapat mensyukuri apapun yang terjadi pada kita, bahwa justru saat kita merasa kita sedang dibawa pada kehancuran, pada saat itulah Tuhan sebenarnya tengah mengarahkan kita pada keselamatan. Seperti yang terefleksikan dalam quote ini:

“Begitu kecilnya kita melihat ke depan di dunia, dan begitu banyaknya alasan yang kita miliki untuk bergantung dengan gembira pada Sang Pencipta dunia. Dia tidak meninggalkan makhluknya sangat kekurangan, tapi dalam kondisi terburuk mereka selalu punya sesuatu untuk disyukuri dan kadang lebih dekat ke keselamatan dibanding apa yang mereka bayangkan, tidak, bahkan dibawa pada keselamatan dengan cara yang menurut mereka akan membawa kehancuran bagi mereka.”

Empat bintang bagi Robinson Crusoe yang bukan saja menyediakan kisah petualangan menarik, seru, tegang, namun mampu membawa kita pada sebuah refleksi yang mendalam pula.

Judul: Robinson Crusoe

Penulis: Daniel Defoe

Penerjemah: Maria Renny

Penerbit: Bentang Pustaka

Terbit: April 2007

Tebal: 385 hlm.

Conclusion:

How lucky I am that I saw o (delaisse)’s post about reading Robinson Crusoe on the 361^st celebration of Crusoe’s adventure, on September 1^st 2012. The book (Indonesian translation) has been on my TBR list for…perhaps a year, but I haven’t got the mood to read it. I was afraid because this book was not written in good English, so what if I could not get the meaning and couldn’t enjoy it? Reading with a friend gives me encouragement, and the moment is so perfect, so I began flipping the first pages of Robinson Crusoe, and…hey…I like it!

I think most of you already know what this book is about—or even have read it, so I won’t bother to write about the story. What impressed me is how Defoe wrote it as a sailor’s journal. He wrote in detail about how he built the cave, how he brought things from the wrecked ship, how he managed and prepared his foods, and all these stuffs—such, that if one day someone might fell in the same faith as Crusoe, he could have survived if he had learned this book before.

The best part of this book is Crusoe’s repentance process. It was a long, tedious and emotional—yet interesting—process through everything that had happened during his stay on the island. I was moved to read about how God brought Crusoe to realization that all of those happened to him were a Great Design of God; from the corn seed which cultivated on the particular soil, to the discovery of worn out Bible Crusoe had grabbed from the wrecked ship’s cabin. But more interestingly, was how Crusoe seemed to forget (too quickly) all these realizations when something bad happened (and this happened more than once). It seemed that Defoe took us to witness God’s tremendous patience towards stubborn sinners. All of these soul struggling monologs are worth to read!

I granted this book four stars, for I was a little disappointed with the ending. Actually I like Crusoe’s struggle on the island more than the adventures after he was saved. And after following Crusoe for twenty eight years, I was wondering how Crusoe seemed to be easily left the island just like that. I imagined that he should have been quite emotional when the time came to ‘say good bye’ to his home. Of course it was far from being called home, but the island could be assumed to be his island, he built the ‘houses’ himself, worked the corn plantation as well as the mini farm with his own hands; in short he has created a miniature of a country. And that had happened for twenty eight years, half of his life! But I did not see anything emotional from Crusoe when he left. Well… I was a little emotional at this part, just as how I got emotional every time I must move from an old house to a new one. I think a little hint of emotion would satisfy me more.

The adventures after he returned to civilization (fighting the wolves) seemed a bit anti-climax. The adventures were heart-pounding, but it washed away my previous emotional bond with the island and the divine experiences, which I think was the ‘heart’ of this story. More over, I wish Defoe closed the story at the ending, instead of hang it for a sequel to come. So now I’m just wondering, is Moll Flanders worth to read after this?...anyone?