Republic by Plato

I must take a mental note not to read any philosophical book during three of the last months of year! When reports and deadlines occupied most of my brain, I should have chosen some lighter books than Plato! Really… I almost put Republic down in the middle of 200s pages, but I know that if I didn’t finish now, I won’t probably pick it up again in the future. So, I kept on reading. And you know…it turned out to be rewarding in the end!

Republic is a conversation of some Ancient Greek men who were “on the threshold of old age”—one of them was Socrates. From common earthly matters, their conversation moved to a serious one: Does morality rewarding? Socrates thought so, but others disagreed. One of them said that “morality is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger party…” And that led to a discussion about governmental systems—the best and the worst types, as well as the same weighing at human’s characters. They even created from the scratch an ideal community in which happiness is in store for everyone—from the leaders (they call it “guardian”) to its citizen.

So, Republic is not a political book in the first place. First Socrates analyzed positive and negative points from several biggest governmental systems; then cross-referenced them with men’s character types. In the end, they all agreed that morality is, after all, rewarding. And actually, being the title of this book doesn’t mean that Republic is the best political system chosen by Plato. Here is the nomination according to Plato, and agreed by the rest (from best to worst):

- Aristocracy (complies with Plato’s ideal state)

- Timarchy or Timocracy

- Oligarchy

- Democracy

- Dictatorship

Like I said, I have chosen the wrong time to read Republic, so I didn’t have chance to make thorough analysis on the state models, and cannot decide which model is the most ideal.

The idea of one-person-one-occupation is good. That way everyone can work according to his passion and skill; that way he will produce his best, and in the end everyone will be satisfied. I also agree that the ruler (or guardian, using Plato’s term) must be provided with special education, on philosophy, in particular. But I strongly opposed to Plato’s way of exalting the guardian class, to the extent of restraining them from marrying other social classes, and even suggesting that children will be snatched from their parents and raised by the state. I agree that ruler of the state must have certain qualities, but that the kingship should be dominated by certain class… a big no!

To sum up, there are things in this book that are indeed relevant with our issues today; the idea about morality and philosophy really benefit us—and thus make Republic an important reading. But there are also other ideas that was really disgusting.

The Iliad by Homer (second reading)

Thanks to Robert Fagles, I could at last really enjoy Homer’s The Iliad! (this is a very-very late post—I finished the book on May, but due to our moving-preparations lately, I haven’t been able to write a proper review for more than two months. My memory of the book has quite faded, but I’d try to recall things which I found interesting).

Years before, I have read the abridged translation of The Iliad. I knew this is a great epic poem that you should read at least once before you die. But unfortunately, this Indonesian edition that I read re-wrote the epic to a prose. Maybe it’s because my fellow citizen rarely read poems, so the publisher decided to sell it as a mere story book to make it more saleable (*sighing hard). Nevertheless, I quite enjoyed it at that time, but still didn’t get the epic. I knew that I must read the epic one day. But, honestly, I slightly dread of reading an epic poem—hence my delaying of getting to it sooner. Then I stumbled upon this Robert Fagles’ translation, and finally….read this epic poem! ^_^

Now I can say that I love The Iliad! Since it is about war, some passages can be much similar. And the names… they were so much, at the end I couldn’t follow anymore, who was on which side (apart from the big heroes). Take that aside, it was a heroic story written beautifully as a poem. Often I couldn’t help reciting it when I was alone.

Do you tend to take side when reading war stories? I do. From the beginning, I took side with the Trojan. I have no respect for most of Achaean top chiefs—especially Agamemnon, Achilles, and Menelaus. They were selfish and arrogant; and thinking how disputes about women could cause (or alter the course of) a war—! Menelaus is probably the worse—he’s such a cry-baby! When a man lost his wife because another man stole her, he should challenge him to duel, and end it between them. But no, Menelaus ran to his brother, and never stopped him when he decided to start the war. No, I could never take side with the Greeks! And Achilles… what a spoiled little brat he is!

My favorite passage is when Hercules stopped at his house for the last time, meeting his wife and playing with his son. I know he is a temperate man (maybe his only flaw), but I think I loved him more than the others because of this scene. He deserved to be a hero. While his dear little brother….. meh! -_-

That was all that I still remember from The Iliad—definitely a worthy reading, a great epic. I still have to reread The Odyssey—which I have first read also from abridged turn-to-prose Indonesian translation—but with slightly less excitement that I have felt for The Iliad. Hopefully I am wrong!

The Three Theban Plays: The Oedipus Cycle by Sophocles

For me, Greek plays always have their own charms. Compared to Renaissance’s or any modern plays, I find Greek’s is more intense in emotion. It always feels like I was in a theatre watching the performance live. I have actually never done this, but still….

If I remember correctly, the first play I have ever read years ago is Oedipus the King—I read Indonesian translation then—and have been mesmerized by it. One aspect I love in Greek’s plays is the chorus. It reminds me that I’m reading a play, not a story written as a play.

Oedipus Cycle begins with Oedipus the King, the most famous one. Reading it at much mature age made me realize a wider theme it covers than just a tragedy of a son who married his mother and killed his father—though unintentionally. It speaks a lot about destiny. Can we, mortal, avoid it? Oedipus had tried hard by fleeing from his country; nevertheless it happened without his knowing. And the blow becomes harder because, firstly, he has listened to the prophecy (and worked hard to resist his destiny), and secondly, he then insisted on having all the truth. I imagined, if he have never known the prophecy, he would still have stayed with the Laius; never have come to Thebes to become their King with pride, and to marry Jocasta… and so on. But speaking about destiny, one often comes to think also about free will. “Is destiny a real thing? That makes us like some puppet; don’t have control over our life? If so, does free will also exist?” So… when we are still thinking hard (without coming to a satisfying conclusion), we might want to move on to the second play: Oedipus at Colonus. And there… only there do we get the answer!

Oedipus at Colonus is the opposite of Oedipus the King, in term of the theme. Oedipus—in his old age and banishment—is now a more humble person. He admitted how he was dependent on his daughters’ loving care and Theseus’ generosity; that without them, he was helpless. He didn’t grudge against his bad fate; he could accept it and be peaceful with himself. Only after that, his life became meaningful by giving others better lives. How beautiful the lessons Sophocles taught us from these two plays; that Antigone—the last play—was almost felt like anti-climax.

All in all, Oedipus cycle is a very emotional, intense, engaging, and entertaining plays. My favorite is perhaps Oedipus at Colonus—I was happy for Oedipus’ reconciliation, and was fallen in love with Theseus’ calmness, generosity, and noble character.

Agamemnon by Aeschylus

After reading Agamemnon, I was sure that Greek plays should be better enjoyed as performance than as book. I have read Sophocles’ Oedipus several years ago, and have almost forgotten how beautiful and dynamic Greek plays are, with all the strophe-antistrophe-epode. Reading them in books reduces the plays’ dramatic uniqueness. Unlike modern plays like Wilde’s or Shaw’s—or even Shakespeare’s—which are rich in characters and dialogs, in Agamemnon I only met with Clytemnestra, Agamemnon (whose name served as the title, but the character’s emotion was not much explored), Cassandra, and Aegisthus, besides the Chorus, the Watchman, and the Herald.

The play is opened by the watchman, who is waiting for a signal from Troy. King Agamemnon and his troops is on a mission to bring home Helen (his brother’s Menelaus’ wife) from her capture in Troy. Then it’s slowly revealed that before sailing to Troy, Agamemnon made a human sacrifice so that the wind favored them. The victim was his own daughter. The scene before the sacrifice was quite heartrending…

On Agamemnon’s leave, the queen Clytemnestra rules the kingdom. She seems to be rejoiced when finally her husband comes home safely and triumphantly. However, a slave whom Agamemnon has brought from Troy (the daughter of Priam, Cassandra) predicts that Agamemnon would be killed by his wife. It turns out that the murder was planned by Clytemnestra and Aegisthus (Agamemnon’s cousin) as an act of revenge. Clytemnestra avenges her daughter’s murder; while Aegisthus blames Agamemnon for serving his two brothers (boiled!) to his father—who was Agamemnon’s rival of the throne of Argos.

While Agamemnon is constructed by beautiful rhymes, the length of the each dialog could be quite tedious to read. Maybe it’s because Aeschylus was one of the first Greek tragedians. Euripides’ Medea and Sophocles’ Oedipus were more enjoyable for me.

Three stars for Agamemnon.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I read ebook from Adelaide University’s Online Library

This book is counted as:

Play On Challenge 2015: January - Ancient

85^th book for The Classics Club Project

Roman Lives: Final Review

Roman Lives is Plutarch’ depiction of eight of Roman great rulers: Cato the Elder, Aemillius Paulus, the Gracchi (Tiberius & Gaius Gracchus), Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, and Antony. As these consuls ruled simultaneously one after another, we could see at once, the personal characters and moral behaviors of these consuls, as well as how Rome was dynamically shaped during their ruling. They might not be the greatest, but Plutarch picked them particularly as a mean of mirroring.

I treat the narrative as a kind of mirror and try to find a way to arrange my life and assimilate it to the virtues of my subjects. (…) I receive and welcome each of them in turn as my guest, so to speak, observe ‘his stature and his qualities’, and choose from his achievements those which it is particularly important and valuable for me to know. ‘And oh, what greater delight could one find than this?’ ~Plutarch

All of the consuls—succeed or failed—have brought great influences over Roman at that era, and by that, means, over the whole world. Plutarch brings us to learn how their personal characters and decisions influenced their successes and failures, and with that, all of us could learn from the greatnesses and the mistakes.

I have written brief description for each consul in my grammar-stage reading post, and from that we could get a glimpse of their achievements. Of the eight, Aemilius Paullus is my most favorite one—and I think Plutarch has placed him as the major model for an ideal great leader. Frankly speaking, this is the first time I’ve ever heard about him—and I believe he is not very popular—but it doesn’t mean he is not great. In short, I think Aemilius Paullus is what a leader should be. He was well bred, and was descended from Pythagoras the philosopher. He ruled with virtues. Unlike many young men born from noble families, who pursued as higher glory as possible in young age, Aemilius focused on his courage, fairness and integrity. This brought respect from both his friends and the people. He was very attentive in doing his jobs and guarding the traditions—he brought the same discipline while he was priest as well as military commander.

He was lenient to Roman enemies. He never enriched himself from the defeated provinces or towns, but instead, he left them united in peace, and even restored their settlements. This brought respect from his enemies, as well as his troops, for he was generous to them. When King Perseus of Macedonia troubled Rome, the people chose Aemilius to fight the enemy. He accepted it so nobly, and people were so proud, that Plutarch described it as…”this shows how the Roman people subjected themselves to virtue and goodness in order to gain power and dominion over the rest of the world.”

Aemilius’ remarkable virtue was how he regarded fortunes. He believed that after a great fortune, we must be brave and ready to accept any misfortunes that would surely come after it. One of my favorite quotes from Aemilius’ speech is after he lost his son right on his triumph after defeating Perseus. The other is his scolding Perseus for being so cowardly in accepting his misfortunes:

“Courage in those who meet with misfortunes goes a long way towards enabling them to win the respect even of their enemies, but for Romans there is nothing more dishonourable than cowardice, even if the coward prospers.”

Speaking of great men of Rome, we could not overlook Pompey—The Great, and Julius Caesar. However, I see their greatnesses are mostly in their military and political achievements. They were not so great as persons. Caesar was too ambitious; all his generosities did not come from his nobleness, but because he wanted to buy people’s affection. He might have succeeded in winning people’s heart—thanks to those generous gifts—but his greediness was not left unnoticed by the Senate. Pompey, on the other hand, was loved by everyone—the Senate and the people. However, he lacked the strong principle which we often see in great men, such as Aemilius Paullus. Pompey was too susceptible and was easily spoilt by flatters. Even Caesar deplored how easily Pompey was defeated by him; that he did not show his greatness in his—probably—most important battle against Caesar. I think Pompey is glorious and was called ‘Great’, firstly, because people praised him, rather than his genuine personality.

After the best, came the worst. I still cannot decide which one of the eight is the worst consul. Is it Marius or Sulla, who made Rome lost its grandeur by their brutality? Or Antony, with his greatest flaw—his passion towards Cleopatra? I exclude the Gracchus here because I see that they were actually right by bringing reformation to support plebeian, but they did not have genius minds to cautiously execute it. They made the same mistake as Caesar, they focused too much on the people, while ignoring the Senate’s strength.

Back to the worst trio… Although I was terribly disgusted by Marius and Sulla—they do not deserve to be called ‘great’, by the way—I am mostly disappointed by Antony. He was well bred too, like Aemilius. He was loved by his colleagues and the people. Caesar even regarded him highly, and Antony became one of Caesar’s best friends. However, he could not control his passion. Antony was a great military commander; he had talent and skill. He was good in war strategy, and he was loved by his army. Their loyalty towards him, even when he abandoned them for Cleopatra, was remarkable. But again, is it worth to risk so much for only a woman—though she was as attractive as Cleopatra? Antony could have been so great, but instead he ended so low. Oh Cleopatra…..! And so, from the eight consuls in this Lives, I think Antony is the most undeserved to be called great!

This is my first history reading—yes, I have never read any history work before, shame on me!—and I’m glad I had picked Plutarch for the start. His way of telling the history is compelling, especially the battles, he told it with great details in very lively style; although he could sometimes be widely out of context while telling the historical facts. No wonder Shakespeare could be so detailed in writing Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra, because he used very much the sources from Plutarch’ Lives.

Four stars for Roman Lives.

~~~~~~~~~~

I read Oxford World’s Classics paperback

This book is counted as:

1^st book for History Reading Challenge 2014

67^th book for The Classics Club Project

WEM Self-Project

Coriolanus

After delving into plays for a year last year, I thought another Shakespeare would have been enough for me this year. However, this particular play has interested me since my last year plays event: Coriolanus, so when The Classics Club announced January to be Shakespeare theme of our Twelve Month of Classics Literature, I instantly decided to give it a try. Historical-tragedy has been my most successful theme of Shakespeare, and although Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra are much more famous, Coriolanus turns out to be another gem from the Bard!

The play depicted a Roman general named Caius Marcius, who lived in around 5^th century BC. While he was fighting against the Volscians in Corioli, the plebeian were lamenting about grain price which was at that time controlled by the senate. They put the blame on Marcius, and hated him for that. Things were getting worse because Marcius faced the plebeian in an openly contemptuous manner.

While he was not good in social life, Marcius was highly successful in his military campaigns. He won the Volscian battle very bravely, where Cominius—his commander—gave him the name of Coriolanus: the conqueror of Corioli. With the win, he also won Senate’s respect and appreciation, and they supported him to run for consul. However the tribunes: Sicinius and Brutus provoked the citizens to oppose it. Being under-pressured, Coriolanus was enraged and insulted the people. He was banished from Rome, and finally decided to join his enemy, Tullus Aufidius of the Volscians, to retaliate against his own country.

Coriolanus is a typical portrait of the patrician-plebeian conflict, which is still relevant in any country in any era. I read in Sparknotes analysis, that Shakespeare may have gotten the inspiration for the plot from the actual conflict between King James and the Parliament in England’s early 17^th century, the time when Shakespeare wrote this play.

Coriolanus was perhaps a great military commander, but he was far from a good state leader (consul); he even had contempt for plebeian or the common people. So I think this is not a pure tragedy, because it was Coriolanus himself who made the circumstances against him. His fall was caused by his pride and ambition; he failed to gain people’s respect, and he was blinded by his ambition for revenge that he could not detect Aufidius’ betrayal.

The play is very engaging; the plot is flowing nicely, the stage arrangement is very good and helps us to learn the actual situations. The war is very lively, but most of all, the speeches are very strong! Although a secondary character, Volumnia—Coriolanus’ mother—is an influential figure in Coriolanus’ decisions. Her speeches are so noble, touching and inspiring. Even Coriolanus was very moved by his mother’s speech, that he changed his mind about destroying Rome. His anger was replaced by tears under her mother’s words.

This time Shakespeare is succeeded in controlling my emotion to the play’s climax, and I finally found a new favorite play. Five stars for Coriolanus!

  ~~~~~~~~~

I read e-book from Feedbooks.com

This book is counted as:

Twelve Months of Classics Literature project: Shakespeare in January

66^th book for The Classics Club Project

Aesop’s Fables

Aesop is a slave and story-teller who was believed to live in ancient Greece around 620 to 560 BC. He collected many tales from diverse origins, and from generations to generations, Aesop’s tales had been retold and reinterpreted in many media. The first printed version of Aesop's Fables in English was published on March 26, 1484, by William Caxton [source: wiki]. Fables were advocated by John Locke to be targeted to children only on 1693, while previously they were targeted to adult only.

When I first opened the book (I read Wordsworth Classics’ edition), I was amazed by the table of contents. I had no idea that there were so many fables! There were probably more than 200 titles. The fables are usually very short; one page could contain two to three fables, with illustrations every few or more pages. And browsing all the titles (and they are stretched to eleven pages alone!), I can see that the ‘characters’ are quite varied; but the lion, fox, and wolf appear most often.

Plunging into the fables, I quickly realized that most of them have similar themes, and after around 40% I have got bored already. It felt like reading a same thing over and over again, with only the characters or the circumstances were changed. And so, I must pick another book as a change to be read along Aesop’s Fables. In the end I felt more exhausted than entertained by the fables, but realizing that I am reading some works which have been inherited for generations, I could appreciate it more.

There are few gems, anyway, from the 200+ tales, which I found inspiring and encouraging. Especially because some of the stories are equipped with the moral value as quotes. Some of my favorites are:

The Slave & the Lion – A slave run away from his master and finds a cave where a wounded lion stays. The slave takes care and saves the lion’s life, and they become best friends. Later on the master finds what the slave has done; and he is to be thrown to beasts as punishment. You could guess, I think, which beast would find the slave, and how the tale ends. I am always touched by the friendship between men and animals, and that’s why this tale becomes one of my favorites.

The Apes & the Two Travelers – Two travelers, one is a liar, while the other is an honest person, are treated by the King of Apes. The King is proud of his noble monarch and asks the travelers their opinion. The liar praises the apes and gets reward. The honest one, who feels that his honesty would get him more rewards that the liar, tells the truth, that he thinks they are merely apes. Again, you must have guessed the outcome. There is a difference between telling truth for the sake of the truth, or out of greediness. Anyway, virtue only comes from goodwill.

The Eagle & His Captor – A man catches an eagle then clips his wings before he sells him. The buyer takes the eagle home and lets his wings grow. When he is recovered, the eagle catches a hare and presents it to his benefactor. Now a fox tells him that he should have presented the hare to his first captor rather than his benefactor, so the captor will be his friend, and won’t clip his wings again if he catches him the second time. This is something we never, or rarely, consider. Good advice, indeed. And this time comes from a fox! :)

Three and a half stars for Aesop’s Fables.

~~~~~~~~~

I read the Wordsworth Classics paperback edition

This book is counted as:

January theme of Baca Bareng #BBI: Fable

65^th book for The Classics Club Project

Medea by Euripides

After having to skip last month theme for Let’s Read Plays, I have been looking forward to read a Greek play. It’s been few years since I have enjoyed read Sophocles’ Oedipus—translated in Bahasa Indonesia—the only Greek play I’ve ever read, and I had a good time with it. This time I picked a Euripides’ of Medea. It’s a quite short play, but a very strong one.

Medea was a princess of a barbarian land of Colchis. She abandoned her land and her family for the sake of a Greek man she devotedly loved, Jason. The play began with a prologue by the Nurse (Medea and Jason’s) who put the background of the play. Medea and Jason had been husband and wife with two sons, lived in Corinth. There—either for gaining place in the royal family, or merely for his lust on King Corinth’s beautiful daughter—Jason abandoned Medea to marry the princess.

Here, Euripides seemed to underline the disadvantages of being a woman, from Medea’s soliloquy:

Of all things upon earth that bleed and grow,

A herb most bruised is woman. We must pay

Our store of gold, hoarded for that one day,

To buy us some man’s love; and lo, they bring

A master of our flesh! There comes the sting

Of the whole shame. And then the jeopardy,

For good or ill, what shall that master be;

Reject she cannot: and if he but stays

His suit, ‘tis shame on all that woman’s days.

Medea told us what she thought about being a woman. A woman needed a man as a husband under some excessive price (I take it as a dowry). The man then would have control over her, yet, she could not be sure beforehand whether he would be good or bad; while she could not divorce him if he turned out to be bad, as divorcing would ruin her reputation. So either way, she must take that husband. And after that, the husband would take her to his home, a new place where she must adapt herself to whatever the condition, and must accept the husband as he was. If the marriage turned good, she would be grateful, but if it turned bad, she must want to be dead. Then, the husband might get bored to his wife, and began to seek entertainment outside; while a woman must be satisfied with one man only in her entire life, while bearing his children.

But Medea was not a melancholy woman, who accepted her unfortunate faith with bitter tears; she was spiteful and severely enraged by Jason’s infidelity. She was at last banished by King Creon of Corinth for making everyone frightful by her cold and cruel manner. In fact, she has murdered her own brother and has persuaded two sisters to kill their father before arriving in Corinth. Became more enraged with her banishment, she then prepared a most cruel and cold-blooded revenge to Jason, his wife and his father.

I had a mixed feeling while reading Medea; I enjoyed the plays structure, language and the emotional sense in detailed description. However I was a bit inconvenient with the vulgarity of the murder scene. Medea’s intense anger and the turbulence of her feeling were captured very vividly by Euripides, as if I was witnessing the action myself; and for me, it’s the most attracting point of this play.

Some people called Medea’s killing her two sons as madness, but I think it was more of a fight between her hatred versus affection—and in this case the hatred won. I don’t know much about madness, but Medea felt sorry for her children; she altered her decision from killing them and releasing them for several times, it only meant that Medea still have affection for her children.

Cold-blooded she was, I could not put the blame only on Medea’s part. I hated Jason more than Medea, for treating his wife so coldly. How clever he was in his reasoning of marrying King’s daughter, that he actually still loved Medea, and only marrying the princess as a chance to protect their family in their exile in Corinth; that Medea should be thankful to live in Greek instead of Barbarian country where she came from. Here Medea was right, if Jason honestly wanted to marry Creon’s daughter merely for survival, he ought to tell the truth to Medea. I agree with the Chorus, Jason deserved Medea’s punishment. If only she did not take his sons too in this revenge scene, I might have been more enjoying this play. If only after several times altering decision, the last one was departing with his sons to Aegeus’ country, I might have had more sympathy towards Medea.

In the end, I believe, Euripides has written it for purpose, as if to tell us how women—delicate their nature are—could be more cruel and stronger than men when you hurt them. And most of the times, it’s about infidelity in love. That’s why, beware you, men….!

~~~~~~

*I read ebook from Gutenberg Project*

*This book is counted for*

 Greek play theme

35^th book for The Classics Club Project

7^th book for What's In a Name Reading Challenge2013

3^rd book for New Authors Reading Challenge 2013

Antony and Cleopatra – Final Review

This is my second Shakespearean tragedy after Julius Caesar, and while we are still entertained with wars—though not as flourish as Julius Caesar’s—we are also spoiled with stories of love and lust, loyalty and betrayal, nobleness and dirty politics; all bitters-and-sweets in human’s live.

I believe Antony was a great general, he fight with his soldiers; not just watched and gave orders from the camp (compare this with Octavius who pointed Agrippa to lead the army), and for that his soldiers loved and respected him—well at least before he was crazy. He was a gentleman of his time, always treated his soldiers fairly, and his friends loyally. However—as every man must have his weakness—Antony could not resist love charm; and in this case, the charm has a name: Cleopatra, the queen of Egypt.

From the beginning of the play we can see that Cleopatra was an obsessive woman, she kept asking Antony how much he loved her. If one does not know her reputation, one might think she was just like any other silly young girl who was in love. But I believe this was not the case of Cleopatra. I think she was an ambitious, self-possessed and even cunning woman—you could not become a queen at that time if you did not possess those qualifications—and for her, to keep her throne was more important than to win a man’s heart. I think, after Caesar’s death, Cleopatra needed an allegiance to protect her interests, and she had chosen Antony.

On the contrary, Mark Antony had really fallen in love and trapped into Cleopatra’s charm, that he neglected his duty as the ruler of one third of the world, leaving the young ambitious Octavius worked alone (with Lepidus) in Rome for his own interests. This was Antony’s biggest fault, to let his heart controlled his brain. However, with a woman so charming and determined like Cleopatra, it’s difficult for Antony to avoid his faith.

Cleopatra on the Terraces of Philae
by Frederick Arthur Bridgman, 1896

I loved this play a lot, it has all you can ask for an exciting reading; history, romances, politics, wars and witty dialogues now and then. I always love Roman history, so I don’t have any trouble of loving this one too, plus I think I’m a new fan of Mark Antony, although Cicero is still (for me) the best. One thing I don’t like from this play, is how Cleopatra was portrayed here by Shakespeare. I think, except for once or twice when she was really angry and in the last chapters, one will think Cleopatra was a spoiled teenager who was madly in love.

I am still wondering whether Cleopatra had betrayed Antony as Antony had accused her. If not, why had the Egyptian deserted their master twice, first in Actium battle, second near Alexandria? And Cleopatra never gave Antony any reason why she had instructed her army to abandon him in Actium, nor did she defend herself when Antony accused her after the last battle; she just left him and hid in the monument.

Assuming that Cleopatra was innocent and she hid herself merely afraid of Antony’s rage, why did she send her eunuch to tell Antony that she had died, but then sent another messenger to say that she was still actually alive? Did she send the first one because she knew how Antony would react if he heard about her death—thus keeping her promise to Caesar; then sent the second one because she was in fact still in love to him? Oh what a complicated woman!

The label of “hero of this play” I think must be granted to Eros, who—when was instructed by Antony to kill him—chose to end his own life because he could not kill his own master, but he did not want to disobey him either. Antony did not have the courage to kill himself and must ask his men’s help, but Eros stabbed himself without any doubt. Antony killed himself as a result of his own conducts, but Eros killed himself merely of his infinite loyalty to his master.

“My dear master,

My captain, and my emperor, let me say,

Before I strike this bloody stroke, farewell.

(stabs himself) Thus I do escape the sorrow

Of Antony’s death.”

I have enjoyed this play until Mark Antony died. After that, it’s like an anticlimax for me. I did not really want to know how Cleopatra will end her life (for I had already know the facts), and what Octavius would do. Act V was the most boring part of this play, and for that—and for absurdity in Cleopatra’s manner—I granted four stars for Antony and Cleopatra. Although this play was slightly interesting than Julius Caesar, but all in all, I liked Julius Caesar more.

You can read my post for each act: Act I - Act II - Act III - Act IV - Act V

Julius Caesar – Final Review

“Beware the ides of March.” If only Julius Caesar had believed in this prophecy, Shakespeare might have never written this tragedy….

Roman history is one of my favorite interests. I have read several historical fictions with Roman history theme, but so far I have never read about Julius Caesar, or his assassination in particular. Reading this favorite subject of mine as a play, only increased my excitement! This is the second Shakespeare’s play I have ever read, and unlike my first encounter (A Midsummer Night’s Dream), I enjoyed Julius Caesar a lot. Maybe it’s because of the theme, but maybe I fit more with tragedy than comedy.

Gaius Julius Caesar was one of the most successful rulers of Rome; and this play depicted the era of his dictatorship in Rome—while Rome was actually still a Republic. This condition created political envies among senators and aristocracy in the Senate, because Senate was practically muted by Caesar. Caius Cassius was one of the unsatisfied senators. He persuaded a noble man among them who were a close friend to Caesar: Brutus, to join his group of Conspirator. Brutus was so naïve that he was persuaded and agreed to murder Caesar.

The murder scene was great—although I believe the reality was even more horrible than the play’s scene. There were originally around 60 senators who took roles in this assassination, and Caesar died after receiving 23 stabs. What made it more tragic, was Caesar’s last words. He always loved and trusted Brutus, and at first he tried to defend himself despite of his wound; however knowing that Brutus was one of his murderers, he finally surrendered and died. The original murder scene was more brutal I think, because even when Caesar had fell and laid down helplessly, they (60 senators!) continued to stab him. He uttered his last word to Brutus: “Et tu, Bruté?” (You too, Brutus?) before he finally died. This was one of my favorite moments in this tragedy. It was so tragic to know that a person so noble, so honorable that you loved and trusted so much, betrayed you and literally stabbed you. I think for Caesar, the hurt from Brutus’ betrayal was even more than the stabs....

"Et tu, Bruté?"

And what was it all about, actually? Did Roman lower class really suffer at that time under Julius Caesar (the excuse they had given to legitimate the assassination)? No! The first scene in Act I proved that, the workers took a day off and well-dressed to celebrate Caesar’s triumph. So it’s was all about political envies. Cassius was the promoter, but so the rest of the conspirator—well, all except Brutus. Like what Mark Antony later stated:

“This was the noblest Roman of them all.

All the conspirators save only he

Did that they did in envy of great Caesar.

He only in a general honest thought

And common good to all, made one of them.”

Like I have said in Act 5 post, it’s so ironic that Brutus’ (or the Conspirators’) excuse to kill Caesar was to prevent him from transforming the republic into a monarchy, but after that, Rome fell into civil war and finally became a monarchy anyway.

There were also some other ironic misunderstandings or mishaps within the play. When Caesar was on the way to the Senate House, for example, Artemidorus submitted a warning letter—and an exact one—that if Caesar has read it before he arrived at the Senate, well…the story would be altered :), but Caesar refused to read it just because Artemidorus insisted on it. Another irony ‘letters-related’ was false letters Cassius wrote for Brutus. I believe it was those letters that finally convinced Brutus to take action. It was so a child game that you might wonder how a politician could be that naïve (if not stupid) to believe in.

But the biggest ironical scene was perhaps in the battle field when Cassius thought Titinius was captured and murdered by the enemies, while in fact the shouts of joy he heard was of Brutus’ armies who were welcoming Titinius. Cassius just believed what his servant, Pindarus told him, he took it as a truth, and killed himself without re-checking. A politician like Cassius done that, can you believe that? Or, was it merely a guilty feeling?

Another favorite moment of mine was Mark Antony’s oration at Julius Caesar’s funeral. It’s a very clever and wise move from Antony. He knew that he must looked as if he made an allegiance with the conspirator, and he knew he could trusted Brutus on this—once again Brutus made mistake by trusting Antony, poor Brutus…you should never be a politician! So Antony grabbed Brutus’ confidence to perform a funeral oration, and look how he swayed beautifully from praising Brutus and co as noble men to cursing them as brutal murderer of a great man of Julius Caesar! And look how clever he was to tease the citizens by revealing that he had Caesar’s will earlier in the speech, but kept the content only near the end, which convinced the citizens that Caesar was a generous and honorable King who had been murdered by villain conspirators, and that they must take avenge. Well done, Antony!

Five stars I granted to this play, for I was really enjoying every moment of it, and Shakespeare has helped me to vividly imagining the real scenes. Well, I must confess here, that through the play I couldn’t help to imagine the real setting, instead of the play’s setting. I know I should have been concentrating on the play, but I don’t know how my imagination always hops to Rome’s streets, the forum, and even the battle field… :) And at the end, I was thinking….which was the real tragedy in this play? Caesar’s death? Or Brutus’ ? I pick the first, because Caesar was murdered merely because his enemies’ envies, not purely for the sake of Rome; so it was just a political move, not a heroic action. Tragic, yet ironic….

You can also read my thorough analysis of each act: Act I – Act II – Act III – Act IV – Act V

*I read ebook from Gutenberg project*

*with Sparknotes’ No Fear Shakespeare to guide me here and there*

Mahabharata (2): An Indian Epic Mythology

This is the second part of Mahabharata, one of the longest epic mythology in the world, depicted a rivalry between two families: Pandavas and Kauravas, which would cause one of the greatest wars in Indian ancient mythology. I read the graphic novel version, retold by one of the greatest Indonesian illustrators, and it was illustrated in Indonesian folklore. In the first part we have learned about Pandavas and Kauravas ancestors, how they were born and brought up by the elders. We have got to know how Kauravas always had envy towards Pandavas, which had begun from their mother Gandhari. In the end of part one we knew that the Kauravas—especially Duryodana—decided to take revenge to their cousins. This part two began with an invitation from King Duryodana to the Pandavas to return the visit to Hastinapura palace.

Without any prejudices, Yudhisthira as King of Indraprashta along with the Pandavas, Kunti—their mother, and Draupadi arrived at Hastinapura, and welcomed by Kauravas with all hospitality. The elders, Bhishma, Dhritarashtra and Vidura happily watched their children lived as a big happy family. Little did they know that behind all the hospitalities, Kauravas—helped by their uncle Shakuni—has an evil plan to take their revenge. Until then I always see Yudhisthira as a perfect human being with all his nobleness quality, however in this part two, Yushisthira’s weakness was revealed: he was a severe gambler! Shakuni knew this, and set a trap for Pandavas through a dice game. Of course, it seemed at first like a fun game, while they let Yudhisthira won huge pile of gold coins.

Actually I sensed that his brothers at first disagreed with Yudhisthira’s decision to play the game, however they were taught by their mother to always respect their elder brother (the King), so they just sat down and take a wait-and-see attitude. However, winning after winning had affected them all, so that they finally even supported Yudhisthira to raise the bet using all the money he had won. At that crucial time, when the air of greediness had enveloped everyone, Shakuni silently replaced the dice with a false one (though I can never imagine how this particular dice could mechanically serve his evil purpose). And now, with the false dice, Pandavas lost the game, coin after coin that they had won previously have moved to Kauravas’ hands. And finally without any money left, Duryodana challenged poor Yudhisthira to bet on their Kingdom, Indraprashta! This has become absurd, I could not understand how wise people like Pandavas could agree thing like that. From this scene, I had learned when I was first read Mahabharata as a child, that greediness is one of men’s biggest sin, that it is difficult to reject a fortune when it seems so close to reach.

Of course Pandavas finally lost, not only their Kingdom, but also their freedom, for now they were not princes any longer, they were just slaves. But the worst part has not yet come because Draupadi had become one of the objects of the bet, and now that they have lost, Durshasana (Duryodana’s second brother) dragged the poor Draupadi, then began to disrobe her in public because Duryodana wanted to see her naked. Fortunately the gods saw this and prevented Draupadi from being humiliated through the help of Dharma (the god, Yudhisthira’s father). Despite of Durshasana’s effort to disrobe Draupadi, the cloth had never come to end. Finally Durshasana gave up, leaving Draupadi with her body still covered, but her soul was wounded by the biggest humiliation a woman can take.

The scene of Draupadi humiliated

It’s interesting to see how the Pandavas reacted to Draupadi’s humiliation. You will think that Yudhisthira would be enraged by his wife’s humiliation, but surprisingly, he was just as calm as a lamb! Actually almost all the Pandavas just watched the humiliation in silence because they were slaves now. How ridiculous it was! I’m glad that at least Bhima, although he was a slave too, turned away from the scene that hurt his feeling. At least he showed that he was agitated by the scene, not as passive as the husband! After I reread Mahabharata as an adult, I begin to think that Bhima had perhaps a kind of affection for Draupadi. Despite of his rough manner, Bhima showed tenderness to Draupadi. He always stood by to protect her, and was willing to do anything for her, even if it was only to search for flowers for Draupadi’s hair; something I had never seen in Yudhisthira.

It concerned me too that the elders—Bhima and Vidura especially—who supposed to maintain the peace between their children, failed to see the evil plan Kauravas had set all those times. They were blinded by Kauravas kindness and hospitality, which astonished me. Vidura at least must have seen it, must have suspected it, for he once had detected Kauravas evil plan to murder Pandavas and saved them (see part one). How could he now think that Kauravas had treated Pandavas as their true brother? Or have they been blinded by the comfort of living they got from the Kauravas? With Dhritarashtra I could understand, I think deep in his heart he have always wanted his own sons to protect Hastinapura throne. But ironically, after Duryodana became a King, Dhritarashtra did not have authority towards his sons, he even feared of them (there were hundred of them anyway!), that he could not defend Pandavas at the end. Tragically, Bhishma and Vidura did not have the authority also to guide them; Duryodana trusted Shakuni more than anyone else in the world.

Anyway, it was finally decided that Pandavas should be exiled to a forest for twelve years and during the thirteenth year they must live in undercover and must not be found by Kauravas, or otherwise they must through another twelve years exile. The Pandavas and Draupadi lived their exile in patience; they got through every sorrows and obstacles together in silence. Along the thirteen years their friends never left them, especially Krishna who had been their worthy advisor and true friend they can put their trust. It was Krishna too who instructed Arjuna to meditate to gods to get weapons. As a result of his meditation (he was the best in meditation among men), Syiva granted Pasopati, and Indra granted Pancaroba.

There are a lot of things happened during Pandavas’ exile, it seems that the exile was to purify their soul and strengthen their characters to prepare them for the big war to come. For the gods have already known that the Kurukshetra war must happen in the future between Pandavas and Kauravas, and as Vyasa said, it was not from Pandavas part that the war must take place, it was from Kauravas’. From Hanuman (Bhima’s brother from Vayu) Pandavas learned that the gods could have helped them to punish Kauravas and released them from the great sorrow if they have wanted it, however Pandavas must keep getting through all the hard times, with honesty and wisdom. And isn’t that how men should regard their life too? We often asked God why all these bad things should continuously happen? Can’t God do something with His almighty power to destroy the evils? But it was God wish for men must get through all the sorrows and hard times during their life to prepare them, to purify them for eternal life. That was one deep reflection that I found in Mahabharata which make it valuable, the wisdoms of life.

There was also a wise quote from Sthuna, a giant who exchanged sex with Shikhandi. Shikhandi was born as a female, however gods has planned her to carry the oath of Amba to end the life of Bhishma (you must read about this in part one). When she has grown up, gods instructed her to go to a wise giant called Sthuna and they prayed to gods together to exchange sex. Sthuna became a woman, and Srikandhi became a man. Sthuna’s King thought it was stupid of him to let the sex exchange happened, for “women are weak creatures who often being the cause of wars between men who fight for them”. However Sthuna stood for women, saying that it was not women’s fault, it was men who were greedy and cannot control their passion; that they enjoyed killing each other. Human being should live their life in what God have given them; and they must accept it with pure heart. What a lesson!

From Dharma (the god of wisdom, Yudhisthira’s father) we also got another lessons:

1. The enemy that is most difficult to beat is passion.

2. The worst human being is he who likes to slander others.

3. The best human being is he who accepts God’s will.

4. The illness without cure is avariciousness.

5. The perfect human being is he who always cautious towards the nature even before he was born.

One irony that justified the evil of Kauravas and the kindness of Pandavas took place in the forest during the exile. The Kauravas got a ridiculous idea to see the sorrows of Pandavas while they would show off their richness by having a party in the middle of the forest darkness (very stupid, eh?). While they were drunk, a group of evil forest creatures attacked them mercilessly. When Pandavas heard the noise and realized that the Kauravas were attacked, they came to help fighting the creatures and released the Kauravas. They did all this in silence, because they knew they were obliged to help others who were in need, even if it was their enemy who have unfairly caused their sorrows for twelve years! What a beautiful lesson for us to love others, including our enemies.

And finally the last year of their exile came, Pandavas must go in disguise. They all served the Virata kingdom, Yudhisthira as a historian, Draupadi as a maid servant, Arjuna as an arts and dancing teacher—I can’t imagine him, the best swordsman in the universe must disguise as a coquettish man :). Nakula and Sadeva would be horsemen, while Bhima would serve as a butcher. Really, I think Bhima’s disguise was the weakest because he always fit the humble life of the Sudras (the lowest level in Indian society). This period of disguising was quite comical and entertaining….

In short they could get through the one year period of disguising safely. Now it was time to ask Kauravas to give Indraprashta back to them as they have successfully served the exile. It was Krishna who volunteered to be Pandavas’ ambassador. Here again I see the weak personality of Yudhisthira. He was a King, and it was he who should take the initiative to ask for his rights. But no, when Krishna asked him what he would do next, he said that he would be pleased to take anything that Duryodana would give them, even if it’s only the half of the kingdom. What?? Have you lost your mind? After all they did to you, and that was because of YOUR mistake that your wife and brothers should take the sorrows! And now you just want to wait for Kauravas kindness? Oh…how I want to slap his passive face!! And don’t be surprised if Arjuna and Bhima had not the courage to contradict their elder brother. It was finally Draupadi who ‘slapped’ them all with what she said. Yes! It was Draupadi who suffered the most, and it was—ironically—a woman who was braver than all the best knights in the kingdom, who finally opened their eyes! What Kauravas did to them was beyond any sense, and yet they did all their wish in patience, but now it is time to ask for their rights, they must fight now, once and for all, they must not beg again for their kindness, because Pandavas had the same right as Pandu’s sons.

Krishna had the same idea too, but he must half push them to make their mind. Here, again, Yudhisthira still could not make his mind, he moved the obligation of making decision to Bhima and Arjuna. And fortunately this time, both of them firmly stated that they will ask for their rights, and would fight for it if it was needed. Whew…finally! With that decision, Krishna met with Kauravas as Pandavas’ ambassador. Here you would feel the tension, because, as Vyasa had predicted earlier, it was Kauravas’ decision that would make the war must take place. The Kauravas, despite of their promise, refused to return Indraprashta to Pandavas, and with that the war was inevitable! To describe Kauravas stubbornness, Krishna—burned with rage—suddenly transformed into a huge giant (this is the sign of Vishnu when he was in severe anger), that need Dharma to calm him down before he crushed Hastinapura by himself. And so this is the end of Mahabharata, the Kurukshetra war would be depicted in the next sequel Bharatayuda.

From this mythology we knew that from the beginning, greediness was always the cause of human disputes. They killed each others because they were never satisfied of what they had, because they wanted more. All the sorrows that happened in life were because men could not control themselves. Mahabharata was told and retold beautifully for centuries, and the lessons and values taught us of the most essential aspects in life.

Five of five stars for Mahabharata and the beautiful illustration by R.A. Kosasih, Indonesian senior illustrator who has just passed away last month.

Mahabharata (1): an Indian Epic-Mythology

If you are familiar with Greek mythology, Iliad and Odyssey from Homer, Mahabharata is an Indian mythology which is ten times longer than the Iliad and Odyssey combined into one book. This ancient epic tales was predicted to be written around the year of 500 BC by a monk called Vyasa. It’s a kind of family saga, the Pandavas and Kauravas. I read the graphic novel version, re-told by one of the greatest illustrator in Indonesia: R.A. Kosasih (recently passed away). The most interesting thing of this graphic novel is that Kosasih put the Indian mythology into Indonesian folklore nuances, from the clothes and the names they called each other, that when I first read it as a child, I have always thought that Mahabharata was an Indonesian tale! Apart from the cultural aspects, Mahabharata was a beautiful epic about love, brotherhood, sacrifice, greediness and revenge.

Like Greek mythology, there were alliances between gods and human. The gods always monitor and control every thing happened on earth from their place “up there”. When men were in danger or sorrow, they could meditate and called the gods to help them with their maneuver. When men hated each other, they could spell a curse towards another, and when the gods approved, the curse would be affected right at that moment.

This graphic novel were divided into two volumes, the first one depicted the ancestors of Pandavas and Kauravas. Mahabharata was the early setting of one of the greatest wars in epics between the two families: Pandava and Kaurava; here we learned about their ancestors and the seeds of hatred that would turn into war. The war itself was told in Bharatayudha. 

It all began with a kingdom named Hastinapura, which was ruled by King Shantanu. One day, the lonely king went hunting in a forest and met a very beautiful girl whom he fell in love with. The girl was actually the Ganga goddess. They were married and had a son named Devavrata before the Ganga goddess finally returned to heaven. Devavrata grown up as a courageous, wise, strong, handsome, and smart young man (he was half god and half man anyway). He loved his father very much, but noticed that his father was not happy recently and finally got very ill. He asked him why, and King Shantanu told his son that one day he had met a beautiful girl named Satyavati—a daughter of a fisherman—whom he has fallen in love with. He could not marry her because Satyavati had had an oath that she would only marry a King, and that their son must heir the throne and become the future king. As Shantanu has made Devavrata his successor, he knew he could never marry the woman he loved.

Satyavaty was actually a princess from a kingdom, but has been put into an exile because of a strange and humiliating illness. She married a monk and had a son who was called Vyasa. That was how she had that oath. Devavrata, being a devoted son, promised that he would release his right of the throne so that his father could marry the woman he loved. But what about his future children, what if they demand their rights?, asked the dying father. And then Devavrata made an oath that he would take a lifelong celibacy so that the throne would always be safe. The gods heard and admired the great sacrifice Devavrata has made for his father’s sake, and gave him a new name: Bhishma. King Shantanu then married Satyavati and had two sons: Chitrangada and Vichitravirya.

Chitrangada—the future king—died suddenly in a very young age, left Vicitravirya who was not as good as his died brother in swordsmanship. At that time there was a competition held by a King to find a husband for his three princesses. Satyavati wanted a wife for King Vicitravirya, but knowing that he was not a good swordsman, Bhishma volunteered to fight in the name of the King. Shortly, Bhishma won the three princesses: Amba (the eldest), Ambika and Ambalika. Amba felt she was too old for Hastinapura’s King, and has fallen in love with Bhishma instead. She asked Bhishma to marry her, but Bhishma—who has sworn not to marry—refused her. Amba kept approaching Bhishma, and the later, in order perhaps to fight his own passion accidentally shot Amba with his arrow. In her last breath, Amba begged the gods that her soul would transformed in the body of a woman who would take Bhishma’s life in the future. And the gods approved it.

A sudden death came to King Vicitravirya, leaving the throne of Hastinapura without a successor. In desperation, Satyavati called for his son, Vyasa who agreed “to father children” with Ambika and Ambalika (this was a common practice in India when a man cannot have child). Vyasa was pictured as a man with terrifying looks, so when he came to Ambika, the girl kept shutting her eyes. Later on she gave birth to a blind child (because she kept shutting her eyes during the process). Ambalika has been warned by Vyasa not to shut her eyes like Ambika, however the disgust made her face grew pale during the process, and her child born with pale skin. Unsatisfied with the result, Satyavati asked his son to father one more child with one of the princesses. However, both Ambika and Ambalika did not want to have another session with Vyasa, so they arranged a maid to replace them. From her, born the third child. They were named: Dhritarashtra (the blind), Pandu (the pale skin), and Vidura.

Pandu—despite the fact that he was a second son—was made King because a blind man cannot rule a Kingdom. When they were grown up, Pandu went to a competition to get a wife, Dhritarashtra and Vidura came with him. Pandu, helped by Dhritarashtra, won the competition and brought home Princess Kunti. However there are two other contestants who were not satisfied with the result; they challenged Pandu to do another fights, and if they were lost, they would give their sisters to Pandu. In short, instead of one wife, Pandu brought home three princesses: Kunti, Madri and Gandhari. Satyavati instructed Pandu to share one of them with Dhritarashtra while Vidura refused to have a wife. Then came the selection day, and of course the three princesses were terrified they would be chosen by the blind young man instead of the handsome Pandu. The three secretly prayed to their gods to help them, however in a strange coincidence, Gandhari was chosen by Dhritarashtra.

One day Pandu went hunting to the forest and shot a pair of deer who were making love. The deer turned out to be a monk who transformed himself and his wife to a pair of deer to have privacy when they made love. The monk then cursed Pandu that he won’t be able to have sex for the rest of his life, for whenever he had passion to his wives, he would soon die. Pandu retired to be a monk together with his wives, and left the throne to Dhritarashtra while he was away. Now being a queen, Gandhari was never satisfied because she knew when Pandu returned, she won’t be queen anymore. She prayed to gods to give her a lot of children to protect the throne. The gods answered her prayers, Gandhari was soon pregnant.

However, instead of a baby, Gandhari gave birth to a piece of flesh when she was walking at the garden one night. She kicked the flesh in disgust, and the flesh divided itself to many pieces. The god instructed Gandhari to cover the fleshes with leaves, and went to sleep. In the morning, the fleshes had turned into babies, one hundred babies! Now Gandhari has her protector for Hastinapura throne, and the one hundred children were called the Kaurava. The news came to Kunti and Madri, they too wanted to have their own children, however as Pandu was unable to give them child, they prayed to their gods. The gods fulfilled their wishes, Kunti was given three sons, one from Dharma (the god of justice) and born Yudhisthira, one from Vayu (the god of the wind) and born Bhima, and one from Indra (the lord of the heaves for sons) and got Arjuna. Madri gave birth to twins: Nakula and Sahadeva from Ashwini (the twin gods). Te fifth of them were called the Pandava. However, Pandu could not keep his passion towards Madri, and when they made love, Pandu died.

Lived in the same palace, Pandavas and Kauravas grew up as different characters. While Pandavas became good and polite young men, Kauravas who were being spoiled by their mother has become villain and greedy. Dhritarashtra made Yudhisthira a crown prince, but he kept the ambition to made his own son Duryodana (the eldest of Kauravas) to be the king of Hastinapura (he might have been persuaded by the greedy Gandhari). Kauravas, helped by their evil uncle Shakuni (brother of Gandhari) made a plan to get rid of Pandavas in a fire accident. Luckily for Pandavas and their mother Kunthi, their wise uncle Vidura has made protection for them by instructing his men to dig a tunnel beneath their palace. Saved from the fire accident, the Pandavas returned to Hastinapura only to find that Duryodana has been made King. The elders had a meeting, and decided that the Pandavas should build their own kingdom which was called Indraprashta. When they were on pilgrimage to return from fire accident, Arjuna has won Draupadi as a wife. Here there are ambiguities, in the version I read, Arjuna refused to marry Draupadi and gave Draupadi for his brother Yudhisthira, who finally agreed to marry her. However, in the original version, Kunthi asked Arjuna to share Draupadi with all his brothers. Draupadi finally married all five of Pandavas (this too, a common practice in India, a woman can have more than one husband).

Draupadi & her five husbands-the Pandavas

One day when Indraprashta has become a big kingdom, they invited the Kauravas to the palace. There Duryodana grew envious of the elegant palace of Pandavas. It was added with a humiliating accident where Duryodana splashed in the water when he thought it was glossy floor. The Kauravas came home with revenge in their head, and since then they could not think other than a perfect plot to humiliate the Pandavas.

It was long, I know! :) And this is just PART ONE of Mahabharata, there will be part two! I write the entire plot here to memorize them myself. From the story, I just realized that the four elements of life: love, hatred, greediness and revenge are always the plot of most stories of human lives. And those were also the most causes of wars. I read Mahabharata as I was a child, and I re-read it many times after that. One thing I just realized as adult reader (and after I can browse the internet) that Vyasa is believed to be the same person as Krishna Dvaipayana. It was not mentioned here in the graphic novel I read; Krishna here was the King of Dwaraka, an advisor to Pandavas, whose main concern was to keep the whole kingdom in peace. He was invincible in fighting, because he was the incarnation of Vishnu god. To imagine that Krishna and Vyasa was the same person would be interesting. I think I should keep reading the Part two (and perhaps continue on to Bharatayudha) to learn more about this.