The Ides of March by Thornton Wilder

Julius Caesar is perhaps one of the most famous people, of whom so many authors have written about. And after that many (Shakespeare included), what else left for Thornton Wilder to cover in his The Ides of March? To me, that was the most interesting aspect which persuaded me to read this book at the first place. Partly because I thought it was a play (Wilder is famous for his plays), and partly because Ancient Rome always fascinates me, particularly the era of Caesar and Cicero. I am Cicero's admirer too, if you haven't known it. :)

Anyway, with that in mind, I plunged into the book, only to find, not without surprise, that The Ides of March is actually an epistolary novel! It contains communication through letters of Caesar and people around him, his journal-letters to a fictional character of Lucius Mamilius Turrinus, as well as Commonplace Books of some historians such as Cornelius Nepos. Commonplace Book is an account of events of the writer's time that he kept by himself. These materials are, of course, fictional, but Wilder kept most of the events and the characters as real as possible; but not the times.

In the Preface, the author has stated that 'historical reconstruction is not among the primary aims of this work.' What, then, is this work's about? I had to finish it before realizing the answer. The Ides of March covers events in year 45 BC, from the profanation of the Mysteries of the Bona Dea by Clodia Pulcher and her brother Clodius, to Caesar's murder. I have assumed from the novel title, that Brutus, Cassius, Casca, and the gang would be the center characters. But no--another surprise!--Clodia Pulcher played almost as much important role as Caesar in the plot. Then, Cleopatra also made her appearance, as well as Catullus the poets who fell in love with Clodia. At first I asked myself: 'Why must I read about Clodia Pulcher and Catullus? They had nothing to with Caesar's murder!'

Julius Caesar's assassination

After finishing the novel, I realized that The Ides of March is more a philosophical novel than historical; that Wilder might have brought us to enter Caesar's mind; saw him as a statesman--as well as a man--and enter one of the genius minds that ever lived on earth. This side of Caesar appeared in his journal-letters to Lucius Mamilius Turrinus. Most of them reflect his searching for human existence, and his thoughts on many subjects. These insights changed my mind on Caesar. Now I can see that Caesar is an extremely proud person. He is not snobbish, but he just believes that he is different from others. He knows how to make Rome a solid state, and has capability and commitment to do the works, when others had none of the qualities (and he was probably right). He cares about others, especially common people--although perhaps selfishly--that they also loves him in return. He seems to dislike vulgar luxury and indulgence, and hates the deity that others imposed on him. His bigger flaw, perhaps, is women. But even in his affair with Cleopatra, I can see that being a genius man, Caesar longs to acquaint others who equal him. Cleopatra is one! They understand each other. Although Caesar also realizes that Cleopatra's only concern is her Egypt. What a lonely man, Caesar is!

I was most intrigued by Caesar's decision to let Clodius sneaking into the Bona Dea ritual disguised as a woman to meet Pompeia, albeit a warning from Cleopatra before the event (both Caesar and Cleopatra have secret polices). Is it his way to 'punish' Pompeia because she was aware of Clodius' plan but did nothing to prevent it (and thus dishonored herself)?

About the conspirators, Caesar was aware of their presence (from the secret police), but he must have never thought them to be so solid, and certainly never suspected Brutus, whom he loved. I think Brutus is the most hypocrite man I've ever known. How he scolded his mother for suggesting the idea of tyrannicide (I have never known this word ever existed!); he really appeared to be disgusted; but then… :(. Even Dante made him dwell on the lowest circle, didn't he? And what was that for? The freedom, they said? It’s more for their persona; freedom, I think, not so much for Rome!

All in all, it is an interesting take on Julius Caesar. 3,5/5 was my final score.

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Final Review

As I have always been fascinated by the Ancient Rome, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire seems to be a required reading for me. And indeed, I have always been curious about the cause of Roman’s fall. It is tragic to think that the most civilized portion of mankind could possibly end in such a great ruin. It would be interesting to know, in what point exactly the decline began. Gibbon’s history on this subject has been published in three volumes for thirteen years, but the copy I read for History Reading Challenge 2014 is the abridged version. And now I’m so glad I have picked it in the first place!

Gibbon opened the story with Pax Romana (an era of stability and prosperity of the Empire) which was brought firstly by Augustus. Augustus’ reign was the beginning of Roman Empire, after 500 years of being a Republic. He set the Principate, the ideological foundation of the Empire (strengthening civic life, economic, cultural, legal, and religions). During the first two centuries Roman people lived in peace and prosperity, until the reign of the Antonines. Commodus could perhaps be pointed out as the culprit of Roman’s descent due to his capricious character. Later on Severus conversed from the Principate to military monarchy, a first sign, I think, of the end of the stability era.

After that Diocletian appointed Maximian as co-emperor and two others as junior co-emperors; thus shared the Empire in a tetrarchy. It was the first version of Western-Eastern division of Rome. Constantine then moved the capital of Rome to the east, Constantinopel. He was also the first Emperor who converted to Christian, and thus the vast establishment of Christianity. But it was Theodosius who later made Christian as official state religion. The definitive separation of Roman Empire took place during Valentinian’s reign. He retained the Western Rome, and trusted the Eastern to his brother Valens. The Western Rome fell completely after series of attacks from the Barbarians in 476 AD, during the reign of Agustulus.

The most famous emperor of the Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Rome) was Justinian, who shared his throne with his wife Theodora. He tried to renew the Roman Empire with several conquests, but it appeared to weaken it instead. In the meantime, and along the slow descent of the great empire, there were the rises of some sects (Paulicians and Manichean); Mahomet with his new religion (Islam); the increasing power of the Ottoman Empire (the Turks); and at last the Crusades and the besiege of Constantinopel. Finally, 1453 AD marked the fall of Byzantine Empire, the last remnant of once the greatest civilization ever existed on earth.

To me, this book is a very long journey, and sometimes it felt too tedious (and this is the abridged version, don’t forget!) Maybe it’s just me who is not familiar with history, but I think Gibbon has often painstakingly overstretched the history coverage. For instance, he wrote very detailed story about Christianity as religion, or the character of Mahomet as a prophet. I mean, this is about Rome, and although I know that Christianity and Mahomet both had great influence in the decline and fall of Rome, we didn’t need to learn about them so deeply it made you sometimes think you are studying a history of the Church.

But apart from that, I loved Gibbon’s beautiful poetic style to write this history, making the serious topic became quite entertaining. Although I think Gibbon had skepticism with him when Christianity was concerned, while I believe a historian should be neutral. In the end Gibbon concluded that the decline and fall of Roman Empire was influenced by so many different circumstances. First, it was the weakness of her own (Roman) Emperors; then the rise and establishment of Christian and Islam; the Crusades; and the rise of the Barbarians, the Saracens, and the Turks.

After reading this, I still believe that Rome should stick on being Republic instead of becoming Monarchy. The disadvantage of Monarchy is the entire kingdom is in one’s hand. And quite often the Emperor is not capable to handle it. Especially for Rome which was at the time Augustus ruled has been too large. By being Republic, at least the Consul did not rule by himself, there are the Senate and the Tribune. Of course there are several weaknesses in Roman Republic as I have learned from Cicero’s biography by Antony Everitt, and even with ambitious men like Julius Caesar every now and then, I think Roman Republic is still better than Monarchy, as long as they did not fall into the hand of a dictator or tyrant. By the way, I still also think that Julius Caesar is the culmination point of Roman’s greatness. Yes, Roman would see a Pax Romana later, but Caesar’s reign was the crucial point; it was him who opened the way of a Monarchy.

Anyway, as Gibbon has said: “Instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long.” And that is so true. The fall of Roman, after so long of dominating the world, would have come in any time anyway. The world needs a revolution from ancient to modern, and I think Roman—Republic and Empire—have provided us with valuable legacy on almost every aspects of life.

Three and a half stars for The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire!

~~~~~~~~~~

I read Penguin Classics edition

This book is counted as:

4^th book for History Reading Challenge 2014

75^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

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*

Quo Vadis?

Apakah pengertian anda tentang “kemenangan”? Ketika dua orang samurai bertarung misalnya, pemenangnya pastilah samurai yang masih hidup, dan pecundangnya adalah samurai yang mati karena kalah oleh lawannya. Kisah klasik karya Henryk Sienkiewicz akan menjungkar balikkan pengertian kita tentang kemenangan sekaligus kematian. Quo Vadis adalah sebuah roman yang dibingkai latar belakang sejarah pada tahun 60-an, saat Nero menjadi kaisar kerajaan terbesar yang memimpin dunia : kerajaan Romawi. Adalah seorang bangsawan yang menjadi pejabat militer di kerajaan bernama Marcus Vinicius. Pamannya merupakan salah satu orang terdekat Nero yang sangat mencintai keindahan dan seni bernama Petronius. Segalanya berawal dari keinginan Vinicius untuk mendapatkan seorang gadis yang berasal dari kerajaan kecil bernama Lygia, untuk dijadikan selir di rumahnya. Lygia saat itu tinggal di rumah Aulus, maka Vinicius minta bantuan Petronius untuk merayu Aulus agar mau melepas Lygia.

Lygia adalah seorang gadis saleh yang telah menjadi Kristen. Tahun 60-70 itu memang diperkirakan dalam sejarah sebagai tahun mulai berkembang pesatnya agama Kristen, berkat pengajaran Rasul Petrus dan Paulus, setelah Kristus disalibkan dan bangkit. Roma sendiri pada saat itu sedang dalam kebobrokan moral yang amat parah. Sebagian besar karena kebiasaan Nero yang dipenuhi pesta-pora, kecabulan, dan sadisme menular pada pengikut dan rakyatnya. Petronius seorang pengapresiasi seni, maka sarannya sering didengarkan oleh Nero, terlebih karena gaya bicara Petronius yang “manis” sering melambungkan puji-pujian selangit yang disukai Nero. Karena itu Petronius akhirnya berhasil “memaksa” Lygia keluar dari rumah Aulus. Namun sebelum Vinicius yang berhasrat memiliki Lygia berhasil membawa pulang si gadis, Lygia melarikan diri karena takut kesuciannya ternoda dengan menjadi selir Vinicius. Dalam pengejaran Lygia inilah, kehidupan Vinicius tiba-tiba berbalik 180 derajat.

Ternyata Lygia berlindung pada teman-teman sesama pemeluk Kristen. Di sinilah Vinicius mengalami sendiri hal-hal aneh yang sangat berbeda dengan kebiasaan masyarakat pada saat itu. Salah satunya adalah sikap mengasihi dan mengampuni musuh yang diperlihatkan pelindung Lygia: Ursus dan seorang tabib bernama Glaucus. Alih-alih membunuh atau mencelakainya karena ingin merebut Lygia, mereka justru memperlakukan Vinicius dengan penuh kasih. Namun yang paling mengesan pada Vinicius barangkali adalah kotbah Rasul Petrus pada sebuah pertemuan para orang Kristen. Ini sebuah ajaran baru, dan tiba-tiba hati Vinicius bak dipenuhi oleh gelombang kedamaian. Di hati Vinicius benih baru saja tertabur…

Salah satu bukti nyata perubahan pada diri Vinicius adalah cintanya pada Lygia yang tulus dan murni, menggantikan cinta penuh nafsu yang dulu ia pendam dalam hatinya. Sementara itu kesintingan Nero semakin parah. Nero yang terobsesi menjadi penyair agar disanjung rakyatnya, tiba-tiba muak pada Roma. Keangkuhannya sebagai penguasa dunia mendorongnya untuk membakar habis Roma untuk dibangun kembali sesuai keinginannya. Sejarah memang mencatat kota Roma yang sengaja dibakar atas perintah Nero ini. Dan lihatlah…sang Kaisar naik dan berdiri di atas bukit, bukan untuk menangisi kemalangan rakyatnya, namun justru untuk mengarang sebuah puisi. Sinting!

Rakyat pun mengamuk karena banyak saudara mereka yang meninggal, dan mereka kehilangan rumah serta mata pencarian. Nero yang telah bertindak ceroboh itu pun sadar bahwa kedudukannya akan terancam kalau desas-desus bahwa ia sengaja membakar Roma tersebar luas. Maka ia pun cepat-cepat menimpakan kesalahan kepada orang-orang Kristen, memfitnah bahwa merekalah yang telah membakar kota Roma. Semua orang Kristen lalu ditangkap dan dipenjara, termasuk Lygia, Ursus dan teman-temannya. Berkali-kali Vinicius dibantu oleh Petronius merencanakan pembebasan Lygia dari penjara, namun tanpa hasil. Sementara itu, untuk memuasakan nafsu sadisme dirinya sendiri dan demi menyenangkan hati rakyatnya, Nero merancang pertunjukan penyiksaan orang-orang Kristen di amphitheater. Orang-orang Kristen, laki-laki, perempuan dan bahkan anak-anak digiring ke tengah stadion bak hewan tontonan pada pertunjukan sirkus. Ada yang dibantai oleh para gladiator, ada yang disalibkan, ada yang dibuat obor hidup di taman dengan membakar mereka sementara mereka diikat pada tiang. Ada juga yang dimangsa oleh singa, harimau, serigala dsb yang sengaja dibuat kelaparan selama 2 hari sebelumnya. Herannya, bukannya ngeri dan jijik pada pemusnahan berdarah-darah itu, para penguasa dan rakyat justru bertepuk tangan penuh semangat, seolah pertunjukan itu hanyalah pertunjukan tari-tarian biasa.

Selama hari-hari penyiksaan beradab yang di luar batas kemanusiaan itu, Vinicius tetap berikhtiar untuk dapat membebaskan Lygia. Ia bahkan memohon Rasul Petrus untuk memohonkan keselamatan bagi Lygia dari Tuhan. Anda dapat membayangkan bagaimana perasaan Rasul Petrus pada saat itu. Dengan susah payah ia mengumpulkan satu-persatu jiwa untuk diselamatkan dengan percaya kepada Kristus, namun kini setelah jemaat telah mulai berkembang, saat ia menyangka tugasnya telah usai, mereka semua dimusnahkan dengan cara yang mengenaskan hanya dalam sekejap. Padahal Petrus melakukan semuanya karena amanat dari Kristus sendiri. Bagaimana mungkin kini Ia membiarkan mereka semua musnah? Maka tak heran kalau pada suatu titik tertentu, karena bujukan terus menerus pengikutnya, Rasul Petrus pun setuju untuk melarikan diri dari Roma menuju tempat yang aman. Lalu, dalam perjalanan itu ia tiba-tiba melihat sebuah cahaya menyilaukan menghampirinya di jalan itu. Itu Kristus! Maka bertanyalah Petrus kepadaNya: “Quo Vadis, Domine?” (ke mana Engkau hendak pergi, Tuhan? = where are you going, Lord?). Pertanyaan yang biasa saja mungkin, kalau saja Kristus tidak menjawabnya: “Karena kini kau meninggalkan umatKu, Aku akan pergi ke Roma, untuk disalibkan yang kedua kalinya” (hlm. 513). Sebuah tamparan bagi Petrus yang langsung membalikkan langkahnya kembali ke Roma….

Kita semua seperti Petrus juga. Saat kesulitan datang bertubi-tubi, dan nampaknya tak ada lagi yang dapat kita lakukan, apalagi kalau kengerian tampak mendatangi kita, kita ingin melarikan diri saja. Itu memang kodrat manusia untuk menjauh dari sengsara, mengelakkan diri dari kehancuran. Padahal kematian, apalagi kematian demi Dia, bukanlah kekalahan. Lewat pertanyaan sederhana Quo Vadis?, Petrus mengingatkan kita untuk tetap tegar dalam iman meski semua di sekitar kita telah musnah, kalau itu memang kehendakNya. Bukankah benih itu memang harus jatuh ke tanah dahulu, baru ia akan dapat tumbuh dan berbuah? Kalau memang penderitaan yang menanti kita, kita harus menghadapinya dengan penuh iman, seperti halnya orang-orang Kristen pada saat penyiksaan. Alih-alih menangis ketakutan dan memohon-mohon, pancaran kebahagiaan malah keluar dari sorot mata mereka, karena mereka yakin bahwa kebahagiaan yang sejati, kebahagiaan kekal telah disediakan bagi mereka di RumahNya. Sikap orang-orang Kristen yang pasrah dan berani itulah yang justru membuat rakyat takjub, dan akhirnya semakin banyak yang menjadi Kristen. Kerajaan Romawi akhirnya jatuh (yang kita ketahui juga dalam sejarah), Nero pun akhirnya binasa, namun kerajaan Kristus justru tumbuh makin subur dan bergaung hingga kini. Meski itu harus ditebus dengan kematian banyak orang, termasuk Petrus dan Paulus. Kematian duniawi memang menandakan kekalahan, namun kematian dalam Kristus bukanlah kekalahan, tapi kemenangan. Aku jadi teringat pada cuplikan syair dalam sebuah nyanyian yang setiap tahun dinyanyikan saat Malam Paskah:

“..Ajari pula kami tekun dan tak gentar, bersamaMu berjuang, dan kami pun menang!

Terpuji Kristus Pemenang, lenyaplah maut yang kejam…”

Pada akhirnya, benih yang ditaburkan oleh Petrus, Paulus dan semua orang Kristen yang dibantai maupun yang masih hidup akhirnya berbuah, jauh lebih banyak daripada yang disangka-sangka semua orang, seperti halnya benih di dalam hati Vinicius yang akhirnya berbuah iman. Lalu bagaimana dengan cinta Vinicius dan Lygia? Akankah cinta mereka berbuah juga? Dan apakah Kristus mengabulkan doa Vinicius yang telah memberikan hati padaNya, untuk menyelamatkan Lygia? Rasul Petrus telah menyuruhnya tetap memiliki iman dan terus berdoa. Akankah Vinicius melakukannya, atau malah menyerah di tengah jalan? Jawabnya hanya bisa anda temukan di buku ini. Tak banyak dalam hidup kita ada buku yang mampu menggugah hati sekaligus iman kita, buku ini salah satunya!

Judul: Quo Vadis?

Penulis: Henryk Sienkiewicz

Penerbit: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama

Cetakan: November 2009

Tebal: 552 hlm