Sienkiewicz was a Catholic, which is rather evident in his portrayal of Peter, especially. The book is, of course, strongly Christian, but does not make the mistake of portraying the Christian characters as flawless individuals. They have faults and failings: they falter and doubt, make mistakes, and fall back into their old ways on occasion. Some, like Crispus, misinterpret scripture and must be set right. In short, they are normal people. This is what makes it so affecting when Nero's persecution starts: these ordinary, fallible people have found something which is worth dying for. And not just dying courageously- many can do that- but to do so with assurance of something much greater to come. This is why they refuse to take steps which would save them from death (denying Christ), and also die forgiving those who have done this to them... an idea which would be completely alien to the Romans.
Henryk Sienkiewicz's 1895 novel is an impressive one- a sprawling narrative which manages to tell a cogent love story, while at the same time describing Roman society and attitudes of the time in great detail. It also tells the tale of the rise of Christianity in this society, even under great persecution. This work, along with some of his other books, resulted in his being awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1905. It was originally written in Polish, but became hugely popular and was eventually translated into over 40 languages. Sienkiewicz was a Catholic, which is rather evident in his portrayal of Peter, especially. The book is, of course, strongly Christian, but does not make the mistake of portraying the Christian characters as flawless individuals. They have faults and failings: they falter and doubt, make mistakes, and fall back into their old ways on occasion. Some, like Crispus, misinterpret scripture and must be set right. In short, they are normal people. This is what makes it so affecting when Nero's persecution starts: these ordinary, fallible people have found something which is worth dying for. And not just dying courageously- many can do that- but to do so with assurance of something much greater to come. This is why they refuse to take steps which would save them from death (denying Christ), and also die forgiving those who have done this to them... an idea which would be completely alien to the Romans. Sienkiewicz goes into as much detail describing the tortures and deaths of the Roman Christians as he does everything else in his book, and to be honest, it's tough to read. It reminded me of the time I forced myself to read Foxe's "Book of Martyrs"- horribly unpleasant, but probably good for me, if only to make me realize how little we Christians face serious persecution here in the west. This is not, of course, true of every place- across the Middle East and in parts of Africa, Christians are facing torture and death in ways that Nero would have been quite at home with. As I was writing the summary of "Quo Vadis" for my previous post, I was also watching the news as the report broke of the latest atrocity: 147 Christian students slaughtered in Kenya by Islamic terrorists. In many places today, it can still cost you your life to proclaim your faith. "Quo Vadis" also details how the Christian church continued to gain converts and grow in number despite the horrific persecution it faced. The way that the Christians died made people wonder what gave them their sense of acceptance and assurance. Also, this persecution ensured that faith wasn't something which people chose on a whim- it could literally cost you your life. There were no casual Christians here... they had to take their faith very seriously. It reminds me of the quote from Tertullian which I memorized long ago in my high school European History class: " The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." Interestingly, Sienkiewicz chose to have his readers experience the story not through the eyes of the Christian characters, but from the point of view of two of the Romans: Marcus Vinicius and his uncle, Gaius Petronius. Marcus Vinicius is the person in the novel who has the greatest character arc. He is ostensibly the "hero" of the book- the romantic interest- but Sienkiewicz turns this on its head by making him so terribly flawed. His behaviour throughout the first half of the novel is despicable- the reader can't help but actively dislike him. Nor does he have a guilty conscience about his behaviour... the society in which he has been raised sees nothing wrong with his actions. It is only when he is forced to spend time with the Christian community that he views his actions and lifestyle through another prism entirely... and realizes that there may be another, better way. The unpleasant, reprehensible Vinicius of the first part of the book is completely changed by the end as, due to his new faith and the circumstances he finds himself in, he is completely stripped of his arrogance, pride, and selfishness. He emerges a humbler, yet stronger and better man. Petronius is an extremely interesting character in the novel. He might best be described as a pleasure seeker. He spends most of his time luxuriating in self-indulgence and hedonism. A wealthy noble, he is able to indulge his taste for beautiful things as well, surrounding himself with great works of art. Beauty seems to be what he treasures most... he equates it with goodness. When he sees Lygia's beauty, he understands Vinicius' obsession with her. Then, near the end of the book when Lygia's good looks have been diminished by her illness and time in prison, Petronius can't understand why Vinicius seems to love her even more. To him, loss of beauty means loss of value. This outlook carries over into other aspects of his life as well. For instance, he is just as cynical about the Roman gods as he is about any other religion, but the statues of- and stories about- them are beautiful. It is possible, he tells his nephew, to love the gods without believing in them. This is one of many things he cannot comprehend about the Christians: their claim to a personal relationship with their God. Also, their willingness to endure great suffering on earth, with the hope of their reward following death. Petronius admires the skill of the Apostle Paul's arguments without considering their substance. He lives for the day, with no expectation of anything beyond the here and now. He fully expects that one day Nero will have him killed, but what seems to bother him most about the thought of death is that his art treasures will fall into the hands of Nero, or others equally unworthy of them. Speaking of Nero, recognizing Petronius' good taste, he is anxious for approval of his songs and poetry. Petronius amuses himself by complimenting Nero in ways which are subtly mocking, so skillfully that the tyrant doesn't catch on. He rises to power as Nero's "Arbiter of Elegance" eventually losing this favour when he no longer hides his contempt as skillfully. Perhaps Petronius' growing fatalism is responsible for this lapse in clever verbal equivocation. Or perhaps he's simply bored with concocting elaborate praises for Nero's ghastly "art". It does seem, however, that this stems at least partially from his growing disgust for the emperor and his actions. No doubt he is influenced by his concern for Vinicius, but also, I think by the increasing ugliness of Nero's behaviour. Petronius, it seems to me, loves the Empire the way he loves the gods: he loves the idea of it- the legendary power, glory, and greatness... the pinnacle of civilization. There is, however, a widening gap between this ideal and the sordid reality of Nero's - and Rome's- vulgar brutality. The "Arbiter of Elegance", I suspect, eventually found this hard to swallow- or forgive. In "Quo Vadis", Sienkiewicz gives us the picture of a Roman Empire in decline... not in power and influence- not yet- but morally and culturally. Rome still has the best trained, most powerful military in the world but, as the old adage goes, "a fish rots from the head down." And Nero and his kind are pretty rotten. We see here a society which has all the outward trappings of advanced civilization: great art, beautiful architecture, education, and wealth. They have an abundance of philosophers, but that is all they produce- philosophies. The thinkers of the time discuss and debate topics such as nobility, heroism, honour, law, and liberty, while practicing few if any of these things. The Roman nobles are living lives punctuated by decadence, depravity, and lawlessness. There is a growing chasm not only between the leaders and those they are supposed to lead, but between the ideals they espouse, and those they actually practice. Of course, the poor and powerless can easily fall victim to the whims and tyrannies of those in power, but even those with wealth and influence are brought to ruin by corrupt leaders like Nero. As Vinicius bitterly remarks to Petronius, they - Roman patricians- differ little from slaves, in that they must do what the emperor wants, go where he wants, and never question him, on pain of death. On the topic of slavery, it was ubiquitous. It was practiced by every culture, on every social level, in every country. And it was not race or class based: anyone could become a slave. If your people were conquered in battle, if your family got into debt, if your ship got captured by pirates, if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time... just a few of the many ways you could end up being sold off to spend the rest of your life as a slave. So all the wealthy people- even the Christians- have slaves, because it was not considered immoral, but just a part of life. What we do see here are the seeds- the very early seeds- of what will eventually bring about the end of slavery in Christendom. The gospel which the disciples preach declares that Christ is no respecter of persons: He makes all worthy: rich and poor, free and slave. And once a Christian, then a brother or sister to all other Christians, to be treated as such. I'm not saying that this was perfectly implemented, or caused immediate widespread reform, but it was a pretty revolutionary idea for the time period. Paul's epistle to Philemon, for example, deals with Onesimus, a runaway slave whom Paul led to Christ. He writes to Onesimus' former master, Philemon (also a Christian) asking him to accept the runaway back, not so much as a slave, but as a "beloved brother". This is a concept that the Romans would have found crazy. As previously mentioned, Sienkiewicz's research on the time period was exhaustive, and most of the characters in the novel were actual people. Though Marcus Vinicius isn't, he's the fictional son of the actual Marcus Vinicius. Likewise, though Lygia is fictional, her foster parents, Aulus Plautius and Pomponia Graecina were historical figures. Peter and Paul, of course, and also some the minor characters such as Acte, Poppaea Sabina, and Tigellinus were factual as well. Petronius is also an historical figure: he was known as "The Arbiter", and was an adviser of Nero's until he fell out of favour. His contempt for the emperor also seems to have been very real... in his book, "Satyricon" there is a ridiculous character who is obviously a thinly-disguised Nero. As well, his suicide was almost exactly as Sienkiewicz wrote it. As for Nero, a lot about him in "Quo Vadis" seems pretty accurate: we know that he was obsessed with his singing and poetry, and his murderous cruelty is well-documented... not just towards Christians, or political rivals, but his own family members as well. He may not have set fire to the city- we'll never know for sure- but he seems to have been perfectly capable of it. Most ancient sources describing the fire claim he had something to do with it, and all but one describe him singing while Rome was burning. The only exception to this is Tacitus, who admittedly seems a little more balanced, and who insists Nero was away from Rome when the fire broke out. Whether he actually did it or not, it makes for a great scene in the book. As someone who appreciates good historical fiction, I enjoyed reading "Quo Vadis". The novel is well researched, and appears to be as historically accurate as possible under the circumstances. Some sections- such as those about the brutal and sadistic executions of Christians- are tough to read, but necessary to convey the true horror of what was being done. The book has a strongly pro- Christian message, but does not portray the Romans as uniformly bad. The Roman characters are by and large complex, with many admirable qualities as well as deplorable ones. Neither are the Christians portrayed as being perfect, always sympathetic characters: they, too have their flaws. In short, Sienkiewicz' novel is a gripping work of historical fiction which provides us with a glimpse of what it must have been like to live in such times. Incidentally, it is thought that Sienkiewicz also meant the book as an allegory, equating his homeland, Poland, with the plight of the Christians against a powerful, ruthless enemy- in his case, Russia. The more things change....
Comments
|
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |