This written review has a video counterpart on Youtube.
After dedicating his life to sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ, St. Peter was facing certain death in persecution. According to Catholic tradition, he tries to flee Rome but on the road leading out, Christ comes and appears to Peter. Peter, stunned, asks Jesus, “Quo Vadis, Domine?”, or “Where are you going, Lord?” And Jesus replies, allegedly, “I’m going back to Rome to die again, to be crucified again, because you’re leaving my church. You’re leaving my people.” Peter is overcome by this. He turns around and heads back into Rome, and with the time he has remaining, He shares the gospel, gaining many converts before finally being crucified by the Roman government for his religious crimes. In Nero’s Rome, professors of the Christian faith were seen as enemies of the Roman Empire. The faith itself was a threat.
And so it was that Henry Sienkiewicz got the title for his historical Roman epic, Quo Vadis?.
I first encountered Quo Vadis? while looking for novels similar to Francine Rivers’ Mark of the Lion series. I wanted another story that could immerse me in Ancient Rome—not through military campaigns and political intrigue, but through the lives of ordinary people navigating a changing world. I was intrigued to find Quo Vadis?, an epic historical novel set in Rome during the reign of Nero. It follows Marcus Vinicius, a Roman patrician, who falls in love with Lygia, a devout Christian hostage. As Vinicius pursues Lygia, he is drawn into the Christian faith. All the while, Nero’s Rome becomes more and more hostile to the Christians. Vinicius and Lygia, and those around them, must navigate sudden, rampant persecution. The novel blurs the lines between history and Catholic tradition to create a transcendent human story that has been largely forgotten.
The Man Behind the Novel
Henry Sienkiewicz was born in Poland is 1846, during the partition of Poland between the Russian, Prussian, and Austrian empires. Poland did not exist as an independent state and its people struggled to maintain their identity, autonomy and freedom.
In response, Sienkiewicz wrote.
He started his writing career in journalism, transitioned over to fiction via serialization in publications and then published several novels thereafter. He wrote Polish epics that are still widely loved today in Poland, but his novel, Quo Vadis?, was different. Rather than being a direct commentary on his country, his people and the dissatisfaction of their circumstances, Quo Vadis? was most likely written as a metaphor.
The story takes place in the mid-60s AD. In it we observe a tiny sect of newly minted Christians be targeted and persecuted in an attempt to blot them out from the Roman Empire…to no avail. Despite the breadth and strength of the Roman Empire, the Christians persist in maintaining their identity, their purpose, and even, at times, their freedom.
The similarities are hard to ignore and there’s little doubt that Sienkiewicz saw those similarities as well when he wrote Quo Vadis?, and indeed wrote with metaphorical intention to give his people hope.
Why The Novel Captivated the World
But what made the novel captivate not just the Poles, but an international audience goes beyond Polands crisis.
Quo Vadis? sold 800,000 copies in a single year by 1905, the same year he would win the Nobel Prize in Literature for his body of work. And in 1933, The New York Times released an article stating that Quo Vadis? had been the bestselling book in the US since 1885. It would go on to be adapted into a Hollywood film (1951) and Oscar award-winner, as well as tv shows and additional film attempts throughout the 20th century.
To understand why the novel in the US was so well liked when it was released, we have to look at what this book was about. Specifically, yes, the novel was likely written as a metaphor, but more broadly, it was Classics-adjacent and deeply virtuous, painting the Christian faith in a positive light. In the late 1800s, the United States, specifically, was nearing the end of the Victorian Era. In England the Victorian Era was congruous with the reign of Queen Victoria, but in America, the Victorian Era was less about a monarch and more about a set of strict social values, fashion and architecture. When Quo Vadis? came on the scene, translated into English by translator Jeremiah Curtin and released in the US in 1896, the values of the Victorian Era were still being clung to and still seen as the surest way to gain status. It seems that Curtin leaned into this and with his translation fed into the Victorian culture with a very traditional translation, using language not of the everyday speech but of hymns and classic texts. The states ate it up for all of its virtuousness.
Why Most Readers Have Never Heard of It
So where did it go? Most of the younger generations have never been introduced to Quo Vadis?, despite it being translated into film. We know Gladiator (2000) and Troy (2004) as our epics. By comparison, Quo Vadis?, though a tale from an equally captivating time in history, feels old-fashioned.
What makes Quo Vadis? feel old-fashioned today is potentially the same thing that made it a global phenomenon: its unapologetic belief in faith, virtue, sacrifice, and moral truth. And, the language.
Let’s start with language. Here is a small glimpse of tone throughout the book and the use of aforementioned traditional language from the first chapter:
“A greeting to Petronius,” said the young man, entering the tepidarium with a springy step. “May all the gods grant thee success, but especially Asklepios and Kypris, for under their double protection nothing evil can meet one.”
“I greet thee in Rome, and may thy rest be sweet after war,” replied Petronius, extending his hand from between the folds of soft karbas stuff in which he was wrapped. “What’s to be heard in Armenia; or since thou wert in Asia, didst thou not stumble into Bithynia?”
Many historical novels written today will use language similar to “A greeting to Petronius” in favor of the more common, “Hi, Petronius”. My personal belief is that more often than not, this is for the readers benefit (or detriment) rather than to show historical accuracy. It’s to create a degree of separation, and to glorify the past. As I mentioned earlier, I do believe that Jeremiah Curtin may have emphasized this formality for the sake of the audience. Today, this kind of language using “thee” and “thou” functions more of a stumbling block than a helpful immersion or moral signaling. The effect on the modern reader is that it initially feels like reading something really stiff and emotionless, on top of likely loosing some of the flow from the authors original intent.
Second to the translation (of which I’m given to understand there are now two), another reason I believe Quo Vadis? has fallen out of fashion is how firmly planted it is in Catholic tradition and how positively it paints Christianity. As a culture, generally, we are less want to read religiously themed fiction unless the work of fiction struggles with or against the faith. Quo Vadis? is not an indictment on the Christian faith or the Catholic Church, and though some of its characters do struggle with the more self-sacrificing aspects of the faith, the book consistently presents Christianity and Christians as virtuous and good whereas it seems more contemporary fiction grapples with religion, exposes the underbelly, the unfaithful, the maniacal, the cultish extremes, and the hurt. Quo Vadis? simply shows its goodness.
Yes, Quo Vadis? Deserves To Be Read Again
I go into more depth about the plot, the characters and even draw comparisons with another similarly themed and historically-placed novel series on my Youtube video. If you’d like to hear more, head there.
All in all, I do believe Quo Vadis? ought to be reintroduced to a new generation in the US. A book that was consistently a bestseller for nearly 30 or more years in the United States – on that merit alone – should be brought back into rotation and public discussion. At the very least, it is a helpful tool by which to understand the American culture and ideology at that time and what followed soon after. It can be a helpful description of the times, but I think there would be many who would fear it being used as a prescription for our time.
But maybe we should take a page out of that book – no pun intended. I lack the intelligence and the depth of thought to accurately articulate exactly why I believe even good, virtuous and (mostly) happy ending stories are necessary to who we are as humans. Other, much wiser minds have already done that. But in my own words, I think it’s good to think about what is good. I think it’s good to think about what is virtuous. I think it’s good to see Christianity painted in a wholesome light. I think it’s good for good to win in a way that subverts our expectations. It only ever has to be a conversation. It does not need to feel like a threat to modernity or feminism or progressiveness, or whatever else this book might be accused of in a college classroom.
Personally, Quo Vadis? forced me to confront my own reservations and prejudices against the faith, and to confront the reality of our understanding of Christianity in the States. The story also brought me face to face with the gross romanticization of historical fiction that, I believe, creates a cognitive dissonance between our reality, who we assume ourselves to be, and what we assume we might do should we, too, be placed in Rome in 65 AD. On the other hand, reading Quo Vadis? also reminded me of the importance to place ourselves on the stage alongside fictional characters to imagine and wonder who we might be and what we might do. See the difference? In the romanticization of history, we tend to ignore or gloss over the gritty details, the hardships, and jump right to glory assuming ourselves to be the hero or to know better than a mistake-ridden character. However, when we humbly and eagerly step onto the stage of a story that deromanticizes history and allows for some pragmatism without sacrificing story, we get the opportunity to work out problems, think critically, question ourselves and emerge changed.
Better to walk away from a novel being uncomfortable, confronting your own mortality and morality than to walk away in a dream-like cloud of delusion imagining yourself a martyr who would always do the bravest and best thing without anything thought to how.
Quo Vadis?, at the very least, provides readers with that opportunity should they choose to take it.
3.5/5
***
Authors Note: Thank you for reading this story and we hope you enjoyed it. Feel free to hold down those little clapping hands till they hit 50 and leave your thoughts or links to stories you’ve written or think might be of interest. If you’d like to see more story-driven writing, check out the similar posts below.
Leave a Reply