1) Perhaps
more than any other play we’ve studied this semester, Cato is a play of ideas. Briefly discuss one idea or debate that comes
up in the first two acts. For example, 1.4, when Syphax and Juba debate the
merits of the Roman ways.
or
2) Who wins
the debate about war vs. peace (2.1)? What do you think about the debate and
the outcome?
or
3) “In pitying
love we but our weakness show” (from the prologue). How does Addison make good
on this in the early action? Or are there romantic situations which do in fact inspire pity?
or
4) Discuss another part of today’s reading that
seems to be in need of exploration, elucidation, or comment.
I found the statement that “In pitying love we but our weakness show” an interesting one, since unlike many of the other tragedies we’ve read (Oroonoko, or All for Love), this one rejects the idea that love reigns supreme and is should be the center of tragedy. Here, instead, love is rejected as weak and un-Roman. This concept seems to be tied up with the idea of Stoicism, which all of the characters seem to be aspiring towards. Poor Juba, who seems to represent emotion and love, keeps getting ridiculed and berated by other characters for his lack of Stoicism and Roman qualities. Rather than obsessing over love, he should be focused entirely on war and action. Interestingly, it is Marcia – a woman – who reprimands him for his lack of focus, and, in essence, his femininity. Lucia, on the other hand, seems to be like Juba in her obsession with love, and perfectly represents the lack of Stoicism in her vacillation and indecision. In contrast, this play repeatedly admires Cato for his Stoicism and lack of emotion – he accepts all suffering without emotion and drama. So far, in the early action, the play seems to support what it espoused in the prologue – that pitying love is not admirable, but rather strength in the face of misfortune is the truest nobility and is therefore worthy of tragedy.
ReplyDeleteAddison brilliantly develops intrigue and suspense, creating a need to read further and find out what happens next even though we all know the ending to this story. The play is exceedingly enjoyable so far.
ReplyDeleteDid the 2.1 open of Cato and the Senators remind anyone else of Milton's Satan calling his councel (in PL book 6, maybe?) to determine next moves in their fight against god? The differing and distinct versions from the individual senators of Right Thing To Do, paired with the play's breakdown of loyalty and ambiguous framing of who we ought to be cheering for (yes, Cato is the hero and a rhetorical master, yada yada, but he is making serious errors in judgement; and Caesar is not a guy easily dismissed as Pure Evil) kept calling me back to Paradise Lost. Is that totally off?
In terms of the philosophical discussions of Roman Stoicism: racism by any other name is still racism, and it's increasingly disturbing that Addison entrusts his lines of bigoted thinking to Syphax. How strange it is that Syphax's means of defending his culture, his "nature," against Juba's aspirations towards Roman assimilation are to describe the people of Afric as predatory animals? When they go at each other in 1.4, "Rome" and Roman values are easily translated to Christianity, the white man's burden - and though the term may not be coined for another 150ish years, the heritage of that exact formulation is clearly in the British bones at this point. Generally, it remains unclear, at this point, if Addison is undercut with deep racism or progressivism... Another example being when Juba uses the classical epithet "virtuous Marcia," who "towers above her sex," but then Addison shuts Juba down, and has Marcia be the one to do it. So, the language describing the Woman is emphatically abiding to ridiculous tradition. Yet, Addison sort of calls that into question. Similarly with race, he gives rules, and then takes them away. So, really, where does the reader stand in this experience? Guess we have to just hop on board and see where the craziness leads.
Yup, I definitely saw the same parallel.
DeleteCato stirred up the patriot in me. She came out just in time for the New York Primary, which is nice. As I read the play, I was immediately able to tell why it spoke to the leaders of the American revolution. It is a gorgeous struggle for both virtue, freedom, and the combination of both. This reminded me of Aristotle’s idea that the primary goal of a government is to promote virtue amongst its subjects so that one day the idea of government aid is obsolete.
ReplyDeleteAs for the discussion on the topic of war and peace, it was so modern! The idea of sitting down and discussing war is obviously one of the pillars of a free society. The ability to voice an opinion on whether violence is required would have greatly appealed to any colonists. The line that most resonated with me was, “Might not the impartial world with reason say…to grace our fall and make our ruin glorious?” This idea was echoed by John Kerry after going to visit Hiroshima, this not an exact quote but he said something like, ‘the individual cost is too large. War must always be a last resort.” Cato, asked for his council’s opinion but he seemed a bit exasperated by Sempronius’ typical male response, ‘it is better to die than to be slaves.’ He has no patience for hot-headedness (ATT: current political candidates) and understands that the people deserve a considered war.
However, he is also fallible and does not pretend that he will surrender rather than risk the lives of the citizens. He is a bit more rationale about his patriotism.
Side-note: I loved that Syphax acknowledged that Rome was founded on rape and violence. It connected the love plot to the political plot in a terrifying way.
"What is life?
ReplyDelete'Tis not to stalk about, and draw fresh air
From time to time, or gaze upon the sun;
'Tis to be free. When Liberty is gone,
life grows insipid, and has lost its relish" (2.3 5-9).
These lines are a powerful statement about life and liberty. Upon reading Sempronius' words I thought of the New Hampshire state motto which perfectly summarizes this idea (and pretty much the whole play) into four words: "live free or die". The Romans are not just fighting for the survival of their state or in defense of their lives. They are fighting for a higher cause: Liberty. Sempronius is absolutely insistent that without Liberty life is simply not worth living. He is prepared to die for the cause and refuses to submit to Caesar who is an oppressive tyrant. The Romans deeply value their freedom from oppression and love their leader for not abusing his authority.
Liberty is undoubtedly a very dominant theme in the play as is honor and these themes are woven together. Different characters have different interpretations of honor, nevertheless they all clearly feel strongly about it. Juba, for example, says, "better to die ten thousand thousand deaths, than wound my honor" (1.4 127-128). My understanding of his statement is that an honorable person is one who is willing to risk and give up their life for a worthy cause. When Decius comes to Cato to offer a peaceful resolution on behalf of Caesar, Cato declines the offer to join Caesar and become his second in command. He refers to Caesar as a dictator. Choosing to capitulate to Caesar would reflect a significant lack of honor on Cato's part. The belief in Liberty is what motivates Cato and his honor as a leader manifests in his refusal to compromise his beliefs even when there is an alternative within his grasp. Cato is described as honorable, he is admired for his stoicism and refusal to capitulate to Caesar. His uncompromising dedication to liberty is exactly what makes him honorable.
There were many segments of this reading that I found extremely profound. Despite the lack of excitement in the actual story, there is a lot of depth in the prose, some great metaphors, analogies and motifs.