1) Cato’s
speech at the beginning of act 5 is an interesting and complex one. In part, it’s
a contemplation of suicide, but a very different one from Hamlet’s. Examine one
or more of Cato’s statements about suicide and / or immortality. Is it a guess?
A conviction?
or
2) The lines “let
fierce contending nations know / What dire effects from civil discord flow” (5.4.107-8)
seems to be rather prescient, given the civil wars / rebellions that occurred at
the end of the 18th century in France and the British colonies /
America. What do you think this play has to say about liberty and freedom? Do
you think its place in Enlightenment political thought is deserved?
or
3) Discuss another part of today’s reading that
seems to be in need of exploration, elucidation, or comment.
Cato is an odd choice/creation as a tragic figure, which he undeniably has to be considered given the title "Cato: A Tragedy," for he lacks real hamartia. His downfall is circumstantial -- or destiny, if you want to get fluffy about it -- and has little to do with an internal fatal flaw of character or personality. Objectively, his trajectory ought to be one of ascent: he is a strong leader, rhetorically strong, morally superior. He misses the mark on some things sure; takes him more than a minute to realize Caesar's victory is not to be short lived, and he dies unaware that a close advisor was a traitor. But really, neither of things make a darn bit of difference to his end. He dies not because he makes a crucial mistake or fails to act in a crucial moment (Othello, Hamlet), but because, well, just because. Caesar already won. We meet Cato when he's basically as good as a dead man. Nothing new happens to him; he just comes to appreciate the true consequences of already has come to pass. "Let guilt or fear/Disturb man's rest: Cato knows neither of 'em,/Indifferent in his choice to sleep or die." Yep, about right. While first seemingly an expression of courage, resistance to death -- because the soul can't be killed, supposedly -- Cato is actually uncovering in that moment the key to his own tragedy: indifference. Nothing that happens to Cato in "Cato" actually matters. It all makes no difference, because no one cares what happens to this old man bound to die who refuses to see that a New Day Has Dawned for Rome. Who cares if he sleeps, lives, dies? He's been previously rendered inconsequential. Tragically, this is perhaps a more difficult fate to swallow than even dishonorable death brought on a great man due to his own "Fatal Flaw." Cato is recognizing that his plot is to peter away, unnoticed. As the Epilogue proves.
ReplyDeleteCato's speech at the beginning of act 5 sounds a lot like Celine Dion's song, "my heart will go on"... but thats a side point...
ReplyDeleteThe final words of his speech bother me because they reflect an attitude of almost indifference to life. He says, "let guilt or fear disturb man's rest: Cato knows neither of 'em, indifferent in his choice to sleep or die" (5. 38-40). He is prepared to end his life because he is convinced that he is immortal in a sense. He feels that because he is dying for a noble cause he will somehow live on forever. He is attempting to rationalize the act of suicide.
Immortality belongs to the soul - not the body, he has a valid point here, but the fact that he is making this decision shows weakness (I know I'm ranting again - sorry). Evidently he feels that he will leave behind a great legacy and he will be remembered in the world of the living, he will be present even if not physically, but what legacy exactly? He doesn't stand up to the enemy and for some reason he is the penultimate stoic leader? huh?
This is a very philosophical moment for Cato, he is being introspective and deep - he's reading The Immortality of the soul for god's sake! His argument of immortality is a good one but to me suicide is the ultimate act of cowardice. I am clearly unable to relate to the romanticization of killing oneself. I would love to be able to understand why this is such a popular solution to all the problems that arise in Tragedies. In my personal opinion the presence of suicide in every tragedy of this period reflects an inability on the part of the writers to convey feelings of extreme helplessness in any truly effective way.
ReplyDeleteAs is obvious from the ongoing election, liberty and freedom are both wonderful luxuries and dangerous tools. I think the play does a good job showing the complexity of the issue. War, even a war for a good purpose is corrupting. It confuses morals, tears families apart, and puts off human happiness. Lucius realizes this, but too late, “From hence, let fierce contending nations know/ What dire effects from civil discord flow…/ Tis this that shakes our country with alarms / Produces fraud, and cruelty, and strife’ And robs the guilty world of Cato’s life.” This, the strife. Not the dictator or the removal liberties. But Lucius realizes that sometimes the cost is high, and it is not the fault of a direct evil, but the actual war between good and evil (if such clear-cut sides exist) that kill so many.
The play does discuss a lot of modern ideas. One of my favorite moments is when Sempronius says, “My private voice is drowned amid the senate’s.” Which is what Tocqueville warned was in America’s future (how I long for a Tardis). Freedom, can run as wild and cause as much ruin as pure tyranny can. In fact, the early Americans seemed to find the battle to create a constitution just as hard as the battle for independence. Even if you are not a murderous backstabber, it is often difficult for a minority voice to be heard. Which is why pluralism is the key to functional liberty.
Lastly, Cato himself, although an icon of liberty, is not the paragon of it. He is of noble birth, or at the least, a very wealthy statesman. Having him as the lead character of a tragedy is normative, but that is also the opposite of true liberty and not a reflection of the wars for freedom. It is closer to Marx’s idea that the revolution must be propagated by the intellectual bourgeoisie because the lower class won’t even know how to realize they are being oppressed. This play, although very forward in its depiction of liberty and how important it is to fight for it, still uses a wealthy intelligent cast of characters.
In response to both Cato’s last words/act and Keili’s opinion: although Cato’s act of suicide might lump him together with all the other suicides at the end of tragedies, his speech made his suicide seem different. To me, it seemed like suicide was his last chance to act, to take his life into his own hands (wow, no pun intended, but I guess I mean literally), and made it less an act of desperation. Perhaps that’s the reason why so many tragedies end in suicide – it’s their only means left of control. Especially since he prefaces his suicide with research and logical analysis, it doesn’t seem like the desperate suicides in other plays. His ruminations on suicide certainly were certainly different than Hamlet’s. Hamlet goes back and forth over whether the soul is eternal or not – whether to risk sacrificing bliss in the next world just to escape this one. In the end, he doesn’t even have the conviction to go through with it. Cato doesn’t seem as agitated about the whole issue – he reasons that the soul is eternal, and in direct opposition to Hamlet, he decides that that’s exactly what makes his suicide bearable. I wonder if the difference lies mainly in Christian vs Roman (or Stoic) views on suicide. The Christian view, espoused by Hamlet (and Keili ) views suicide as cowardice. The Stoics, or at least Cato, seems to see it as courage. That’s why Cato’s end seems tragic, but almost less tragic than other suicides, since the attitude towards suicide in the play is so different.
ReplyDelete