Journal article
What Cato did: Suicide, sentimentalism, and the drama of emulation
- Abstract:
- Much recent criticism of Joseph Addison’s Cato (1713) regards the tragedy as determinedly resistant to its eponymous protagonist’s stoic heroism. Cato, it’s argued, critiques Cato. But this wasn’t how Addison’s immediate contemporaries experienced the play. For many commentators, Addison’s Cato was a model not only to be applauded but imitated. In this essay, I take seriously this disconnect between current interpretation and immediate reception. I first attend to the tragedy’s fifth act, where we see a concerted attempt both to flag the protagonist’s fallibility and also to place a critical frame around the problematic spectacle of stoic suicide. In the second part of the essay, I then consider how it was that an instrumentalist view of the play nonetheless become canon. Here, I trace Richard Steele’s appropriation of Cato to his project to reform the stage, a project that staked its claims for the cultural and moral efficacy of the theater on an avowedly emulative (and sentimental) model of drama; and I argue that Addison’s belated insistence on his protagonist’s all-too-humanness works to sentimentalize the character and so paradoxically opens up the very possibility of imitation that it seemingly seeks to foreclose.
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Access Document
- Files:
-
-
(Preview, Accepted manuscript, pdf, 243.0KB, Terms of use)
-
- Publisher copy:
- 10.1215/00982601-9467204
Authors
- Publisher:
- Duke University Press
- Journal:
- Eighteenth-Century Life More from this journal
- Volume:
- 46
- Issue:
- 1
- Pages:
- 56-78
- Publication date:
- 2022-01-01
- Acceptance date:
- 2020-08-11
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
1086-3192
- ISSN:
-
0098-2601
- Language:
-
English
- Keywords:
- Pubs id:
-
1125345
- Local pid:
-
pubs:1125345
- Deposit date:
-
2020-08-12
- ARK identifier:
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- Duke University Press
- Copyright date:
- 2022
- Rights statement:
- Copyright 2022 by Duke University Press
- Notes:
- This is the accepted manuscript version of the article. The final version is available online from Duke University Press at: https://doi.org/10.1215/00982601-9467204
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record