I need some feedback on my essay. The essay is on Lucan's Pharsalia, specifically his portrayal of Cato and stoic ideals. The feedback may include (but is not limited to): style suggestions, pointing out run-ons or awkward phrasings, suggestions that will help make the essay shorter, etc.
Lucan’s epic poem Pharsalia narrates the events of the Roman civil war where the forces of Caesar face the powers of the Senate and Pompey. Although most of the story follows Pompey’s and Caesar’s journeys, the sense of hopelessness for the Republic recedes as an exemplary stoic Cato takes over the command of the Senatorial forces. Cato appears only in the second and ninth books, yet his presence and even unfeatured suicide linger throughout the epic; he is the father of the Republic, and his child faces its ultimate demise from Caesar’s hands. Although Roman stoics viewed Cato as the exemplar of Stoicism, Lucan’s portrayal illustrates Cato dismissing his values and further complying with his emotions as a parent of the Roman Republic. Moreover, Romans hold their stoic values on the theoretical level but are likely to be very emotional (in contrast with stoic reasoning) when it comes to children. As evidence, we shall examine Cato in Pharsalia, view stoic theories related to Cato’s behavior, and explore a literary piece of the same era.
Cato’s changing demeanor in Pharsalia underscores that parents betray their stoic values when trouble reaches their children. In his speech, Cato expresses his resentment to the civil war and vows to mourn Rome like a grieving parent; he wishes that his death could “bring Hesperia's people peace and end their woes” (Lucan 2.317-2.318). After his speech, Cato has a wedding with his former wife at her request; their wedding carries a strong stoic character, reflecting a sense of duty and reason rather than passion and emotion (Lucan 2.350-2.376). Cato’s personality seeps throughout the passage, highlighting his coldness, determination, and prominent ethical values of Stoicism (Lucan 2.377-2.391); the title of “the City’s father” emphasizes his relationship with Rome. These characteristics set Cato as the exemplar of Stoicism, and many characters attempt to mimic him but seem to achieve that only through suicide, establishing that he is the manifestation of unreachable stoic idealism (Seo 221). Nonetheless, Cato’s willingness for self-sacrifice already hints at his flawed stoicism; a strong reaction like this does not fit the stoic demeanor, which calls for a more reserved response.
Before Cato’s next appearance in the ninth book, Lucan foreshadows Cato’s end through a simile, a prominent characteristic of Roman and Greek epics. In the third book, Caesar’s fleet under Brutus is facing the Marsilian fleet in a gruesome battle for life and death; the most striking death appears to be the death of a son right in front of the father (Lucan 3.726-3.751). The death of the son, or the Republic, will be too painful for Cato to bear; out of devastation and for the restoration of the natural order, the father commits suicide before his son takes his last breath. Stoicism calls for a harmonious existence with nature and compliance to the human sense of reason, which contrasts with animal instincts manifested in emotions and passions. Nonetheless, the desperate need to establish the natural order of death (parents dying before progeny) stems from emotional frustration and pain from seeing one’s child die right in front of him. Living in a world where Republic seizes to exit prompts Cato to commit suicide before Caesar claims his victory.
Later in the ninth book, Cato embarks on the odyssey in Libya, attempting to strengthen the spirit of his army but instead exposing his soldiers to the dangers of the African land. The longest book of the epic is mostly devoted to this journey, perhaps meant to present Cato from all the angles: first losing his temper when a soldier offers him to quench his thirst (Lucan 9.505-9.510) and then retaining his deified reputation by refusing to ask Gods what is to come (Lucan 9.564-9.584). Judging by his actions, the stoic principles of moderation and alienation from anger seem completely gone from Cato’s mind. Not only has he assumed himself higher in the natural hierarchy, but he has broken a major principle in stoic philosophy, to which Seneca has devoted the book On Anger. Cato’s quest to defend his child – the Republic – has alienated him from his stoic values and instead set him on the path of emotions and attachment.
The culmination of Cato losing his stoic morale is when he lets rage take over him; according to a stoic Seneca, anger is a vice of passion – an emotion that intends to cause harm to others as a payback, which is unnatural to humans, beings of love and rationality. In his book On Anger, Seneca describes what anger is, situations that might trigger it, and ways to avoid those kinds of situations. One of those situations was an incident with king Cambyses, who drunkenly shot Praexaspes’ son because the latter remarked his drinking habits (Seneca 74-75); Praexaspes did not express his resentment and, thus, avoided further conflict. Another similar incident involved the king of Persia and Harpagus (Seneca 75-76). Seneca makes an example out of these incidents – both parents were devastated by their children’s deaths, yet they displayed no emotions, making that a perfect response since it does not involve anger or further provocations; his other solution is a suicide before anger surges. However, Cato lets his anger surge before he commits suicide, suggesting that his stoic values were long gone before he dies; he let his emotions consume him, which is inappropriate for any exemplary stoic. Moreover, Martha Nussbaum’s analysis, in her response to Seneca, leads to the following conclusion: the very fact that Cato commits suicide denotes that anger and he has no control over his emotions (Nussbaum 436).
Seneca’s interpretation of the myth Media also demonstrates parent’s loss of stoic values when it comes to saving children. The events of the play come after the Argonaut Jason leaves the kingdom of Colchis with Medea; now, Jason must marry the daughter of king Creon and divorce Medea. Medea is furious about Jason’s decision and, thus, demands explanation from him. In their conversation, Jason admits that he marries another woman because he has no choice or else, he would have to run away his whole life (Medea 518-528). His coolheaded decision and sense of duty illustrate him as a stoic; rather than staying attached to Medea because of his emotions, he chooses the rational alliance with king Creon that will benefit him and his children. However, when Medea in madness attempts to kill her son, Jason offers to die instead of him (Medea 1002-1005) – a response which Seneca condones in On Anger. Jason let emotions take over him and, thus, confirmed Medea’s conclusion that he would suffer the most if his children are threatened (Medea 543-550); that makes her punishment effective and proves that Jason’s stoic behavior was only theoretical - dismissed when his cherished children faced danger.
Despite stoicism being an important part of many upper-class Romans, even the exemplary stoics cannot uphold their values when their legacy – their children - is in danger. As the epic progresses, Cato shifts from an exemplary stoic to a desperate parent, and so does Jason in Seneca’s interpretation of the myth Medea. Seneca has written a piece dedicated to anger, it’s unnatural existence in people’s lives, and ways to avoid it; the piece provides the basis for the evaluation of Cato’s devotion to Stoicism. Interestingly enough, Seneca was an avid believer in Cato’s exemplarity; however, his nephew Lucan seems to disprove that. There are speculations that Lucan has intended to finish the epic with Cato’s suicide but his execution, ordered by his former friend and the emperor of Rome Nero, prevented that from happening.
Overall, your essay provides a good analysis of Lucan's portrayal of Cato and the stoic ideals in Pharsalia. However, there are a few suggestions to improve the style and structure of your essay.
First, it would be helpful to have a clear introduction that sets up the main argument and provides a roadmap for the rest of the essay. This will give your reader a clear understanding of what you will be discussing and help them follow your analysis more easily.
Additionally, consider breaking up your essay into paragraphs to improve readability. Each paragraph should have a clear topic sentence and focus on a particular aspect of your argument. This will help organize your thoughts and make your essay more coherent.
In terms of the content, it is important to provide more specific textual evidence to support your statements. While you do provide some quotations from the text, try to integrate them more effectively into your analysis. For example, when discussing Cato's changing demeanor, provide specific lines or scenes from the text that illustrate this change. This will make your argument more grounded and persuasive.
Furthermore, consider providing more context for some of the references you make. For instance, when mentioning Seneca's book On Anger, briefly explain its significance and relevance to your argument. This will ensure that your reader understands the importance of the source and its relevance to the topic at hand.
Finally, consider revising some of your sentence structures for clarity and conciseness. Some sentences are quite long and could be broken up to improve readability. Also, watch out for run-on sentences and awkward phrasings to make your essay more polished.
Overall, these suggestions should help improve your essay by providing clearer organization, stronger textual evidence, and more concise writing. Good luck with your revision!