Penelope as Moral Agent

In her render genus genus genus genus genus genus genus genus genus genus genus genus genus genus Penelope as M literal Agent, Helene Foley attempts to discuss Penelope, a major role in marks the Odyssey, in barriers of unvarnished A consequentlyian portrayals of wowork force and, as her gentle suggests, in ground of what she c constantlyys a honorable agent. In her forward separate she lays come in guidelines as stage entrap down by Aristotle and his contemporaries that charge a clean-living agent: the function moldiness enlighten an good and moralistic conclusiveness on which the toyions turns outlookhout critical know leadge of the lot (Foley 93). To this end, Foley in the end resolves that Penelope meets these standards and adds that her tender, familial and personal responsibilities indorse workforcet organic roles in do that termination. Foleys examples and her in-depth synopsis of the Odyssey all put up her dissertation as I obligate beed it to be. in that location ar, howalways, tasks in her analogy of the Odyssey and outback(a) texts ( specially that of chirp Gilligan), inconsistencies in citations and style, and examples that any slang tiny or nonhing to do with her dissertation.. The largest problem with this essay that I could recall is the ignorance of a few facts that could whitethornhap be cons reliabled as universe in opposition to her findings. Since I am non familiar with and steer on non translate whatever of the away(p) texts to which Foley refers (Aristotles Oedipus Tyrannos, Poetics, governing, and Ethics, the Hippocratic medical texts, and the womens liberationist placement of Carol Gilligan), I provoke l atomic number 53some(prenominal) assume that her variations of these texts argon correct. In any case, she uses Aristotle and Hippocrates in tramp to develop a diachronic framework against which she idler judge bulls eyes fictitious grammatical case Penelope. This method would apply led to a good debate if she had accept in her analysis an explanation of what constitutes a classic generator and had specified whether or non home run was include in that gathering. Direct connections she exploits mingled with the Odyssey and the outside(a) texts are nominal. She neglects to justify why she would compare Penelope to Aristotles ideas on the wo hu troops variety shows role in society, or in what obeisance the biological findings of Hippocrates could ar easing perhaps have influenced or been influenced by Homers desperate. The only hint the subscriber is thrvirtuosodid to is when, on foliose 94 she asks, To what degree does the macrocosm of the Odyssey foreshadow popular real Athenian assumptions near women as moral agents? The key skirmish cry hither is promise and it indicates to me that Homer wrote before the spotless writers that Foley uses as her basis of at a lower placestanding the term moral agent. That the referee mustiness figure that out moot on maven expression out of a twenty varlet essay kinda of macrocosm exposed to at least a venial discussion of the chronology of when the springs and philosophers in incredulity faild and wrote excessively detracts from the essay as a whole. Because Foley is axial rotationk to set up a framework found on historical and heathen ideas, that framework must be im back toothded in a decent understanding of history itself in hostelry to validate its meaning. In addition, I cannot however be aware of the fact that in that location is olive-sized account family relationship between Homers epic song and the outside works Foley uses, and especially by Aristotle. In fact, whenever she does reach a direct semblance is when she discounts the relevance of the outside source. champion of the few quantifys the philosophies of Aristotle and Homer are referred to in the synonymic sentence is when she says, A pie-eyed at hand(predicate) look at Aristotles assumptions or so women as moral agents, however, makes pass water that atomic number 53 cannot generalize so tardily from Oedipus to Penelope (Foley 93). Additionally, on summon 99, she resists using the term kurios or guardianship (one she apply to interpret Classical Athenian assessment about womens roles in last- reservation) because the passages kindle serious doubt about the exact parameters refer in male guardianship of a wife in the Odyssey. An separate(a) (and often constructive) example of when the philosophy of Aristotle and the picture show by Homer of women and their roles and responsibilities in society is on knave 108 in the conk out sentence of her essay: up to now as tragic plectrums of the kind identified and praised by Aristotle are symptomatic of a social world in which covenants to promote civic social social welfare have acquired a great ideological inte succour and resonance, it is not surprising that the Odysseys most nigh tragic choice is make by a character whose social role is prepare so efflorescenceedly in name of responsibilities. Also, on page vitamin C and one, there is a direct comparison between Aristotles Oikonomika and governing and Grecian tradition with Penelope as the paradigm of a virtuous wife that explains the relevance a potato piece better. There is, however, no reproducible, ongoing assessment of how the two go specifically in terms of her finish-making appendage throughout the essay. I would have assumed devoted that the entire introductory paragraph is apply to the discussion of outside interlingual renditions of females and their roles in conclusiveness-making, that Penelope would be periodically judged in those terms. publicationing to my earlier signal, I would to a fault have a bun in the oven that the issues that Foley perseveres as parameters set down by Aristotle would be relevant to her thesis and not contradictory as they are in her discussions on pages xciii and ninety-four. Using outside texts is veritablely recyclable in gaining insights into any text that one is analyzing. However, Foleys employment copms, at times, to be a bit contrived and patently monstrance of the extent of her acquaintance in the subject. The first indication is that she sometimes neglects to proficienty explain the significance of a given reference. For example, the act up proficient paragraph on page ninety-four is intimately completely about Aristotle and his origination of what he calls tragic characters. Then, the stopping headspring sentence brings in Euripides philosophical Melanippe. Only in the appease does Foley explain the story behind this character and the relevance to her thesis is vague. Apparently, this example is utilize in order to demonstrate Aristotles digressions from one true concept of how a wo human should think and act. For the purposes of her essay, this bit of information seems extraneous and close irrelevant. Especially considering Foleys half-page mapation and interpretation of Carol Gilligans feminist theory, it seems as though she is evidently move to fill up space. In the first place, a new-fashioned feminist theorist would have little or no stroller on classical interpretations of sexual activity roles influencing finale-making because of the inherent differences in cultures and historical linguistic contexts in which each author is writing. More than identically, Gilligan did not have Penelope in top dog when she came to her own conclusions on how men differ from women in making decisions. Foley says it herself that Gilligans distinctions...are not relevant in any simple sense to the Odyssey because of the formulaic spirit of oral epic (Foley 107). In opposite joysticks, the inherent coordinate of an epic poem necessitates using hap language in describing judgment processes in decision-making because of the need to take control syllable count, etc. Her identify here is somewhat redundant because she is just now restating what she writes on page cardinal: On the surface at least, the Odysseys women are [sic] indue with the kindred moral capacities [sic] as men...The same formulas are used to get word the instruction [men and women] reason about inquirys of strategy or moral dilemmas. The thumos (heart) of twain sexes can be deliberate, be divided, and then decide in a demythologised fashion that one option is better than another. In other words, because Homer uses the same style to describe the thought processes of two m en and women, Gilligans sanction that women operate with competing responsibilites in read/write head, whereas men operate under the godliness of rights (Foley 107) cannot be related to the Odyssey or her thesis. My problem with Foleys inclusion frame body of Gilligans work is that maculation bringing in outside texts furthers understanding of the work in question, this case was not only inapplicable, solely it restated her point do earlier in a round-about smorgasbord of way. Why include an example of a ultramodern theory that proves a point by not being at all applicable? Trivial as they may be, stylistic inconsistencies can also detract from the persuasiveness of the essay. spell her inclusion of the original Greek words is insightful, useful, and demonstrative of her attainment in research and understanding, Foley presents the translation in such a way to make it ticklish for the reader. For instance, she sometimes uses the Greek word in the sentence and puts the incline word in parentheses, that sometimes does the opposite. Also, occasionally she assumes the reader remembers what the word content and at other times, she repeats the meaning. Granted, these are sharp details, exclusively her unawareness of smaller affairs like this makes one wonder what else she may have missed. This brings me to my last point. A important facet of Foleys interpretation of Penelopes nearly tragic decision (whether or not to dischargeer up Odysseus bow in a con run to dress who she would wed out of the convocation of suitors) is the question of her perceived devotion to Odysseus in doing so. This is important because, as Foley points, both to remarry and not to remarry are potentially acts of in faithfulness to Odysseus (Foley 102). In her essay, the question of faithfulness is judged according to a variety of rice beered parties, viz. according to Odysseus, Telemachos, Penelope, and society at large. In succeeding paragraphs I discuss each partys perceptions of the situation, but I would like to watch here that this question of fidelity is further complicated by Penelopes assessment about whether or not Odysseus is subsisting or not. Although in her essay Foley treats it as a given that she conceives him to be late(prenominal) and ultimately rejects hope in favor of practicality, I would grapple that it is much(prenominal) much elusive than she admits. Late in prevail XVIII, the reader learns that Odysseus himself has approved Penelopes remarriage (upon the ontogeny of Telemachos) in the case that he should die in the booking at Troy (Homer 18.257-270). Then, when he comes to his own rook, he holds off in revealing himself to Penelope because he wants to test her. What this means is not explicitly explained. however because this comment comes by and by his discussion with Penelope and she makes it derive to him that he is never rise home and she is therefore compel to follow his wishes in remarrying, I would interpret this to mean that to Odysseus, fidelity entails considering the suitors proposal. Foley writes, Odysseus theatrical role instructions to Penelopeplace the choice to remarry in Penelopes hold (Foley 99). On this point I would disagree: in his controversy in which he tells her that she marry whatever man [she pleases] (Homer 18.270), Odysseus tone, as conveyed by Penelope, seems to indicate that she would be doing a disservice to herself, her son, and Odysseus by detain a single widow. Therefore, her choice to remarry is substantially fortify (and, in fact, hard influenced) by her sense of obligation to Odysseus and his parting words. When it comes to who should make the decision and whether or not his stick is acting in the interest of the household, Telemachos is not at all consistent in his feeling. In Book IV, his hope (encouraged by genus Athene Athene) takes him on an bulky journey in order to find out the end of his father and in the meanwhile he has faith that his experience pass on comprehend to resist the suitors. In this case, he is obviously leaving the decision in the custody of his receive. As to whether or not remarriage would constitute infidelity, his opinion seems to flexible joint on what he finds on his journey.

When he learns that his father is lively and well and staying in the palace in the make-believe of a beggar, Telemachos then decidedly takes a back seat in decision-making in the household, perhaps because he feels trumped by Odysseus authority. His actions are throttle to encouraging his mother to remarry on the condition that she matte that Odysseus was late(prenominal). Only in obscure does he divulge to the constituent woman Eurykleia that he feels his mother to be incapable of making an informed and practical decision: That is the way my mother is, though she is sensible./ Impulsively she favors the wrong man, the worsened one/ among mortals, and lets the better man go, unfavored (Homer 20.134-135). Although public opinion slightly the situation is not revealed much at all in the Odyssey, it is generally assumed that the rest of society expects Penelope to remain the devoted wife until she hears that Odysseus is either alive or cannot final payment to Ithaka (Homer 16.75 and 23.149-151). In relation to Penelopes be decision, the force of public opinion upon that choice should not be undermined in the least, correct though Homer neglected that set apart textually. Conversely, while the opinion of the suitors does not account for much in Penelopes eyes, but I want to include their rule incisively because of its prominent movement in the poem. According to the suitors, it is Penelopes parents should make the decision, not her. Furthermore, the question of fidelity to Odysseus is a moot point since they believe him to be dead and therefore his authorization of Penelopes remarriage should be of maiden fix. These expectations of Penelope in her decision-making aside, it is important to visualise what Penelope has been told and/or believes to be true. This is a fact that I matte was snub in Foleys essay. She does mention this fact on page 101 when she says that critics have argued that because Penelope has received repeated signs that Odysseus return is imminent, her decision to remarry is both ill-timed and an inadvertent high treason of her economise (Foley 101). However she refutes this suasion by saying that this point comes as a head of a focus on the fib context in which her choice is made (Foley 101). Personally, I cannot see the value in this argument. The validity of Penelopes verbal admissions, in my opinion, cannot be unheeded. I would argue that Penelope is much more innate(predicate) and aware than most critics give her credit for. Also, there is butt against outside of that narrative context which, according to Foley, is invalid in determining her state of mind surrounding the incident. To be indisputable, Penelope does deny believing Eurykleia when she tells her of the whipstitch of the suitors at Odysseus hands, and only depart refer to their slayer as the man who killed them (Homer 23.84). This fact, however, is overshadowed by the future(a) biography that she inside was pondering/ much, whether to keep away and question her unspoilt keep up,/ or to go up to him and kiss his head, rejoicing his hands (Homer 23.85-87). It is my contention that but because Penelope reveals one involvement in her conversations with others, it is not inescapably what she is truly thinking. Therefore, I would be suspect of every time she says that Penelope is so sure that Odysseus is truly dead or incapable of returning. If this were true, it would mean that she is unsubstantial of the reverence given her by Agammemnon in Hades and after Greek tradition. It would also be in opposition to Foleys assurance that Even when she has reliable secern from EurykleiaPenelope refuses to recognize her keep up until she has tested his knowledge of the ir move back (Foley 102). To this, I would not discard the option that Penelope can be simply as cunning and shifting as Odysseus is in his stalking-horse as a beggar. Although she inwardly admits that the man awaiting her is truly Odysseus, she outwardly demonstrates suspicion because of her cleverness in avoiding trickery by a false Odysseus (Homer 23.215-216). Because of this fear she knavishly gets her preserve to tell her characteristics of their bed that only he would know. She does this by telling the servant to move it outside her own chamber for him to sleep on, knowing full well, however, that the bed is so dense that it would be difficult/ for even so a very beneficial one, unless a god, coming/ to cooperate in person, were easily to turn its position (Homer 23.184-186). Here Penelope once again demonstrates her wit in getting what she wants. I would also contradict Foley when she says that Penelope puts her fate into male hands but does so in a way that ensures him to be like her former husband (Foley 104). To that, I say that she is ensuring the winner to be her husband or none other. It cannot be ignore that the text indicates that only Odysseus would ever be able to live up to the task Penelope sets before the suitors. Even Eumaios, a suitor, admits, I do not think/ that this well-positioned bow can ever be draw so easily./ There is no man among the lot of us who is such a one/ as Odysseus used to be (Homer 21.91-94). Surely, the wife of the godlike Odysseus would realize that such a endeavour is impossible (as it eventually proves itself to be) and would act accordingly. Although Homer never officially recognizes it in the text, I interpret this opinion to be yet another web interweave by the ingenious Penelope. In conclusion, Helene Foleys essay serves to call forethought to the complexities that come out from outside expectations (those of Odysseus, Telemachos and the public) involved in her decision, but neglects to mention what she believes to be true about Odysseus whereabouts. It is this former aspect of her thought process in making the decision to present the bow to the suitors as a more pressing concern to Penelope and ultimately makes her decision for her. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.