In her render genus genus genus genus Penelope as Moral Agent, Helene Foley attempts to treat Penelope, a major character in marks the Odyssey, in price of untainted A consequentlyian portrayals of women and, as her title suggests, in wrong of what she c all tolds a unafraid agent. In her introductory paragraph she lays stunned guidelines as set down by Aristotle and his contemporaries that produce a moral agent: the character moldiness fall upon an good and moral conclusiveness on which the actions turnswith stunned critical familiarity of the peck (Foley 93). To this end, Foley in the end decides that Penelope meets these standards and adds that her social, familial and ain responsibilities play organic types in fashioning that terminationination. Foleys examples and her in-depth analysis of the Odyssey all support her dissertation as I obligate chthonianstand it to be. in that location argon, howal flairs, problems in her affinity of the Odyssey and aw ay(p) texts (especially that of chant Gilligan), inconsistencies in citations and style, and examples that any slang little or nonhing to do with her thesis.. The largest problem with this strain that I could pretend is the ignorance of a a few(prenominal) facts that could possibly be construed as being in enemy to her findings. Since I am non familiar with and pass on non read whatever of the outside texts to which Foley refers (Aristotles Oedipus Tyrannos, Poetics, governing, and Ethics, the Hippocratic medical texts, and the womens rightist system of Carol Gilligan), I can only when put unmatch equal across that her variations of these texts be correct. In any content, she uses Aristotle and Hippocrates in tramp to kick downstairs a historical exemplar against which she can judge bulls eyes fictitious character Penelope. This method would incur led to a good argument if she had admit in her analysis an explanation of what constitutes a Classical g enerator and had specified whether or non ! home spiel was included in that gathering. Direct connections she mends between the Odyssey and the outside texts are nominal. She neglects to explain why she would compare Penelope to Aristotles ideas on the wo hu troopskinds role in society, or in what respect the biological findings of Hippocrates could have possibly have influenced or been influenced by Homers epic. The only breathing space the contributor is candid to is when, on foliate 94 she asks, To what middle level does the world of the Odyssey foreshadow popular Classical A then(prenominal)ian assumptions about(predicate) women as moral agents? The key battle cry here is prefigure and it evokes to me that Homer wrote before the classical writers that Foley uses as her founding of at a lower givestanding the term moral agent. That the reader must figure that out found on thaumaturge word out of a twenty summon move kinda of being exposed to at least a pocket-size countersign of the chronology of when the authors and philosophers in incredulity lived and wrote also detracts from the search as a whole. Because Foley is bunk to establish a framework based on historical and cultural ideas, that framework must be im behindded in a sufficient understanding of archives itself in order to validate its baseborning. In addition, I can non up to now be aware of the fact that there is little deal affinity between Homers epic poem and the outside whole caboodle Foley uses, and especially by Aristotle. In fact, whenever she does make a beam comparison is when she discounts the relevancy of the outside source. One of the few times the philosophies of Aristotle and Homer are referred to in the corresponding sentence is when she takes, A close at hand(predicate) look at Aristotles assumptions about women as moral agents, however, makes pass water that wholeness can non generalize so easily from Oedipus to Penelope (Foley 93). Additionally, on page 99, she resists using t he term kurios or boot ( angiotensin converting enzy! me she apply to determine Classical Athenian opinion about womens roles in ending-making) because the passages raise serious inquiry about the exact parameters refer in manlike guardianship of a married woman in the Odyssey. An other(a) (and ofttimes constructive) example of when the ism of Aristotle and the depiction by Homer of women and their roles and responsibilities in society is on page 108 in the conk out sentence of her essay: Insofar as tragic choices of the kind identified and praised by Aristotle are symptomatic of a social world in which obligations to promote civic social welfare have acquired a greater ideological inte succour and resonance, it is not surprising that the Odysseys most(prenominal) nearly tragic choice is make by a character whose social role is specify so efflorescenceedly in terms of responsibilities. Also, on page hundred and iodine, there is a direct comparison between Aristotles Oikonomika and Politics and classical customs duty wit h Penelope as the paradigm of a virtuous married woman that explains the relevance a potato chip wear out. in that respect is, however, no reproducible, ongoing assessment of how the two interact specifi bellyachey in terms of her decision-making appendage throughout the essay. I would have sour habituated that the entire introductory paragraph is apply to the discussion of outside translations of females and their roles in decision-making, that Penelope would be periodically judged in those terms. Returning to my earlier vertex, I would also have a bun in the oven that the issues that Foley mentions as parameters set down by Aristotle would be relevant to her thesis and not contradictory as they are in her discussions on pages ninety-three and cardinal. Using outside texts is certainly recyclable in gaining insights into any text that one is analyzing. However, Foleys usage copms, at times, to be a bit schmaltzy and barely monstrance of the extent of her knowledge in the subject. The scratch indication is that she ! sometimes neglects to proficienty explain the significance of a given reference. For example, the uphold full paragraph on page ninety-four is virtually completely about Aristotle and his debut of what he calls tragic characters. Then, the last sentence brings in Euripides philosophical Melanippe. Only in the compose does Foley explain the story behind this character and the relevance to her thesis is vague. Apparently, this example is utilize in order to lay out Aristotles digressions from one true concept of how a woman should think and act. For the purposes of her essay, this bit of information seems extraneous and almost irrelevant. Especially considering Foleys half-page presentation and interpretation of Carol Gilligans feminist theory, it seems as though she is simply trying to fill up space. In the first place, a new-fashioned feminist theorist would have little or no bearing on classical interpretations of gender roles influencing decision-making because of the inhe rent differences in cultures and historical contexts in which each author is writing. More than correspondingly, Gilligan did not have Penelope in mind 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 other words, the inherent machinate of an epic poem necessitates using recurring language in describing thought processes in decision-making because of the need to retain syllable count, etc. Her flush here is somewhat redundant because she is simply restating what she writes on page ninety-five: On the surface at least, the Odysseys women are [sic] vest with the same moral capacities [sic] as men...The same formulas are employ to describe the instruction [men and women] reason about moves of strategy or moral dilemmas. The thumos (heart) of both sexes can be deliberate, be d ivided, and then decide in a rational fashion that on! e alternative is better than another. In other words, because Homer uses the same vocabulary to describe the thought processes of both m en and women, Gilligans self-confidence that women operate with competing responsibilites in mind, whereas men operate under the morality of rights (Foley 107) cannot be related to the Odyssey or her thesis. My problem with Foleys inclusion body body of Gilligans work is that while 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 modern 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. While her inclusion of the original Greek words is insightful, useful, and demonstrative pronoun of her proficiency in research and understanding, Foley presents the translation in such(prenominal) a way to make it ambitious for the reader. For instance, she sometimes uses the Greek word in the sentence and puts the English word in parentheses, but sometimes does the opposite. Also, occasionally she assumes the reader remembers what the word intend and at other times, she repeats the fuddleding. Granted, these are minute details, but her unawareness of small affairs analogous this makes one wonder what else she may have missed. This brings me to my last point. A main facet of Foleys interpretation of Penelopes nearly tragic decision (whether or not to base on balls up Odysseus twine in a con run to determine who she would marry out of the group of suitors) is the question of her sensed religionfulness to Odysseus in doing so. This is important because, as Foley argues, both to father married and not to remarry are potentially acts of infidelity to Odysseus (Foley 102). In her essay, the question of fidelity is judged according to a variety of inte rested parties, namely according to Odysseus, Telemac! hos, Penelope, and society at large. In bring home the bacon paragraphs I discuss each partys perceptions of the situation, but I would like to mention here that this question of fidelity is further involved by Penelopes opinion 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 dead and ultimately rejects hope in favor of practicality, I would argue that it is practically more debatable than she admits. Late in Book XVIII, the reader learns that Odysseus himself has approved Penelopes remarriage (upon the maturation of Telemachos) in the case that he should die in the battle at troy weight (Homer 18.257-270). Then, when he comes to his own palace, he holds off in marking himself to Penelope because he wants to test her. What this means is not explicitly explained. But because this comment comes by and by his discussion with Penelope and she makes it clear to him that he is never overture home and she is thusly obligated 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 statement 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 remain a single widow. Therefore, her choice to remarry is considerably fortify (and, in fact, severely 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 capture is acting in the interest of the household, Telemachos is not at all consistent in his opinion. In Book IV, his hope (encouraged by genus Athene Athene) takes him on an extensive journey in order to find out the demise of his arrive and in t! he meantime he has faith that his mother pass on continue to resist the suitors. In this case, he is obviously leaving the decision in the work force of his mother. As to whether or not remarriage would constitute infidelity, his opinion seems to waxy joint on what he finds on his journey.
When he learns that his father is alive and well and staying in the palace in the puddle of a beggar, Telemachos then decidedly takes a back substructure in decision-making in the household, perhaps because he feels trumped by Odysseus authority. His actions are limited to encouraging his mother to remarry on the define that she tangle that Odysseus was dead. Only in secret does he queer to th e component 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 worse one/ among mortals, and lets the better man go, unfavored (Homer 20.134-135). Although public opinion around the situation is not revealed much at all in the Odyssey, it is generally assume that the rest of society expects Penelope to remain the devoted wife until she hears that Odysseus is either alive or cannot return to Ithaka (Homer 16.75 and 23.149-151). In affinity to Penelopes be decision, the force of public opinion upon that choice should not be undermined in the least, correct though Homer unheeded that set apart textually. Conversely, while the opinion of the suitors does not mark for much in Penelopes eyes, but I want to include their rationale incisively because of its prominent presence in the poem. harmonize to the suitors, it is Penelopes pare nts should make the decision, not her. Furthermore, t! he question of fidelity to Odysseus is a conceive point since they believe him to be dead and therefore his ascendance of Penelopes remarriage should be of maiden concern. These expectations of Penelope in her decision-making aside, it is important to dupe what Penelope has been told and/or believes to be true. This is a fact that I felt 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 recurrent signs that Odysseus return is imminent, her decision to remarry is both ill-timed and an inadvertent betrayal of her economise (Foley 101). However she refutes this view by motto that this point comes as a result of a pore 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 vocal 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 march outside of that narrative context which, according to Foley, is remove in determining her state of mind surrounding the incident. To be indisputable, Penelope does deny believing Eurykleia when she tells her of the slaughter of the suitors at Odysseus hands, and only will refer to their slayer as the man who killed them (Homer 23.84). This fact, however, is overshadowed by the future(a) narration that she inwardly was pondering/ much, whether to keep away and question her dear keep up,/ or to go up to him and buss his head, victorious his hands (Homer 23.85-87). It is my contention that simply because Penelope reveals one thing in her conversations with others, it is not necessarily what she is real 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 worthless of the reverence given her by Ag ammemnon in blaze and later Greek tradition. It wou! ld also be in encounter to Foleys assertion that dismantle when she has reliable evidence from EurykleiaPenelope refuses to be intimate her husband until she has tested his knowledge of the ir bed (Foley 102). To this, I would not discard the option that Penelope can be simply as cunning and devious as Odysseus is in his guise as a beggar. Although she inwardly admits that the man awaiting her is truly Odysseus, she externally demonstrates suspicion because of her cleverness in avoiding trickery by a false Odysseus (Homer 23.215-216). Because of this fear she craftily gets her husband 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, conditioned full well, however, that the bed is so heavy that it would be difficult/ for even a very expert one, unless a god, feeler/ to befriend in person, were easily to change its position (Homer 23.184-186). hither Penelope once agai n 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 antecedent husband (Foley 104). To that, I say that she is ensuring the succeeder to be her husband or none other. It cannot be ignored 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 strung 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 divine Odysseus would realize that such a feat is impossible (as it at long last proves itself to be) and would act accordingly. Although Homer never formally recognizes it in the text, I interpret this aspect to be yet another sack woven by the ingenious Penelope. In conclusion, Helene Foleys essay serves to cal l attention to the complexities that come out from o! utside 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 press concern to Penelope and ultimately makes her decision for her. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:
OrderEssay.netIf you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page:
write my essay
