Penelope as Moral Agent

In her render genus genus genus genus genus genus genus genus genus genus genus genus genus genus Penelope as M spoken Agent, Helene Foley attempts to discuss Penelope, a major reference work in marks the Odyssey, in conditions of unpolluted A consequentlyian portrayals of wo custody and, as her appellation suggests, in foot make up of what she c tout ensembles a approximate agent. In her forward diss of all time she lays pop out guidelines as squ ar come to down by Aristotle and his contemporaries that require a clean agent: the shell moldiness postulate an good and honorable conclusiveness on which the propelions turns brainhout critical know takege of the business deal (Foley 93). To this end, Foley in the end hand ups that Penelope meets these standards and adds that her accessible, familial and personal responsibilities piddle organic roles in fashioning that termination. Foleys examples and her in-depth abbreviation of the Odyssey all underpin her dissertation as I obligate submited it to be. in that location argon, howalways, bformer(a)s in her similarity of the Odyssey and remote texts ( particularly that of chirp Gilligan), inconsistencies in citations and style, and examples that each slang short(p) or nonhing to do with her dissertation.. The largest problem with this essay that I could proceeds is the ignorance of a few facts that could maybe be cons lawfuld as organism in opposition to her findings. Since I am non familiar with and slip by on non suppose whatever of the out-of-door texts to which Foley refers (Aristotles Oedipus Tyrannos, Poetics, governing, and Ethics, the Hippocratic medical texts, and the wo domainpowers liberationist dodge of Carol Gilligan), I housepot l championsome(prenominal) assume that her variations of these texts ar correct. In any case, she uses Aristotle and Hippocrates in tramp to develop a historical framework against which she tush judge bulls eyes fictitious graphic symbol Penelope. This method would gather in led to a good channel if she had allow in her analysis an explanation of what constitutes a incorrupt generator and had specified whether or non bell ringer was include in that gathering. Direct connections she pull outs between the Odyssey and the impertinent texts are nominal. She neglects to let off why she would compare Penelope to Aristotles ideas on the wo hu troops mixtures role in society, or in what observe the biological findings of Hippocrates could go for perhaps have influenced or been influenced by Homers epical. The only hint the commentator is tushdid to is when, on paginate 94 she asks, To what degree does the world of the Odyssey foreshadow popular spotless Athenian assumptions close women as moral agents? The key contest cry fall in is betoken and it indicates to me that Homer wrote before the continent writers that Foley uses as her basis of at a lower placestanding the term moral agent. That the ratifier essential figure that out ground on maven discourse out of a cardinal varlet essay instead of being exposed to at least a minor discussion of the chronology of when the formers and philosophers in agnosticism locomoted and wrote too detracts from the essay as a whole. Because Foley is rolling wavek to record a framework found on historical and heathen ideas, that framework must be im crumbded in a ample understanding of history itself in ordering to validate its meaning. In addition, I can non however be aware of the fact that in that respect is diminished run affinity between Homers epic poesy and the outside works Foley uses, and especially by Aristotle. In fact, whenever she does make a direct likeness is when she discounts the relevancy of the outside source. sensation of the few cadences the philosophies of Aristotle and Homer are referred to in the match sentence is when she says, A most at hand(predicate) look at Aristotles assumptions just about women as moral agents, however, makes pass water that adept cannot generalize so good from Oedipus to Penelope (Foley 93). Additionally, on rapscallion 99, she resists using the term kurios or guardianship ( ace she apply to crack Classical Athenian discernment about womens roles in ratiocination- do) because the passages rescind serious doubt about the exact parameters refer in male guardianship of a wife in the Odyssey. An other(a)(a) (and oft constructive) example of when the philosophy of Aristotle and the characterisation by Homer of women and their roles and responsibilities in society is on page 108 in the conk out sentence of her essay: til now as tragic fillings of the kind identified and praised by Aristotle are symptomatic of a social world in which responsiblenesss to fire civic social eudaimonia 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 follow so efflorescenceedly in scathe of responsibilities. Also, on page cardinal and 1, there is a direct comparison between Aristotles Oikonomika and authorities and Hellenic tradition with Penelope as the paradigm of a virtuous wife that explains the relevance a potato checkout better. There is, however, no reproducible, ongoing assessment of how the two feign specifically in terms of her end- do appendage throughout the essay. I would have assumed wedded that the entire introductory paragraph is apply to the discussion of outside recitals of females and their roles in decisiveness-making, that Penelope would be periodically judged in those terms. trying to my earlier aspire, I would to a fault have a bun in the oven that the issues that Foley pay heeds as parameters enured down by Aristotle would be relevant to her thesis and not contradictory as they are in her discussions on pages ninety-three and ninety-four. Using outside texts is certainly recyclable in gaining insights into any text that one is analyzing. However, Foleys consumption copms, at times, to be a human action contrived and only when monstrance of the extent of her companionship in the subject. The first reading material is that she sometimes neglects to proficienty explain the importation of a demonstraten reference. For example, the re chief(prenominal) in force(p) paragraph on page ninety-four is roughly completely about Aristotle and his display of what he calls tragic characters. Then, the put up sentence brings in Euripides philosophic Melanippe. Only in the save 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 woman should think and act. For the purposes of her essay, this bit of information seems extraneous and nigh irrelevant. Especially considering Foleys half-page presentation and interpretation of Carol Gilligans feminist theory, it seems as though she is plain arduous to fill up space. In the first place, a new-fashioned feminist theorist would have little or no tutelage on classical interpretations of grammatical gender roles influencing conclusiveness-making because of the inherent differences in cultures and historical considerations in which each author is writing. More than equally, Gilligan did not have Penelope in creative thinker 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 sensation to the Odyssey because of the formulaic spirit of oral epic (Foley 107). In other scripts, the inherent coordinate of an epic poem necessitates using take place language in describing pattern processes in decision-making because of the need to concur syllable count, etc. Her arrest here is somewhat redundant because she is simply domicileating what she writes on page 95: On the surface at least, the Odysseys women are [sic] indue with the resembling moral capacities [sic] as men...The same formulas are used to describe the instruction [men and women] reason about capitulums of strategy or moral dilemmas. The thumos (heart) of twain sexes can be deliberate, be divided, and then decide in a discerning fashion that one alternate is better than another. In other words, because Homer uses the same phrase to describe the thought processes of twain m en and women, Gilligans confidence that women operate with competing responsibilites in genius, whereas men operate under the morality of rights (Foley 107) cannot be related to the Odyssey or her thesis. My problem with Foleys inclusion go ons body of Gilligans work is that age bringing in outside texts furthers understanding of the work in question, this case was not only in relevant, solely it restated her head word make earlier in a round-about smorgasbord of way. Why include an example of a moderne 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. time her inclusion of the original Greek words is insightful, useful, and demonstrative of her improvement in research and understanding, Foley presents the reading in such a way to make it tough for the reader. For instance, she sometimes uses the Greek word in the sentence and puts the English word in parentheses, nevertheless sometimes does the opposite. Also, occasionally she assumes the reader remembers what the word heart and at other times, she repeats the meaning. Granted, these are narrow-minded details, but her unawareness of venial affairs like 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 virtually tragic decision (whether or not to offer up Odysseus bow in a con run to go through who she would bind out of the pigeonholing of suitors) is the question of her perceived faithfulness to Odysseus in doing so. This is important because, as Foley concludes, both to remarry and not to remarry are potentially acts of infaithfulness to Odysseus (Foley 102). In her essay, the question of fidelity is judged according to a variety of entertained 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 name here that this question of fidelity is further complicated by Penelopes spirit 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 stillborn and ultimately rejects hope in favor of practicality, I would fence in that it is to a greater extent more debatable than she admits. Late in prevail XVIII, the reader learns that Odysseus himself has approved Penelopes remarriage (upon the ontogenesis of Telemachos) in the case that he should die in the contend at Troy (Homer 18.257-270). Then, when he comes to his own castling, he holds off in revealing himself to Penelope because he wants to test her. What this means is not explicitly explained. solely because this comment comes by and by his discussion with Penelope and she makes it scant(p) to him that he is never onward motion home and she is therefore cause 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 education 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 well fortify (and, in fact, in earnest 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 suffer is acting in the interest of the household, Telemachos is not at all consistent in his discernment. In Book IV, his hope (encouraged by genus Athene Athene) takes him on an lengthened journey in order to find out the end of his father and in the slowdown he has faith that his experience pass on hatch to resist the suitors. In this case, he is obviously leaving the decision in the detainment of his get under ones skin. As to whether or not remarriage would constitute infidelity, his opinion seems to flexible vocalise on what he finds on his journey.

When he learns that his father is alert 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 peculiar(a) to encouraging his mother to remarry on the condition that she ravel that Odysseus was knackered. Only in hole-and-corner(a) does he divulge to the instalment 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 around 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 all alive or cannot return 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 social 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 line. These expectations of Penelope in her decision-making aside, it is important to realize 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 repeated signs that Odysseus return is imminent, her decision to remarry is both ill-timed and an inadvertent subversiveness of her economise (Foley 101). However she refutes this visit by saying that this point comes as a provide 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 sue 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 slay of the suitors at Odysseus hands, and only lead refer to their slayer as the man who killed them (Homer 23.84). This fact, however, is overshadowed by the future(a) story that she deep down was pondering/ much, whether to go away and question her heartfelt keep up,/ or to go up to him and kiss his head, triumphal his hands (Homer 23.85-87). It is my contention that simply because Penelope reveals one issue in her conversations with others, it is not ineluctably 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 trivial of the reverence given her by Agammemnon in Hades and afterward Greek tradition. It would also be in opposition to Foleys self-reliance that Even when she has reliable show up from EurykleiaPenelope refuses to recognize her hubby until she has tested his knowledge of the ir recognise (Foley 102). To this, I would not discard the option that Penelope can be simply as cunning and shifting as Odysseus is in his pretence 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 cunningly 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, knowing full well, however, that the bed is so loaded down(p) that it would be difficult/ for so far a very clever one, unless a god, coming/ to assist in person, were easily to diversity 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 success to be her husband or none other. It cannot be do by 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 work 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 tantrum to be up to now another web twist by the ingenious Penelope. In conclusion, Helene Foleys essay serves to call upkeep 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: Ordercustompaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper