Analysis of Penelope as Moral Agent in Homer’s Odyssey

In her essay “Penelope as Moral Agent,” Helene Foley attempts to discuss Penelope, a major character in Homer’s the Odyssey, in terms of Classical Athenian portrayals of women and, as her title suggests, in terms of what she calls a “moral agent.” In her introductory paragraph she lays out guidelines as set down by Aristotle and his contemporaries that constitute a moral agent: the character must make an ethical and moral decision “on which the actions turns…without critical knowledge of the circumstances” (Foley 93). To this end, Foley ultimately decides that Penelope meets these standards and adds that her social, familial and personal responsibilities play integral roles in making that decision. Foley’s examples and her in-depth analysis of the Odyssey all support her thesis as I have interpreted it to be. There are, however, problems in her comparison of the Odyssey and outside texts (especially that of Carol Gilligan), inconsistencies in citations and style, and examples that either have little or nothing to do with her thesis. The largest problem with this essay that I could find is the ignorance of a few facts that could possibly be construed as being in opposition to her findings.

Since I am not familiar with and have not read any of the outside texts to which Foley refers (Aristotle’s Oedipus Tyrannos, Poetics, Politics, and Ethics, the Hippocratic medical texts, and the feminist theory of Carol Gilligan), I can only assume that her interpretations of these texts are correct. In any case, she uses Aristotle and Hippocrates in order to develop a historical framework against which she can judge Homer’s fictitious character Penelope. This method would have led to a good argument if she had included in her analysis an …

… middle of paper …

…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.

Works Cited and Consulted

Diana Buitron-Oliver and Beth Cohen, “Between Skylla and Penelope: Female Characters of the Odyssey in Archaic and Classical Greek Art,” pp. 29-58.

Richard Brilliant, “Kirke’s Men: Swine and Sweethearts,” pp. 165-73.

Helene Foley, “Penelope as Moral Agent,” in Beth Cohen, ed., The Distaff Side (Oxford 1995), pp. 93-115.

Jennifer Neils, “Les Femmes Fatales: Skylla and the Sirens in Greek Art,” pp. 175-84.

Marilyn Arthur Katz, Penelope’s Renown: Meaning and Indeterminacy in the Odyssey (Princeton 1991).

Nancy Felson-Rubin, Regarding Penelope: From Courtship to Poetics (Princeton 1994).

Dr. Faustus: A Morality Play Without a Moral?

To answer the question proposed by the title there are two aspects which must be considered. Firstly we must decide whether Dr Faustus is a morality play; I will do this by discussing the play’s form, content and subject matter in an attempt to categorise the play. I will also offer an alternative argument by saying that the play is in fact a tragedy. Secondly we must decide whether or not it has a moral; to do this I will consider the tone of certain parts of the play, in particular the Chorus’ speeches as well as the speech of other characters.

Let us first deal with the categorisation of the play. To determine if Dr Faustus is a morality play or not we must first know what a morality play is. Morality plays are essentially dramatised sermons usually based on the subject of repentance; typically an Everyman figure will begin in innocence, be led into temptation by others, to be finally redeemed. In Dr Faustus Marlowe uses the structure of the morality play intensively, most noticeably in the characters he uses as many of them are representations of type rather than being individuals. For example, the characters of Valdes and Cornelius are known as ‘the tempters’, thus fitting the morality definition as the characters who tempt the main character into sin (although they are not alone in this ). The Good and Bad Angels can also be seen as morality play characters, although this depends on whether or not we see them as real characters from another world or as externalisations of Faustus’ own thoughts and conscience. There is nothing in the text which precisely determines which view is correct. However Faustus’ speech in Act II scene i, implies they are externalisations of his conscience;

Why waver’st thou? O som…

… middle of paper …

…ecause of the style of the time or because it had the right form for what Marlowe wanted to say. Concerning the moral within the play, there is certainly one (at least) which is offered by several characters. However I do not believe the play was written with the sole intention of offering a moral and would be equally as strong without one. Despite the moral given and the aspects of the morality play structure the play remains, primarily, the tragedy of an individual.

Bibliography

Marlowe, Christopher Dr Faustus in ed. WB Worthen (1996) The Harcourt Brace Anthology of Drama, 2nd edn., Texas: Harcourt Brace

Steane, J.B (1965) Marlowe Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Wilson, F.P (1953) Marlowe and the Early Shakespeare Oxford: Clarendon Press

The Oxford English Dictionary (1989), Second edition, Volume xviii. Oxford: Clarendon Press