It should also be borne in mind that the violence of the suitors starts when they discover Penelope’s trick. In general, it is better to distinguish between the point of view of the Ithacans and that of the reader, who more readily takes up the perspective of Odysseus, forgetting that he is a “disaster for many of these families” (27), including the families of the suitors. notes that the behaviour of the suitors as suitors is understandable, but evokes criticism in so far as they squander the estate of Odysseus. The main culmination point of the plot at Ithaca is the imminent wedding, which is stalled by the arrival of the lost husband just in the “nick-of-time”. Over half of the “Odyssey” is set in Ithaca and the central figure in Ithaca is Penelope, who is therefore no less important than Odysseus. reminds us that the “Odyssey” is not only a “nostos story”. In the first chapter (“The Stakes of the Plot”, 11-33) H. The notes have been positioned after the last chapter (113-121), followed by the bibliography (123-130), index (131-136) of names, notions etc. It is interesting that there is no separate conclusion (it should probably be assumed, therefore, that the last chapter takes on the role of summary, as its title suggests). already displays his multidimensional understanding of Homer’s characters who represent a synthesis of feelings – thoughts – intentions. The introduction fulfills its task well, giving the context, aim and method of his study as well as assumptions behind it. adopts “the same criterion for evaluating the truth of what each says” (9). the last one, “the most controversial assumption” is the following: “Penelope gives accurate accounts of her own feelings and motives”). exhibits methodological care, however, to avoid falling into new prejudicial assumptions whilst trying to avoid the ones mentioned, and thus exercises Husserl’s bracketing. H.’s book intends to restore symmetry to the figure of Penelope in relation to Odysseus since the reader is brought up against the “serious agency of Penelope in the plot” (5). states that studies of the character of Penelope to date “tend to maximize the passivity of Penelope’s character and to minimize the importance of the events in Ithaca” (9). This interpretational set-up means that the popular image of Penelope is one marred by passivity, misogyny and feminism. Penelope, according to this assumption, is a function of Odysseus. writes of the “approach is perhaps really more of a fundamental assumption underlying all previous approaches” (7): understanding her in terms of her function of “sexual fidelity to Odysseus” (Ovid). It is interesting that even feminist readings have failed to portray Penelope’s depth of character, noticing only her indeterminacy. Even those approaches which maintain the unity of the “Odyssey” fail to give due attention to her significance (Aristotle is an example here, as the principal theme of the “Odyssey” for him is nostos, homecoming). Likewise, theories of oral composition (Parry, Lord) ignore Penelope’s character by claiming that her inconsistencies need not have a psychological dimension since they may just be put down to difficulties of oral composition. Above all, he directs criticism at those critics who bypass principally those fragments of the “Odyssey” which could allow Penelope’s role to come into relief. attempts to refute those tendencies which run counter to taking Penelope seriously. Richard Heitman (H.) intends to demonstrate, however, that she is a character of equal rank, as is reflected, for one, by the equal distribution of narrational and dramatic passages between both characters. Finley’s “making Odysseia a Penelopeia“), in effect accord her a rigid status in the epic which boils down to giving her a secondary position in relation to Odysseus. Earlier analyses, though not lacking in mentions of the figure of Penelope (cf. It is an attempt at reading the “Odyssey” from Penelope’s point of view, which is grounded in the fact that the structure of the “Odyssey” points to such a perspective. This beautifully edited book with its poetic title adds a new perspective to the well-known but, as it transpires, still open theme, namely: “to make the strongest case possible for Penelope’s centrality to the plot” (2).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |