Frailty thy name is woman Essay Example

Frailty thy name is woman Essay Example Frailty thy name is woman Paper Frailty thy name is woman Paper Essay Topic: The Heart Of a Woman By Ophelia doing this, we can link it to Shakespeare’s portrayal of women as mentally frail when around others, unable to hold a sentence or communicate. Hamlet offers copious amounts of evidence to the audience of his madness; however there is a lack of evidence to Ophelia’s madness apart from the death of her father and rejection by Hamlet. The audience can see she displays a form of insanity in Act Four Scene Five. Ophelia shows a method to her madness in which she is suffering over the loss of her father, and all she can do after learning of the death of her father is sing. Ophelia also suffers the heartbreak of rejection by Hamlet which causes her to sing a happy love song, which therefore shows us there is more evidence in there being a method to her madness as she is singing over the love of Hamlet. Ophelia’s supposed madness shows method, which contradicts Hamlet’s argument ‘Frailty, thy name is woman,’ as there appears evidence to why women appear frail. The madness of the female mind is said to be caused by the women’s faults mentally, physically and morally. In Act one scene three, Polonius says ‘Think yourself a baby that you have ta’en these tenders for true pay which are not sterling. ’ Immediately, we recognise Polonius’ patronizing tone towards Ophelia; he talks in terms of money, as if she is something to be sold. Her weakness mentally may not be her fault as she is constantly undermined by her brother Laertes and Polonius ‘Pooh, you speak like a green girl, unsifted in such perilous circumstance. Do you believe his tenders, as you call them? : ’ Polonius criticises Ophelia for being inexperienced and naive, giving the audience the impression she is victim of Polonius’ status above her. Ophelia uses ‘Tenders as an expression of love ‘He hath, my lord, of late made many tenders of his affection to me. ’ However Polonius uses it meaning an offer to buy something which shows the audience, Polonius references Ophelia to that of a whore, corrupted by sex, shows us a reflection of Polonius’ ownership of Ophelia. Ophelia replies to Polonius ‘I shall obey my lord. ’ Ophelia responds as a victim of a patriarchal society, having no choice over her father’s opinions. This shows Ophelia is impressionable and not strong enough to disobey her father. By her quick and victimised reply, she appears rehearsed and trained into obeying her father. Hamlet’s treatment of Ophelia alternates between protests of eternal love and brutality such as his cruel and critical speech in the nunnery scene, it could be argued Hamlet uses Ophelia in his revenge plot instinctively because she is a woman, and because she is a woman he knows her as the weaker sex therefore easier to persuade, ‘To a nunnery, go – and quickly too. ’ It appears it is not just the male sex who end up seeing women as lesser and as faulty beings, but after how they have been treated, also the women in ‘Hamlet’ resort to subordinating themselves to the men in the play like when Ophelia says ‘I shall obey my lord’ as they see it as right as it is how they are used to being treated and it is how they feel expected to respond. Hamlet says to Ophelia in Act three Scene two, ‘That’s a fair thought to lie between maids’ legs’ Hamlet is unreserved when showering Ophelia in sexual innuendoes, however Ophelia appears to understand him therefore showing depth to her character, ‘You are merry, my lord. ’ which suggests to us maybe Ophelia was not as naive and weak as we had previously thought in Act one Scene three. Ophelia, it would appear, entirely at the mercy of the male figures within her life, could be seen as a victim figure. Ophelia replies to Hamlet in short prose ‘Ay, my lord’. It appears she is denied a voice in her own defence or representation which coincides with the idea of being a victim of a patriarchal society. Within the patriarchal structure, women were forced to remain within the boundaries, including their compliance, reticence and chastity. Both Ophelia and Gertrude’s reputations are questioned in ‘Hamlet’ which results in further discrimination. If either Gertrude or Ophelia mention any sexual desire, immediately it appears they become devalued, Polonius calls Ophelia a fool for a daughter for thinking expressions of love ‘You’ll tender me a fool. ’ Polonius and Laertes, advise Ophelia to save her virginity as once she is ‘spoiled’ she would be worth nothing ‘Then weigh what loss your honour may sustain is with too credent ear you list his songs, or loose your heart, or your chaste treasure open to his unmastered importunity. ’ Because of the commanding tone of her brother and father, Ophelia appears incapable to fully think for herself due to the governing temperament of Polonius and Laertes. This position Ophelia is put into enforces the purpose of the patriarchal structure in which women are bound to their submissive roles. Female hysteria was once a frequent medical diagnosis which was made mostly in women. The source of the name Hysteria originally is from the Greek word for uterus, Hystera. Hysteria was an illness that was supposedly caused by sexual withdrawal in particularly passionate women and the illness was quite often seen supposedly in virgins, nuns, widows and occasionally married women. The character of Hamlet supposedly goes mad due to the mental stress over his mother’s swift re-marriage and the apparitions of his father’s ghost. But throughout ‘Hamlet’ the women’s cause for madness are unremittingly associated with their bodies and their sexual desires, Laertes and Polonius regularly comments on Ophelia’s sexual wellbeing ‘the chariest maid is prodigal enough is she unmark her beauty to the moon. ’ Suggesting, if she was to commit a sexual deed, she would become corrupt and dirty. To conclude, both sexes in ‘Hamlet’ commit unorthodox deeds, suggesting moral frailty; Claudius shows moral frailty by murdering his brother for the crown of Denmark and Gertrude betrays Hamlet and her late husband by a quick ‘incestuous’ relationship with a relative. Both sexes in ‘Hamlet? show a form of physical weakness, Ophelia suggests to an audience she was physically weak through drowning and Claudius suggest Hamlet is frail by appearing ‘unmanly’. Hamlet feigns madness to suggest to others around him of his mental instability and Ophelia is classed mad over the mourning of her father. Despite the female sex being classed as frail, in ‘Hamlet’ the women show hidden depths, Ophelia shows method to her madness, if she was mentally frail this wouldn’t be possible, Ophelia also understands what Hamlet is saying through his sexual innuendoes which suggests she was not as naive as Polonius deemed her to ‘be you speak like a green girl. ’ Gertrude also shows depth when she describes Ophelia’s death, Gertrude being the mouthpiece for the description of Ophelia’s death suggests solidarity between the women of the play. The repeated use of the word ‘incest’ when used to describe Hamlet and the Ghost’s perception of Gertrude’s relationship with Claudius and the undermining of Ophelia’s knowledge by Polonius and Laertes, considers women as naive and sexually disgusting which is a typical form of misogyny. It would appear there is no difference in frailty depending on the sex; both sexes experience the same bereavement when loosing a loved one therefore would seem madness in itself to class one sex frailer than the other. To an audience in the Shakespearean era, how the women of ‘Hamlet’ are treated, would be no different to how women were perceived due to the standards of the patriarchal society. However to a modern day female audience, the discrimination to women’s sexuality and mental state could be seen as somewhat offensive.

Civil War Prisoner Exchanges and the Dix-Hill Cartel

Civil War Prisoner Exchanges and the Dix-Hill Cartel During the U.S. Civil War, both sides participated in the exchange of prisoners of war who had been captured by the other side.  Although there was not a formal agreement in place, prisoner exchanges had taken place as a result of kindness between opposing leaders after a hard-fought battle.   Initial Agreement for Prisoner Exchanges Originally, the Union refused to formally enter into an official agreement that would establish guidelines pertaining to the structure of how these prisoner exchanges would occur. This was due to the fact that  the U.S. government had steadfastly refused to recognize the Confederate States of America as a valid governmental entity, and there was a fear that entering into any formal agreement could be viewed as legitimizing the Confederacy as a separate entity.   However, the capture of over a thousand Union soldiers at the First Battle of Bull Run in late July 1861 created the impetus for public push to conduct formal prisoner exchanges.   In December 1861, in a joint resolution the U.S. Congress called for President Lincoln to establish parameters for prisoner exchanges with the Confederacy.   Over the next several months, Generals from both forces made unsuccessful attempts to draft a unilateral prison exchange agreement. Creation of the Dix-Hill Cartel Then in July 1862, Union Major General John A. Dix and Confederate Major General D. H. Hill met in the James River in Virginia at Haxalls Landing and came to an agreement whereby all soldiers were assigned an exchange value based upon their military rank.  Under what would become known as the Dix-Hill Cartel, exchanges of Confederate and Union Army soldiers would be made as follows: Soldiers of equivalent ranks would be exchanged on a one to one value,Corporals and sergeants were worth two privates,Lieutenants were worth four privates,A captain was worth six privates,A major was worth eight privates,A lieutenant-colonel was worth ten privates,A colonel was worth fifteen privates,A brigadier general was worth twenty privates,A major general was worth forty privates, andA commanding general was worth sixty privates. The Dix-Hill Cartel also assigned similar exchange values of Union and Confederate naval officers and seamen based upon their equivalent rank to their respective armies. Prisoner Exchange and the Emancipation Proclamation These exchanges were made to alleviate the issues and costs associated with maintaining captured soldiers by both sides, as well as the logistics of moving the prisoners.  However, in September 1862, President Lincoln issued a Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation that provided in part that if the Confederates failed to end fighting and rejoin the U.S. prior to January 1, 1863  then all slaves held in the Confederate States would become free. In addition, it called for the enlistment of black soldier into service in the Union Army. This prompted Confederate States of America President Jefferson Davis to issue a proclamation on December 23, 1862 which provided that there would be no exchange of either captured black soldiers or their white officers. A mere nine days later – January 1, 1863 – President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which called for the eradication of slavery and for the enlistment of freed slaves into the Union Army. In what has historically been considered President Lincoln’s reaction to December 1862 Proclamation of Jefferson Davis, the Lieber Code was put into effect in April 1863 addressing humanity during wartime with the provision that all prisoners, regardless of color, would be treated alike. Then the Congress of the Confederate States passed a resolution in May 1863 that codified President Davis’ December 1862 proclamation that the Confederacy would not exchange captured black soldiers.   The results of this legislative action became evident in July 1863 when a number of captured U.S. black soldiers from a Massachusetts regiment were not exchanged along with their fellow white prisoners. The End of Prisoner Exchanges During the Civil War The U.S. suspended the Dix-Hill Cartel on July 30, 1863 when President Lincoln issued an order providing that until such time as the Confederates treated black soldiers the same as white soldiers there would no longer be any prisoner exchanges between the U.S. and the Confederacy. This  effectively ended prisoner exchanges and unfortunately resulted in captured soldiers from both sides being subjected to horrific and inhumane conditions in prisons such as Andersonville in the South and Rock Island in the North.