Women in Shakespeares Much Ado About Nothing and Taming of the Shrew E

During the early modern period, despite Queen Elizabeth’s powerful rule in the mid-sixteenth century, women in England had very few social, economic, and legal rights. According to the British system of coverture, a married man and wife became one person under the law, thus, â€Å"all the legal rights and responsibilities a woman had when she was single transferred to her husband upon marriage† (McBride-Stetson 189). Additionally, once married, the entirety of a woman’s property and wages came under the husband’s control; thus, in essence, women became the responsibility and property of their husbands (McBride-Stetson 189). Shakespeare, through his writings, illustrates the early modern period’s obsession with maintaining the legal subordination of women through marriage. Shakespeare’s leading lady in The Taming of the Shrew severely contrasts her obedient and demure sister and, in doing so, transcends the gender roles appropriated to her and , thus, must be tamed. In contrast, Much Ado About Nothing’s Hero plays the role of the ideal early modern woman until the nature of her chastity comes into question. Despite the fundamental differences between the characters of these two women, the financial and object-based language used to describe women as well as the institution of marriage in The Taming of the Shrew and Much Ado About Nothing demonstrate the early modern period’s view of women as pieces of property. The play introduces Petruccio as Katherine’s potential suitor before Petruccio, in fact, meets Katherine; however, Petruccio asserts, â€Å"I have thrust myself into this maze/ Happily to wive and thrive as I may† (1.2.52-53). Interestingly, Petruccio lists â€Å"wiving† as his first goal, followed by â€Å"thriving.† In a sense, the ... ...r to that of property and subject to male control. Clearly, the study of these plays serve as prime examples in demonstrating the effect of British common law during the early modern period as well as depicting the society’s anxieties in regards to maintaining the ultimate upper-hand in regards to women’s rights, or, lack thereof. Although Hero is, for the most part, painted as a virtuous character throughout Much Ado About Nothing, the question of her virtue is not only known to be a false-accusation to the audience, but her chastity is quickly restored at the end of the play. Likewise, Petruccio is able to remedy Katherine’s shrewish behavior into that of a young lady. Clearly, the plots of these plays as well as the repeated associations between women and one’s property overtly demonstrate a societal desire to maintain a sense of power and domination over women.

Americans win the War of Independence Essay

Before the first shots were fired in the American War of Independence, very few people gave the Americans (also known as the ‘colonists’ or ‘patriots’) a chance. Britain had a population of 11 million compared to the patriots 2.5 million of whom 20% were slaves. Furthermore Britain had the most powerful navy in the world, an experienced and well-armed standing army of 48,000 men and the support of tens of thousands of loyalists and Indian tribes. Britain also held the economic advantage as they could rely on the profits from the South Atlantic system and the industrial revolution. So at the beginning of the war, an American victory seemed distinctly unlikely for American forces weak and British military and naval power enormous by comparison.[i] Foreign aid obtained by the colonists was extremely important in their victory. In 1776 France extended a secret loan to the colonies and supplied them with gunpowder. These loans of gunpowder were extremely important in enabling the patriots to defeat Britain in the Battle of Saratoga. In February 1778 France and America signed The Treaty of Alliance that stated once France entered the war against Britain, there would be no more treaties before the colonists gained liberty, sovereignty and independence.[ii] The treaty also opened both nations ports to the others commerce and guaranteed French possessions in the New World. Therefore this alliance was very important as it brought optimism and boosted the morale of the patriots. As one soldier from Pennsylvania said, â€Å"There has been a great change in this state since the news from France†. France gave money, supplies and in the last phase of the war, military force. France supplied most of the muskets, bayonets and canons used by the colonists and without French aid it is debatable if they could have won the war. For example at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781, 20 French war ships prevented Cornwallis’ escape and led to the surrender of the British force and the end of the war. Furthermore France’s participation in the war and Vergennes’ (French foreign  minister) influence was a big factor in persuading other countries to join the American war effort. In 1779 and 1780, both Spain and Holland respectively entered against Great Britain and soon after Catherine of Russia organised the League of Armed Neutrality which when threatened by Britain in the early 1780’s, responded by deterring British trade. So foreign aid was a very important factor in America’s victory as it is probable that they did not have the power to defeat the British on their own. The logistics of the war was a second major reason for the American’s victory. Britain encountered many logistical problems in the war which all contributed in some way to its defeat. Howe thought that driving the American army from the battlefield in any area would return that area to loyalty to the crown or at least neutrality. However this was not the case. Britain was only able to control areas that the military occupied so therefore when the army moved it had to abandon the area it previously occupied. As a result when a British force was defeated its only hope was to retreat to a fortified port and so if the navy was not there with its usual overwhelming power, the army would be in serious trouble, as exemplified with the Battle of Yorktown. Another logistical problem was that the British army could not expect supplies from any area it did not occupy and also the areas Britain did occupy were too small to provision the British army.[iii] Therefore they had to be dependent on supplies from Britain but even this was often a major problem as the obtaining of these supplies was held up administratively. The British Treasury and Admiralty did not co-operate with each other to make provisioning efficient or effective. For example in 1776 Admiralty agents insisted that army suppliers be licensed and applications accompanied by exact cargo manifests. Therefore, as ships were loaded at Cork and applications made in London, voyages could be delayed for weeks and sometimes months and as a result hampered the British war effort. Britain also suffered a number of transport problems that further complicated proceedings. In October and November 1775, 36 supply ships loaded with  hundreds of tons of food and supplies left Britain to make sure the 11,000 soldiers, sailors and marines in Boston would have a comfortable winter. However the ships witnessed some of the worst storms of the century and many sunk, were captured or fled towards the West Indies. In the end only 13 supply ships reached Boston by which time most of the food had gone bad.[iv] So therefore transport problems are another logistical problem that contributed to Britain’s defeat. Food that did reach America created another problem for the British, as there were no good means to store or distribute the food. Therefore the food often sat on the ships holding them up when they could have been used for battle or getting more supplies. Logistical problems also hit the British army directly as they could only operate freely as long as the supplies they could carry lasted. Therefore they had to move as soon as they ran out of supplies, even if it was not militarily expedient. So as the army was always moving it could not force an American army to battle, which created a big advantage for the colonists as they could decide when to fight.[v] So overall Britain had to deal with many distribution and communication problems and despite having more supplies than the enemy, because of the above problems this proved to be no advantage. A third major reason for the patriot’s victory revolved around the military strategy of both sides. On three notable occasions Britain made terrible mistakes in battle that contributed massively to their overall defeat. At the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775, Britain went against all accepted military practice by attacking American forces on Breeds Hill, having to go up a steep and grassy hill in the open carrying sixty pound packs whilst the colonists were under cover. Of three British attacks, the colonists won two and Britain suffered a 50% loss of soldiers and didn’t make another offensive for fourteen months. On top of this, the battle seriously strengthened American morale and gave Washington over a year to build an army and prepare for the next battle. [vi] At the Battle of Long Island in 1776 Britain made a massive strategic error of not exploiting their success. The British army had marched unexpected straight into the rear of the colonists and quickly forced a retreat. Britain had thousands of fresh troops available and had the momentum but allowed the colonists to escape from Brooklyn to Manhattan by boat. Therefore Britain lost their best chance of destroying the Continental army, capturing Washington and winning the war.[vii] The final major military mistake by Britain was in 1777 when General Howe’s plan to attack Philadelphia instead of going to Albany to help Burgoyne backfired when the Continental Congress fled Philadelphia. Therefore Burgoyne had to send further supplies and troops to support Howe instead of using them on his way to Albany. Howe underestimated the colonist’s ability to evade the British and made a massive mistake because Burgoyne needed those troops, supplies and Howe’s help at the Battle of Saratoga. In complete contrast, the colonists displayed some excellent tactics and strategies at vital times that proved extremely important in their victory in the war. During the collective battles known as the Battle of Saratoga in 1777, at Fort Stanwix Britain were at first in control. However the patriots sent Hon Yost Schuyler to the fort and he promoted a superstition that caused the Indians to desert the fort and as a result caused the British to retreat to Oswego and abandon their siege. Therefore the great tactics at Fort Stanwix proved vital as the British were previously in a great position in the battle. At Bennington, the patriots played another great trick sending men disguised as loyalists to mingle with British troops. They went to the rear of the British army and when the patriots attacked they turned against the British. So again the great tactics shown by the Americans provided a massive victory and the British suffered huge casualties and loss of supplies that proved significant in the war. A final example of the great tactics used by the patriots was at Freemans  Farm, when American riflemen forced a retreat in the first British assault after shooting from the tops of trees and then in the second assault caused huge losses to Burgoynes army after being situated on a low hill.[viii] This battle carried extra significance as the victory brought an American alliance with France, which as explained before was crucial in the outcome of the war. However, whilst discussing military strategy it is also important to acknowledge the role played by the terrain as a factor for America’s victory. Britain found it difficult to cope with the many rivers and poor roads that they encountered and there were no large open fields where the cavalry could manoeuvre. It was rare to see Britain using whole regiments and disciplined fire across open ground. The territory thus prevented Britain from moving rapidly to surround rebels and from making the most of their superior discipline in formal lines of battle. So therefore Americans benefited from their own familiar terrain. As they did not have the fire discipline or military expertise and skills to fight formal battles, it was suited to their guerrilla warfare type battle techniques. Washington was also crucial to the shape and outcome of the war. By 1777 Washington had fought Howe five times and lost every one, however Washington never lost his army.[ix] He was a big stabilising force and from his militia experience, was excellent at managing an army and keeping it together. As a Southerner, Washington was also vital in bringing southern support into a war that originally was being fought mainly by New Englanders. However most importantly Washington’s tactics on two notable occasions were massive factors in the outcome of the war. First in 1776 at the Battle of Long Island, whilst in serious trouble, Washington enabled an escape for the colonists from Brooklyn to Manhattan by boat. In doing this, Washington prevented Britain’s best chance of winning the war. Secondly in Virginia in October 1781, Washington was influential in leading five thousand French and two thousand American troops across Pennsylvania into Virginia. Washington moved them so fast that Britain didn’t even know  of the Yorktown attack until it was too late. This piece of military mastermind by Washington soon led to a British surrender and subsequently signalled the end of the war. The fourth and possibly final major reason for the American’s victory revolved around the contrasting motivation and passion of the two sides. The patriots were always willing to continue fighting because they had a strong desire to win their independence and loved their homeland. On the other hand British soldiers were not fighting for a cause that directly affected them as they were in a country almost three thousand miles from home. Therefore as the war continued patriot fervour increased whereas British morale went down. In the colonies, the desire to fight the British was never in question. Before the outbreak of war Thomas Paine’s pamphlet ‘Common Sense’ was able to sway public sentiment in favour of complete independence and against King George’s tyranny. During the revolution Paine continued to stir up enthusiasm and patriotism in America with ‘The Crisis’ with comments such as, â€Å"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph†.[x] Therefore ‘The Crisis’ affected soldiers and civilians in all levels of society, increasing morale, confidence and belief. Paine marched with troops, understood them and kept them fighting under horrible circumstances. Thus, Paine played an important role in the patriot’s victory. Propaganda also played a big role in influencing public opinion. Anti-British cartoons were popular throughout the colonies and influenced the public. The inhumane treatment of American prisoners was a main topic of propaganda and there were many newspapers detailing atrocities by the British; for example, the fact that more prisoners of war died than were killed in action. Therefore the use of propaganda was very influential and turned many loyalists against the British. So overall in conclusion, I have identified four major reasons why the Americans won the War of Independence. Foreign aid from France was vital through their money, supplies and military force. France also helped bring Spain and Holland into the war and without them the colonists would have found it difficult to win. Secondly, Britain suffered many logistical problems including the obtaining and distributing of supplies and also communication problems. With regards to military strategy, Britain made a number of strategic errors and struggled to come to terms with the difficult terrain, whereas the colonists under the influential command of Washington made some excellent tactical decisions in battle. Finally the Americans displayed great motivation and passion to secure victory and independence and never lost their desire to fight. In contrast British soldiers were not directly affected whatever the result of war and this proved crucial. ——————————————————————————– [i] Bonwick, Colin. The American Revolution (Macmillan, 1991) 86 [ii] Henretta, James. America: A Concise History (St. Martin’s, 1999) 147 [iii] Bowler, Arthur. Logistics and the Failure of the British Army in America: 1775-1783 (Princeton, 1975) 239 [iv] Perret, Geoffrey. A Country Made by War (Vintage Books, 1990) 20 [v] Heller, Charles. America’s First Battles: 1776-1965 (Lawrence, 1986) 24 [vi] Perret, 15 [vii] Heller, 31 [viii] Perret, 42 [ix] Leckie, Robert. The Wars of America (Harper & Row, 1981) 179 [x] Perret, 34 Bibliography Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Harvard College, 1967 Bonwick, Colin. The American Revolution. Macmillan, 1991 Bowler, Arthur. Logistics and the Failure of the British Army in America: 1775-1783. Princeton, 1975 Conway, Stephen. The War of American Independence 1775-1783. Arnold, 1995 Heller, Charles. America’s First Battles 1776-1965. Lawrence, 1986 Henretta, James. America: A Concise History. St. Martin’s, 1999 Leckie, Robert. The Wars of America. Harper & Row, 1981 Perret, Geoffrey. A Country Made by War. Vintage Books, 1990

This Cody

â€Å"This Cody† Comparison Essay â€Å"What I wanted, I know now, was just to say our son’s name out loud. The crisp â€Å"c† and the rolling â€Å"o† and the slight flick of the tongue for the â€Å"dy†Ã¢â‚¬  (Anderson 5). This quote comes from the story â€Å"This Cody† by Lauri Anderson. It states how the narrator misses being able to say her sons name for he died not too long ago because he was kidnapped in a park. The husband feels as though his wife is a shame to him and she believes that the reason he does not look at her the same anymore is because the son looked exactly like her.Every time he looks at her face he sees his son and misses him so much. Although the author talks about many different types of scenes that the wife talks about in this story, Lauri Anderson portrays the narrator as a static character. I say she is a fixed character because her beliefs stay the same throughout the entire passage. For instance, she thinks t he dam is going to break constantly, she thinks her husband does not love her anymore because it was her fault for their son dying and also she tells the cops three bold face lies about her son.The narrator has dreams about the dam breaking throughout the entire short story. In these dreams, the author has the narrator use imagery to describe her dreams and how intense they were. For example, â€Å"I have dreams about it. They all start the same way. We wake to water two inches deep and the dogs whining, backed into their corners. All night we sweep the water out, but by morning, we’re wading waist-deep in the cold, fishless shallows, filling our buckets† (Anderson 4).The river that used to go through their neighborhood is not being stopped by the dam and the wife gives the river and the dam human characteristics, which is personification, and says that the river is mad and wants to destroy everything that is now in its path. â€Å"What I have learned is that when the river returns, it won’t be the same river. All that time pushing against a wall will make you desperate. All that time, you won’t care about this tidy home or that. If you are the river, you will say, show me a thing I can’t destroy, and if you are the dam, and you are tired of pushing back, you will secretly want to let go† (Anderson 6-7).The narrator also says â€Å"Sometimes I can hear a humming that seems to come from two places at once: from far down the creek and also somewhere inside me, as if the dam is as much aware of me as I am of it. As if I need only to step onto the porch and open my arms† (12). This is an example of personification. The wife thinks that the dam knows as much about her as she knows about the dam. She thinks that the dam is going to spill all of her secrets and make everything worse than what it is now between her husband and herself.The dam is also an example of a symbol because it represents the relationship between the wife and the husband. â€Å"The dam is holding back every drop it was built to contain. Its concrete walls are eight feet thick. It is designed to collapse in and not out† (Anderson 16). All of the lies that she told the police and her husband are hidden behind the dam and the moment that the dam breaks is the moment when the entire world will know that she was selfish. â€Å"I told myself that he was fine, the park was safe. I told myself I deserved a few minutes alone with the sun and with the trees moving overhead† (Anderson 16).She was selfish in thinking that she needed time to rest her eyes in a public place instead of looking out for where her son was and knowing exactly where he was. Instead of thinking he is just in one of his hiding places or sitting on the ground right in front of her, she should have been going everywhere that he went. The wife’s husband did not start getting mad at her and being disgusted with her presence until their son died. The wife lied to the cops three times when their son died so that the blame was not on her and the husband would not leave her. On the day I lost our son, I told three lies. First, I said he had only been missing for fifteen minutes, when it was really more like an hour. Fifteen minutes still sounded hopeful, I thought† (Anderson 6). She thought that the lie would make herself feel better and it did for a while but she eventually started feeling bad about lying to the cops about something that was her fault. â€Å"The second lie I told on that day I lost my son was about a hat. I told the detective he was wearing one-a blue baseball cap with an orange fish on the front.I said this because it was a hot day, nearly ninety degrees in the city, and when we arrived at the park, I saw all of the kids were wearing hats and even tiny pairs of glasses† (Anderson 10-11). The wife did not want to seem like a bad mother because she lost her own son, although later it would be estab lished that she was, so she lied to the cops about her own son wearing a hat and watched the man write it down on his notepad without even flinching or showing regret on her face. There were a number of things that the narrator confesses to the audience about what she did not tell the cops at the end of the story. I’ve never said that I leaned my head back and closed my eyes. I’ve never said that that I’d forgotten my sunglasses, and that the sun threw dappled shadows on my eyelids. No one knows that for maybe half an hour before I faded into sleep, I listened to my son playing nearby with another child, the sound like birds chasing each other in the trees† (Anderson 15). This quote is an example of dramatic irony in that the husband does not know that it was the wife’s fault for their son being kidnapped. We the audience knows that she was the reason that her son was stolen at a park and kidnapped and had God know what done to him.The narrator also uses imagery to show how much the husband changed the way he looked and how different and difficult her life is now that their son died. â€Å"Some days I don’t recognize him. He’s grown out his beard, and the paunch I so lovingly stroked is now all muscle, his abdominals like flat stones stacked atop one another† (Anderson 4). The narrator’s husband changed the way he looked after the death. â€Å"I’m different two. Our dogs, two purebred Heelers Brian insisted we buy to go with our new life, won’t come when I call. The chickens peck my head when I reach for the eggs. The garden dies all at once, overnight.Last night, I found a scorpion on my pillow, his dancer’s arms poised to strike† (Anderson 4). This quote states how much the place that she is living now does not like her and she feels as though they are all out to get her, including her own husband. The author of the story â€Å"This Cody†, Lauri Anderson, uses di fferent types of figurative language and imagery to portray the narrator as a static character. The wife is constantly thinking that the dam is going to break and all of her secrets will be revealed to her husband and the rest of the world and she everyone would know how bad of a mother she is.Throughout the story the narrator believes that her husband does not love her anymore because he blames her for his son’s death. He can not stand to look at her for their son looked exactly like her and every time he looks at her he sees his dead son. Also she continuously tells lies to the police and her husband about their son and what really happened that day at the park when he went missing. Works Cited Anderson, Lauri. â€Å"This Cody. † The Greensboro Review. 91. Spring (2012) : 4-16. Print.