Gender and economics were no less intertwined during the 18th century than they are today. In the emerging world of paper money and capitalism, many issues were coming to light for the first time, and so it is not surprising that the literature of the time so often focused on economic problems. But not all the issues addressed in eighteenth-century literature were new. Some, like the economics of the human body, have been around as far back as we can trace history. Often this problem is addressed in literature in the form of female prostitution, and 18th century literature is no different. However, in many texts there is another form of selling one's body: that of the soldier, and military service as an economic transaction. For the purposes of this essay, the sale of the body will be defined as a circumstance in which the entire transaction revolves around the physical form, in which both buyer and seller are willing participants, and in which the body itself is made vulnerable and placed at the limit. the mercy of the buyer. I will analyze the representation of soldiers in The Rover by Aphra Behn and The Recruiting Officer by George Farquhar. I argue that the sale of the body for military purposes was not viewed entirely favorably in eighteenth-century works. While perhaps not as maligned as prostitutes in their day, the soldiers depicted in the aforementioned works act as caricatures or satirical figures rather than believable characters. This is highlighted by the choice of words: the use of the word “soldier” as opposed to its presumed synonyms draws a clear distinction between the soldier of honor and those who act only for money. While not entirely equivalent to prostitution, this distinction implies some sort of correlation between the noble warrior and the true lover as opposed to the “soldier” as defined in this essay and the prostitute. While the former data act according to principles and moral foundations, the latter abandon their principles in favor of profit. This abandonment, whether or not it is the product of desperate circumstances, is probably the root of the disgust toward soldiers and prostitutes found in 18th-century literature. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The use of the word “soldier” as opposed to related words such as “warrior” or “fighter” is integral to this discussion. According to Samuel Johnson's Dictionary, which provides us with the most contemporary definitions of the vernacular chosen in the text, "soldier" derives from the French soldat and the Low Latin solidus. “Soldier” is defined as “a fighter, a warrior. Originally one who served for pay. Interestingly, the etymology of the word provides much more information about its connection to the economy than its definition. The Latin low solidus did not refer to the soldier himself, but rather specifically to his pay (Johnson 1877). The very concept of soldier is intrinsically intertwined with the idea of ​​money; this is in stark contrast to traditional ideals of the warrior as loyal, honorable, or courageous. Also note that Johnson includes the caveat that the term "soldier" is generally used for the common man, as distinct from his commanders. This implies an interconnection between status and sacrificing one's morals for money. While higher-ranking military members might have the privilege of upholding whatever principles they choose, lower-ranking ones are forced to follow the commands of their superiors to make ends meet. The characters in The Rover by Aphra Behn areonly referred to as soldiers a handful of times. The first of these is of particular note, and occurs early in the play, when Florinda says: I will not deny that I esteem Belvile: when I was exposed to such dangers as the licensed lust of common soldiers threatened, when anger and conquest flew for the city ​​- then Belvile, this criminal for my sake, has thrown himself into all dangers to save my honor, and will you not grant him my esteem? (Behn 6) In this line, we see soldiers used in rather derogatory terms. Coupled with words like “common” and “lust,” it creates a less than favorable image of the soldier as a base and uncouth figure in Florinda's mind. The word is juxtaposed with her description of Belvile as her savior, who she defines as a criminal for his own sake instead of using any more traditional heroic imagery. Through this, Behn paints the soldiers as more humble than criminal. While their actions would have been considered acceptable in their circumstances, and Belvile considered the act of a traitor in hindering them, it is the soldiers who are truly guilty. We see that the morality of the soldiers is kept in check by the superior; it is understood that they are not only beholden to his guidance in having sold themselves, but they need it. Regardless of Belvile, they demonstrate little in the way of moral values. The only other instance of the word "soldier" appearing in the dialogue occurs when Angellica first addresses Willmore: "Thou, Lord in Buff, thou that lookest a Soldier, that first began this Insolence" (Behn 25) This takes place in the midst of a clash between the Spaniards and the knights, so it is obvious that there is no real honor in Angellica addressing him as such a simple descriptor based on his clothes may also be interpreted as an insult. By instead addressing an officer as a soldier, he suggests that he is of lower status and perhaps moral ground. Despite his rank, Willmore demonstrates no honor, and is therefore deemed undeserving of any higher rank to that of soldier by 18th century standards. It is important to note that although both Belvile and Willmore are both bandit English soldiers, Belvile is referred to much more often in the text as “cavalier”. is collectively referred to as "cavaliers": it is never independently referred to as such. It is possible that this is connected to his higher rank - Belville is a Captain while Willmore is an Officer - but it is highlighted in the work's subtitle that both are indeed "knights", and therefore could be referred to as such. According to Johnson's dictionary, there were a handful of connotations behind the word, but the most notable seems to be the third: “The appellation of the party of King Charles the Fifth” (343). This is the definition most closely related to The Rover's alternative title, The Banish Cavaliers. It would have been obvious to contemporary audiences that this meant they were supporters of King Charles during the English Civil War, which explains their move from England. This suggests some of the loyalty and honor expected of those who ranked above the soldier; Belvile demonstrates this not only in the title, but also in the action, while Willmore does not. Other definitions used in the dictionary include “knight; a knight” offers some small insights into the connotations of sale or economic exchange linked to the term “knight”. Being a knight or rider implies a higher position due to the cost of horses, which he would have to procure for himself (Oakeshott 14). Unlike "soldier", the connotations behind the word "knight" are largely positive, implying a higher position in society andgreater adherence to one's morals. This brings us to the respective roles played by Belvile and Willmore, and how they fit into certain stereotypes. Belvile, and by extension his relationship with Florinda, fits into a very volatile and idealized perspective. Belvile is gallant, romantic, and honorable: everything Behn seems to think soldiers are not, which is why he is never referred to as a soldier throughout the play. Willmore represents a less romanticized character in reality. Willmore is not romanticized at all, as he acts much more in line with reality than his counterpart. His status within society and the final ending he receives are not dependent on his conduct during the show. He is unreliable, crass and promiscuous. He behaves in line with how the soldiers are described in Florinda's sentence at the beginning of the play: lustful and common. It makes sense, then, that Willmore is the only one of the two who should be called a “soldier” within the characters' discussions. The fact that Belvile is commonly referred to as a “cavalier” depends on his good behavior. This leads to the question of how economics might operate within these conceptions. If the soldier, as understood by Johnson's definition, is someone who fights for money, then it is safe to assume that there would be few standards regarding his conduct. The soldier is not required to be courageous, honorable, or trustworthy. He is simply asked to fight and expects to be paid for it. This is why Willmore gets away with his behavior; it is for the same reason that Belvile does not fall into this category, since his actions as a military figure do not depend only on money. Returning once again to the dictionary, the examples given for the use of the word “soldier” do not indicate any honor associated with the term. One of interest is taken from Shakespeare's Cymbeline and reads as follows: “I am a soldier to this attempt, and will stick to it with the courage of a prince” (Johnson 1877). Here we see that the idea of ​​courage is not associated with the term “soldier”, but rather with “prince”. He highlights the origins of the term as not associated with acts of courage or skill, while simultaneously drawing a comparison between the stations that places the higher rank as more virtuous than the lower. Could this be due to the economic connotations and association between military service and body selling? It is difficult to say with any degree of certainty, but it certainly seems to imply that the idea of ​​soldiering was not one of great courage or virtue during the 18th century. This leads us to question the meaning of the role reversal that occurs between Angellica and Willmore. In their exchange, Angellica ultimately gives the money to Willmore instead of the other way around, despite the fact that Angellica is the prostitute (Behn 34). This seems to suggest the correlation between military service and prostitution. Furthermore, it supports the thesis that the real sale of the body occurs when one sacrifices one's morals. Willmore, in seducing Angellica with his own deception, has taken on the role of the prostitute. It is therefore right that he should receive the pay. Angellica, on the other hand, believes she is in love. She is not acting for money but rather for her beliefs, and it would therefore be inappropriate for her to receive compensation for these actions. This is no doubt intended as a comment on the relationship between their two professions. As a “soldier,” Willmore's actions are driven by concern only for himself and never for any particular virtue. In this way, the soldier is very similar to the stereotype of the prostitute, which Angellica herself tries to shake off in this scene. It's not just The Rover that this analysis could be applied to. The Recruiting Officerby George Farquhar is a relatively contemporary text that deals with related issues. In the first lines of the text we see the word soldier used once again in a derogatory sense and by a military character, Kite: “For you must know, gentlemen, that I am an honorable man: also, do not beat for the common soldiers; no, I only list the grenadiers; grenadiers, gentlemen” (Farquhar 164). Once again we see the soldier's rank being placed below all others. It is described as something less favorable than in other titles, and it is no wonder that the rake figure, here, present in Captain Plume as well as also present in Willmore in The Rover - is once again referred to as soldier repeatedly throughout the text, despite the actual rank it holds. This further emphasizes the correlation between sexual promiscuity and military service, which in turn further aligns the soldier with the prostitute. It's worth noting, however, that The Recruiting Officer doesn't use "soldier" in as consistently negative a sense as The Rover does. The word happens to be used as a positive descriptor, but it is quickly shot down. This happens in an exchange between Captain Brazen and Melinda. The latter refers to the soldiers as “the best-mannered men,” to which Brazen responds: “Some of us, ma'am; but there are also brutes among us, very sad brutes; for my part, I have always been fortunate enough to prove agreeable” (Farquhar 196). Brazen continues to boast about his own character and outlook in a very frivolous way, and so it could be argued that he discredits his own character as much as he attempts to discredit others. It is possible that this is presented as a way of dealing with any counterargument in defense of the soldiers: we see someone speaking well of the soldiers within the text, and we also see that it is acknowledged that there are both good and bad men who could be defined as such , but ultimately neither character's opinions are entirely reliable and so the reader must conclude once again that the word "soldier" is full of negative connotations. Although this perception of soldiers as bad-tempered appears to be pervasive in eighteenth-century texts, it is not without explanation. Mary Wollstonecraft attempted to draw a comparison between the position of soldiers and that of women in society in her essay A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, where she states: “As a proof that education gives this appearance of weakness to women, we may cite the example of military men, who are, like them, sent into the world before their minds have been stored in knowledge and fortified by principles” (Norton 500). He goes on to explain that both men and women are educated only superficially, retaining bits of knowledge that they hear in conversations and understand through interaction, but rarely understand anything on a deeper level than can be understood through casual observation . The most important part of this argument in defining the attitude towards soldiers is the concept introduced by Wollstonecraft of manners before morals, i.e. that soldiers learn to present themselves without understanding any substance or standard behind it. This serves to explain the lewd and dissolute portrayal of soldiers in eighteenth-century literature. Although characters like Willmore and Captain Plume know enough to present themselves well in certain social situations, they actually lack moral understanding and therefore tend to behave in a humble manner. placing much value on virtue and morality would disapprove of soldiers. At best they are naive and at worst they are ignorant. The use of the term "soldier" in texts such as The.