Chapter 7: Women’s Feminist and anti-Feminist Orations on Women in Society: How Do Women Debate What Constitutes Women's Flourishing?

 

Chapter 7: Women’s Feminist and anti-Feminist Orations on Women in Society:

How Do Women Debate What Constitutes Women's Flourishing?

In this chapter I would like to continue the theme of orations which debate women's liberties, rights, and what constitutes their flourishing. Again, I suggest one can look at this set of orations as each putting forward what the orator considers the best, and sometimes most natural, world for women in which society creates conditions where their flourishing and liberties are preserved. I shall provide a textual examination of the women's Orations in turn, beginning with the opening oration given by a women who would like to create a women's association, which I find reminiscent of the groups formed by women in the 19th century (two centuries after Cavendish's era), to advance women's rights and campaign for the vote. I shall refer to each female orator as woman A, B, C and so on, for ease of reference because Cavendish does not provide names for orators. Before beginning, it is interesting to note that each female orator addresses the group of women slightly differently from the others, perhaps revealing her particular attitude towards women:

Oration 129 Woman A: "Ladies, Gentlewomen and other Inferiors"

Oration 130 Woman B: "Ladies, Gentlewomen and other Inferior Women”

Oration 131 Woman C: "Ladies, Gentlewomen, and other more Inferiors"

Oration 132 Woman D: "Noble Ladies, Gentlewomen and other Inferior Women”

Orations 133 Woman E: "Noble, Honourable, and Vertuous Women"

Oration 133 Woman F: "Worthy Women"

Oration 134 Woman G: "Noble Ladies, Honourable Gentlewomen and Worthy Female Commoners"[i]

 

 Female Orations Part XI: Oration 129 (woman A)

The first female orator to speak would like to persuade the women attending to form an "Association"[ii]. She uses two further adjectives alongside association, which I think gives us a picture of how she envisages this association of women. One is "Frequentation"[iii] which gives the impression of meeting very regularly. The other is how she describes it as a "Combination"[iv] of them, giving a feeling of cooperation, harmony and unity. She tells us that she has worked hard to bring this group of women together, so we learn that she is perhaps the leader who is attempting to form a women's feminist organisation to protect women's rights and freedoms[v]. One of her aims, she argues, is that this is so women can "Unite in Prudent Counsels, to make our Selves as Free, Happy, and Famous as Men, whereas now we Live and Dye, as if we were Produced from Beast rather than from Men;..."[vi]. So the key elements woman A claims are vital for women's flourishing, both in terms of living well, dying well, and continuing to flourish posthumously through fame, is to fight for women's freedom, happiness and opportunity to be as famous as men are allowed to become in society. Indeed, women are prolifically written out of history, meaning many of their achievements are lost or uncredited after their death, irrespective of how respected or famous they were in their lifetime. So I suggest this point about fame must not be dismissed as merely an ambition to be famous for the sake of it. I think it is best analysed in terms of creating a herstory, a women's history and making sure women, and men, are not left ignorant of women's historical achievements and capabilities. Otherwise, generations are left incorrectly assuming that only men were talented or outstanding down the ages. Such assumptions and arguments can be seen by debates, such as, whether there have been any great female artists, despite their being a huge number of talented female artists down the ages, famous or not in their day. Hence, recovering women's history and achievements and making them at least posthumously famous is a vital feminist project, in addition to supporting living women's achievements during their lifetime.

Woman A is clearly continuing on from the remarks in oration 127[vii], made by the male orator X, which I analysed in the previous chapter. Woman A considers his, and men's attitude towards women in general, to be "so Unconscionable and Cruel against" women and outlines his, and presumably other men's, proposed misogynistic possible world as consisting in an "Indeavour to Barr us of all Sorts of Kinds of Liberty, as not to suffer us Freely to Associate amongst our Own Sex"[viii]. On her view, this would be akin to dying despite being alive, likening leading an obscure, domestic life to lying in a grave, where one is passive and cannot flourish[ix]. As woman A puts it, such social conditions for women "would Bury us in their Houses or Beds, as in a Grave..."[x]. She draws sharp comparisons between men's and women's social conditions and ability to flourish and achieve happiness and yet, she argues, despite such poor wellbeing for women in society, men attempt to worsen their conditions further and roll back their rights[xi]. Thus, woman A’s ideal possible world that she puts forward in her oration is similar to the concept of women founding a feminist movement to defend their rights and livelihood against oppressive misogyny in society. She envisages the possibility of women forming an association to debate women’s rights and social conditions and unite against the patriarchy to prevent further loss of rights. Indeed, woman A’s possible world is not unrealistic, just perhaps a little ahead of her time. What seems like a merely hypothetical, possible world in the 17^th century did however become an actual world a few centuries later when women’s movements were founded to gain the vote and work alongside civil rights movements.

Woman A also highlights how women are "Helpless" due to a lack of "Power"[xii] in society, a point which somewhat echoes the male orator Y's[xiii] awareness of power imbalance and patriarchal domination. Hence, I suggest, Woman A's argument about gendered power imbalances and women's rights is informative for contemporary Classical Radical Feminism's analysis of how patriarchy grants men power and domination over women. And I would further specify that this especially applies to men who are accepted by the patriarchal system as fitting a narrow, gendered concept of manhood, given that we often find this is not applied to certain groups of men, for instance, effeminate men or gay men or trans men because they do not conform to patriarchy's notion of manhood. Conversely, I suggest that the notion of power over women is applied to women more broadly than is often recognised. For instance, patriarchal domination is applied not only to all those who are born women, but also to all those who identify as women, such as, trans women who suffer alarming rates of misogynistic violence and murder. I maintain that it is also applied to those who identify outside of the gender binary (for instance, those who are gender non-conforming, gender fluid, non-binary, agender, androgynous) as well as intersex people who are biologically outside the gender binary, regardless of their gender identity. This, I think, is because they do not fit patriarchy's socially constructed notion of gender identity and biological sex as binary, Hence, patriarchy treats and mis-classifies anyone outside of its socially constructed norms of being either a heterosexual male or heterosexual female as deviant and abnormal, as can be seen by looking at the history of oppressive anti-LGBTQIA+ laws around the world, which impact disastrously on both men's and women's lives. This is relevant to a philosopher such as Cavendish, who herself lived outside gender norms in society, be it through her self-expression in fashion, her reputation as being gender non-conforming, interpretations of her stories as including a lesbian plot, or her attempts to become a famous writer, despite the gender glass ceiling. Hence, my feminist interpretation of Cavendish is perhaps best described as an intersectionalist/radical feminist approach which analyses Cavendish's somewhat women's separatist feminism (such as the creation of women's associations or armies), alongside her acknowledgment of the difficulties this approach faces, within a broader definition and notion of gender, sex and female identity. This, I suggest, is not an over-contemporary, LGBT+ feminist reading of Cavendish, but an historically sensitive one (from the perspective of both women's and LGBT+ history and philosophy) given that scholarship, graduate work, LGBT+ sources and university archives have already acknowledged Cavendish's gender fluidity and lesbian topics in her works. For instance, New College, Oxford University notes refer to Cavendish as an “aristocratic cross-dresser”[xiv] and Sara Mendelson’s conference abstract maintains that Cavendish and Aphra Behn “were openly labelled “hermaphrodites” and that “it was permissible to write in a blend of feminine and masculine styles, but not to behave in real life like a man trapped in a woman’s body. Yet literature and life were inextricably intertwined in many ways for both women, including the practice of transvestism and disguise”[xv]. Although it was not all about clothing or apparent gender expression, apparently merely possessing feminist ideas, such as “the rejection of subordination in marriage, and the unfeminine urge for heroic fame and political power” and enjoying so-called male subjects such as science were also considered to make a woman masculine. Hoogenboom (MA Thesis) argues that in Cavendish’s play, ‘The Convent of Pleasure’ “it seems that Cavendish finds the female-female relationship in this play more legitimate and more real than the male-female one”[xvi] and that, despite the complexities in the plot, “Ultimately, Cavendish shows the power and legitimacy of female same-sex desire.”[xvii] Cavendish’s lesbian themes are also well-known within the lesbian community’s popular culture, for instance, in The Lesbian Review:

“Other literary women, such as Margaret Cavendish, imagined female separatist utopias in their writings, including the expectation of romantic (and sometimes sexual) attachments between their inhabitants. …..The stage was a popular site for exploring the romantic possibilities of women together, often via gender disguise.”[xviii]

Hence, as part of my feminist interpretation of Cavendish, I discuss feminist philosophy, feminism, Classical radical separatist feminism and LGBT+ themes in Cavendish’s work, both from an historical context including her 17^th century era, as well as contemporary perspectives.  

 

Female Orations Part XI: Oration 130 ii (woman B)

Woman B begins by praising woman A because she has "spoken Wisely and Eloquently in Expressing our Unhappiness" but nevertheless criticises her for "not Declaring a Remedy, or Shew’d us a way to come Out of our Miseries"[xix]. This is a common dissatisfaction expressed within and against 20th and 21st century feminism, where some feel that feminism can sometimes over-focus on denouncing sexism more than finding solutions that actively resolve it and successfully prevent it from occurring in society, so it is interesting to note that there is a long history of this sentiment. Woman B wants practical solutions to the social condition of women and maintains that only condemning men's subjection of women and then expecting them to listen will not work as a means to addressing and preventing misogyny. She maintains that men will simply ignore their complaints and "Laugh at our Weakness"[xx]. Perhaps the famous motto 'deeds not words' best suits woman B! In her brief oration, she almost pleads Women A to be their leader, navigating the way out of patriarchy's confusing "Labyrinth"[xxi] of sexism and misogyny. She describes women's social condition in a way which gives a feeling of being trapped, with her emphasis on a need for "Getting out" of the situation and her wish for Woman A " Shew’d us a way to come Out of our Miseries"[xxii]. Woman B shares a strong, more radical style of feminism with Woman A, as she by no means downplays the dark side of men's patriarchal domination and oppression of women, when she argues that men "are not only our Tyrants, but our Devils" as they "keep us in the Hell of Subjection"[xxiii]. Thus, woman B’s possible world she advocates in her oration is not especially different from woman A’s. Nevertheless, she adds the concept of having an inspirational female leader to literally guide women out of the seemingly hopeless cycle of oppression and discrimination they suffer in their patriarchal society.

These opening two orations are, I suggest, of historical importance to the feminist movement because it is often assumed that such strong statements opposing the dire social position of women are non-existent until the 19th-20th century, during first and second wave feminism. Feminists further back in history are sometimes labelled proto-feminists as if they are somehow outside of the feminist movement, simply because they pre-date the suffragettes and first wave feminism. Cavendish I think, is especially vulnerable to this, given that there can be an assumption that Wollstonecraft was the first British feminist, despite Cavendish pre-dating her, thus overlooking Cavendish's feminism and feminist philosophy. However, passages like this clearly show that women have been arguing in quite a radical style for women's emancipation much earlier in history than is commonly acknowledged.

Female Orations Part XI: Oration 131 iii (woman C)

I suggest that, unlike the first two female orators, Woman C’s argument falls into gender-biased ways of thinking and sexist argumentation. This is because her refutation merely rests on stereotypical gendered, sexist assumptions about how "Nature Hath or Could make"[xxiv] men and women and thus what constitutes their natural "Condition"[xxv]. Her contra denounced their "Exclamations against Men" as she counterargues that "we have no Reason to Speak against Men" because they do so many amazing things "for us" that women "could not possibly Live without them"[xxvi]. She supports this with the claim that women's limitations are caused by Nature not men, therefore women's social conditions are unchangeable and not the fault of men. She creates a stark contrast between men's and women's capabilities, where men are everything superlative and women are useless other than for having children. Textural evidence for this is when woman C argues that Nature "hath made Men more Ingenious and Laborious than Women, for Women are Witless and Strengthless and Unprofitable Creatures, did they not Bear Children"[xxvii]. She exacerbates women's sense of powerlessness and uselessness with notions purporting that men can do "all which we could not do our Selves"[xxviii]. Such contra orations within this potentially feminist association seems to undermine women A’s and B's orations and sets up a direct challenge to woman A's hope that they become a cohesive group. Woman C's oration is, I suggest, more in line with anti-feminist arguments, such as those which many branches of feminism refute by rejecting appeals to stereotypical notions of what is and is not natural for men and women and regulating their liberties and human rights accordingly. In this way, woman C describes a possible world based on what she understands to be according to the laws of nature for men and women and so sees her possible world as the most realistic and achievable. However, as other female orators point out, the strength of such an argument is dependent on the accuracy of her understanding of what is natural for humans, which is impossible to ascertain if one begins with gender biased assumptions that one merely confirms in one’s conclusion (known in philosophy as a circular argument).  

 

Female Orations Part XI: Oration 132 iv (woman D)

Woman D answers the previous orator with a contra against her views of women's nature and natural capacities. She picks up on her description of women being "Witless"[xxix] and "Strengthless"[xxx] and provides an alternative explanation. She argues that any weaknesses women may have is due to a lack of opportunity in society for women to do as men do (both intellectually and physically) and thereby develop their capacities and potential. Woman D puts forward the suggestion that women "should Imitate Men, so will our Bodies and Minds appear more Masculine, and our Power will Increase by our Actions"[xxxi]. If women do not begin to experiment with how they are capable of developing when given the same opportunities and conditions as men, then women and men will never know what women's true capabilities are. In this way, objections such as woman C's do not hold water because they are merely making gross assumptions about human nature which have not been substantiated. Woman D points out that "Strength is Increased by Exercise, and Wit is Lost for want of Conversation"[xxxii]. She advocates that women should have the freedom to do physical exercise in the same manner as men:

"let us Hawk, Hunt, Race, and do the like Exercises as Men have... "[xxxiii]

Indeed, women past and present have taken part in such activities and excelled, as can be seen by the inclusion of women’s hunting jackets under 18^th century fashion at the Victoria and Albert Museum; Sarah Churchill (Duchess of Marlborough, Princess of Mindelheim, Countess of Nellenburg) who was the Ranger of Windsor Great Park; and mixed sex participation in sports today, where women and men compete against each other or in mixed teams, for example, in horse racing/show jumping, Touch Rugby and mixed Netball. Woman D argues the same goes for intellectual stimulation and verbal, debating skills:

"let us Converse in Camps, Courts, and Cities, in Schools, Colleges, and Courts of Judicature, in Taverns, Brothels, and Gaming Houses, all of which will make our Strength and Wit known, both to Men and to our Selves, for we are Ignorant of our Selves as Men are of us".[xxxiv]

So, in woman D’s ideal possible world, women would have the same freedom and opportunity as men without gender assumptions holding them back, confusing the issue of what their natural capacities and abilities are, both physically and intellectually. Gender equality for woman D involves equal access to intellectual, physical and social development and not creating gender stereotypes about women's natural abilities and character. She has no issues with women potentially becoming more masculine as they gain the chance to develop the same physical and intellectual skills as men.  We should perhaps suspend judgement about women's nature, especially when they do not have equal opportunities:

"how should we Know our Selves, when as we never made Trial of our Selves? Or how should Men know us when as they never Put us to the Proof?"[xxxv]

 

Female Orations Part XI: Oration 133 v (woman E)

 

Woman E argues along the same Nature rather than nurture lines as woman C in her contra against the previous orator:

“to Perswade us to Change the Custom of our Sex, which is a Strange and Unwise Perswasion, since we cannot Change the Nature of our Sex, for we cannot make our selves Men; and to have Femal Bodies, and yet to Act Masculine Parts, will be very Preposterous and Unnatural; In truth, we shall make our Selves like as the Defects of Nature, as to be Hermaphroditical”[xxxvi]

She aims to persuade the others that women have no power over how Nature has made them or over their lives. However, somewhat immediately contradicting herself, woman E reduces women's scope of power to merely "Rule our Lives and Behaviours" in accordance with what is deemed "Acceptable and Pleasing to God and Men"[xxxvii]. Expanding on what she has in mind, all she can cite are the typical gendered views in society of how women ought to be: "Modest, Chast, Temperate, Humble, Patient, and Pious; also to be Huswifely, Cleanly, and of few Words" in exchange for male and religious approval, love during women's life and glory after death[xxxviii].

So here we see a woman supporting women's oppression and even reflecting the sexist language and concepts of the misogynistic orator, such as housewifely. Like him, she advocates silencing women when she advocates that women should not speak much (be "of few Words"[xxxix]). This oration shows readers how some women also hold back progress towards women's liberation and ironically support misogyny even though it, in essence, works against their liberty, humanity, safety and interests. It also shows how some religious concepts and depictions of women can become so ingrained that women internalize sexism and the patriarchy to such an extent they cease to notice that they end up assisting their oppressors and abusers and inadvertently subjugate themselves. Woman E seems to struggle to construct a possible world in which society could be otherwise. She mostly reinforces the current, actual patriarchal world she lives in, complete with the accompanying oppression of women as well as an unhealthy repression of various forms of gender expression.

Female Orations Part XI: Oration 134 vi (woman F)

Woman F almost argues for equality on the basis of sexist, overinflated estimation of masculinity, whereby everything masculine inherently is better than anything feminine but she nevertheless provides a strong counterargument to, and dilemma for, woman E's oration. In her oration, Woman F argues against the previous woman’s oration, delivered by woman E, while addressing but inverting the argument for imitating men, presented by woman D. She provides a counterexample / poses a dilemma to woman E's religious beliefs: If imitating the Gods is meant to be laudable and is even commanded by "the Gods and their Ministers" then why should it be "Unnatural" or wrong to imitate men, which is far easier than imitating "Celestial Deities"[xl]? Taking woman E's argument and beliefs to their logical conclusion: If one imitates something better than oneself, then if women are inferior to men, then women should imitate men to become more perfect. This surely should be a priority for woman E's argument, which claims to assist women and men in being perfect women and men:

"all Terrestrial Imitations ought to Ascend to the Better, and not to Descend to the Worse, Women ought to Imitate Men, as being a Degree in Nature more Perfect”[xli]

This argument leads to somewhat re-conceptualizing gender roles, whereby it is the property of masculinity that is valued, and conversely the property of femininity which is devalued, rather than basing it on whether you are categorised as male or female at birth. The advantage of this approach, woman F maintains, is that women can actively work on perfecting themselves, rather than having to just passively accept that they are somehow inferior and that there is nothing they can do about it. Woman F ends her oration by clarifying how far women could perfect themselves by becoming masculine. She concludes that gender equality, including "Perfection and Power"[xlii] would be achieved if women imitated men and become masculine:

 "all Masculine Women ought to be as much Praised as Effeminate Men to be Dispraised, for the one Advances to Perfection, the other Sinks to Imperfection, that so by our Industry we may come at last to Equal Men both in Perfection and Power."[xliii]

 Of course the obvious sexist downside to this argument is that effeminate men suffer from reduced social status simply because they posses, or are sometimes merely perceived as possessing, more so-called female qualities. So this still reinforces gendered stereotypes about how we define masculinity and femininity, what value we place on each and how it impacts on social status and living well in society. This still reduces the value of women in society and labels their behaviour, character and abilities in a gendered way. Although I agree society should value and appreciate masculine women, the reason for this, however, should not be because society values men above women. All types of masculine women, and non-binary women, should be appreciated for themselves and in their own right by both individuals and society. And there is no reason to devalue effeminate men in the process. In woman F’s possible world, all those who express masculinity, irrespective of their sex, would be more valued by society than those who are more feminine or effeminate. However this possible world still undermines gender expression because it values and rewards the property of masculinity due to the sexist concept that men are superior, rather than letting each individual express their gender identity freely across a full spectrum of gender expressions (rather than just the two, binary masculine/feminine options), without societal judgment or gender stereotypes.

Female Orations Part XI: Oration 135 (woman G)

Woman G ironically argues for gendered roles but on the basis that women are superior to men and that it is women who desire to have covert power over men. She starts by summarising the previous oration (which she equates to a speech) and depicts it as claiming that it leads to the consequence that women go against their nature and unrealistically attempt to acquire male wit. She tries to refute this stance by appealing to the idea that women are superior to men:

"why should we Desire to be Masculine, since our Own Sex and Condition is far the Better?"[xliv]

And later, she reinforces this claim with:

"Women have no Reason to Complain against Nature, or the God of Nature, for though the Gifts are not the Same they have given to Men, yet those Gifts they have given to Women, are much Better; for we Women are much more Favour'd by Nature than Men”[xlv]

However, in keeping with patriarchal stereotypes of women, these so-called better gifts all refer to physical beauty and appearance, not brains, ability or skill. She argues that, although men are superior in, for instance, strength, courage, speech, liberty, and they are more active, this brings with it many downsides too, such as danger, increased labour and a shorter lifespan. So woman G argues that gender differences work somewhat in women's favour in other ways, such as, decreased labour and increased safety[xlvi]. However, I maintain that this is incorrect. Patriarchy and misogyny cause many safety issues for women, both in the public and private sphere, irrespective of whether they are performing a traditionally feminine gender role or not. For example, women suffer domestic abuse while playing a housewifely role at home or suffer sexual harassment for wearing a skirt down the street. The other benefits woman G cites are nebulous and of little practical value when trying to live well and flourish, for instance, being graceful, looking young, being "Harmonious in Voice"[xlvii]. This is in stark contrast to the male scholars I discussed in chapter 5 who are seeking the best possible world in which they can have a flourishing intellectual life. Whereas there is no mention of an ambition to start admitting women into universities or advocating that they do scholastic studies, on the excuse that such study wastes one’s life. However, she even includes engaging with Questions, and Disputes as activities she would rather leave to men, despite knowing about a possible roll back of rights for women after misogynistic orations such as 127. Perhaps she is taking her voice at this women’s gathering for granted.

Woman G is also prone to sexist, stereotypical depictions of women as needing to preserve their looks and being physically delicate, "Small"[xlviii] and "having Tender Lives"[xlix]. This impacts on women's equality directly because it means that they should not be doing "Hundreds"[l] of "actions which “Men are Imployed in"[li] for fear of ruining their "Fresh Beauty"[lii] and youthful looks, as well as assuming they would "Break their Small Limbs, and Destroy their Tender Lives”[liii]

However, woman G then twists such apparent feminine vulnerability and weakness to gain power over men, albeit covertly:

"Men are Forc'd to Admire us, Love us, and be Desirous of us, in so much as rather than not Have and Injoy us, they will Deliver to our Disposals, their Power, Persons, and Lives, Inslaving Themselves to our Will and Pleasures;”[liv] and, she concludes,

“what can we Desire more, than to be Men's Tyrants, Destinies, and Goddesses?”[lv]

Therefore, woman G’s possible world is one in which women are superior to men and have the power to dominate men, which seems something of a role reversal of patriarchy. However, in practice, women do not achieve gender parity or equality with men in this possible world, but remain in a passive role having to resort to exercising power indirectly. In this world, the same gender stereotypes of ‘women are weak and men are strong’ apply, but women become more compliant with this status quo because they falsely believe it is to their advantage. This is certainly a far cry from woman A’s concept of societal progress!

Perhaps these Female Orations also more broadly show how agreeing on the best possible world for gender equality (as well as agreeing on the accompanying concepts, and approaches to achieving a better world for women of all identities and backgrounds where everyone can flourish) is no easy task. It is often a balance between inspirational leadership from some individuals and a loyal, cohesive collective of women forming a strong, active, intersectional, inclusive, feminist movement. It also perhaps involves imagining a possible world in which everyone can flourish, regardless of their identities, by looking beyond the gendered norms, concepts, arguments and habits with which both women and men are indoctrinated in by patriarchal society.

 

 

 

---

[i] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, ‘FEMAL(E) ORATIONS.’, in Orations of Divers Sorts Accommodated to Divers Places (London, UK: First printed by W. Wilson; online Public Domain version: Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 1662), https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53051.0001.001/1:16?rgn=div1;view=fulltext.

[ii] Newcastle, 225.

[iii] Newcastle, 225.

[iv] Newcastle, 225.

[v] Newcastle, 225.

[vi] Newcastle, 225.

[vii] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, ‘An Oration against the Liberty of Women.’, in Orations of Divers Sorts Accommodated to Divers Places (London, UK: First printed by W. Wilson; online Public Domain version:   English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 1662), 222–23, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53051.0001.001/1:15.10?rgn=div2;view=fulltext.

[viii] Newcastle, ‘FEMAL(E) ORATIONS.’, 226.

[ix] Newcastle, ‘FEMAL(E) ORATIONS.’

[x] Newcastle, 226.

[xi] Newcastle, ‘FEMAL(E) ORATIONS.’

[xii] Newcastle, 225.

[xiii] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, ‘An Oration for the Liberty of Women.’, in Orations of Divers Sorts Accommodated to Divers Places (London, UK: First printed by W. Wilson; online Public Domain version: Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 1662), 223–24, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53051.0001.001/1:15.11?rgn=div2;view=fulltext.

[xiv] William Poole, ‘Margaret Cavendish’s Books in New College, and around Oxford’, New College Notes (Oxford University), New College Notes, no. 6 (2015): 1–7.

[xv] Sara Heller Mendelson, ‘“A Tale of Two Hermaphrodites: Margaret Cavendish and Aphra Behn”’ (International Margaret Cavendish Society Biennial Conference, Trondheim, Norway: conference book of abstracts, 2019), 11/23, https://856d1722-b008-4d1b-9e3f-5905946ab1f7.filesusr.com/ugd/5c3fb8_ef68daf53b894a4b983ad003c7c5c327.pdf.

[xvi] Geertje Hoogenboom, ‘MA Thesis, English Literature and Culture’ (MA, Netherlands, Leiden University, 2020), 50, https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/123069/‘But%20why%20may%20not%20I%20love%20a%20Woman%20with%20the%20same%20affection%20I%20could%20a%20Man’%20Female%20Same-Sex%20Desire%20in%20Early%20Modern%20Lyric%20Poetry%20and%20Plays.pdf?sequence=1.

[xvii] Hoogenboom, 52.

[xviii] Heather Rose Jones, ‘The Wild and Wacky Queer Women of 17th Century Europe’, The Lesbian Review, 24 July 2016, http://www.thelesbianreview.com/queer-women-17th-century-europe/.

[xix] Newcastle, ‘FEMAL(E) ORATIONS.’, 226.

[xx] Newcastle, 227.

[xxi] Newcastle, 226.

[xxii] Newcastle, 226.

[xxiii] Newcastle, 226.

[xxiv] Newcastle, 228.

[xxv] Newcastle, 227.

[xxvi] Newcastle, 227.

[xxvii] Newcastle, 227–28.

[xxviii] Newcastle, 227.

[xxix] Newcastle, 227.

[xxx] Newcastle, 228.

[xxxi] Newcastle, 228.

[xxxii] Newcastle, 228.

[xxxiii] Newcastle, 228.

[xxxiv] Newcastle, 228.

[xxxv] Newcastle, 228.

[xxxvi] Newcastle, 229.

[xxxvii] Newcastle, 229.

[xxxviii] Newcastle, 229.

[xxxix] Newcastle, 229.

[xl] Newcastle, 230.

[xli] Newcastle, 230.

[xlii] Newcastle, 230.

[xliii] Newcastle, 230.

[xliv] Newcastle, 231.

[xlv] Newcastle, 232.

[xlvi] Newcastle, 231–32.

[xlvii] Newcastle, 231.

[xlviii] Newcastle, 231.

[xlix] Newcastle, 232.

[l] Newcastle, 231.

[li] Newcastle, 232.

[lii] Newcastle, 232.

[liii] Newcastle, 232–33.

[liv] Newcastle, 232.

[lv] Newcastle, 232.