Part 2: Philosophy Fluency Podcast on Southampton Conference on Margaret Cavendish

Following on from my previous post, in this blog post, I'd like to share my podcast script for this week, which includes some of my research on Cavendish after the Cavendish on Literature conference.

This time focusing on one particular talk/paper.

This episode is available to listen to on demand on Spotify: here 

For the reference bibliography of works cited in this episode, see the end of this blog post. I've also included some suggested reading that I have not referred to in this episode. 

🎧

Hello and welcome to Philosophy Fluency. Over iced coffees today, I shall continue my Margaret Cavendish theme for Season 13. In this third episode, I shall continue from last week by sharing some of my thoughts on the 3 day Cavendish on Literature conference I attended. Nevertheless, I shall also disseminate some of my Cavendish research and show its relevance to papers I heard. 

As it's Pride Month, I'll focus on Cavendish's play 'The Convent of Pleasure' and the scholarly debates about the LGBTQ+ themes within it. The hot topic within this play is the character of the Princess, who enters the Convent of Pleasure in Act 2 Scene 3. Why is the Princess a focal point? Because one burning research question is:

Can we interpret the Princess as a transwoman or not? 

Robin Elizabeth Haas highlighted in their talk at the Cavendish on Literature conference, that the little additional notes stuck onto certain copies of this play, called 'slips', are Margaret Cavendish's corrections to the printed version of this play. I think this shows her to be a stickler for accuracy which is an example of Cavendish's attitude to literature: There are not too many alternate explanations to her text. She likes to be precise and clear as to her authorial intentions so everyone understands her writings.

Robin goes on to suggest that what is written in these 'slips' is more representative of Cavendish's own authorial intentions than the printed copies which have strayed from her wishes. Robin poses the questions of whether this suggests a lesbian reading, or a heterosexual with queerness reading, or a trans reading, before putting forward the argument that they interpret these slips as giving us a reading of the Princess as being a transwoman. They believe that their trans interpretation of this play is a first in scholarship that nobody seems to have attempted  before. 

For referencing accuracy, when I say 'this paper' and Robin's trans interpretation at the Cavendish on Literature conference, I'm referring to the paper they presented on the 11th of June this year, with a change of title from 'To Those That Do Delight in Scenes and wit': Literary Pleasures and (Trans)formational Delights in Margaret Cavendish's The Blazing World and the Convent of Pleasure' to 'Collaboration, Publication, and Queer/Trans Recognition in Margaret Cavendish's The Convent of Pleasure' because it's based on a different chapter of their PhD in the English department at Rutgers University than the paper they'd originally intended to present. So that's a brief overview of a trans reading in current scholarship. 

I enjoyed listening to Robin's paper, it was very dense with information, so there was a lot to take in whilst sitting there listening to the talk and trying to grasp the arguments in the paper for the first time. But it's inspired me to take an even closer look at the scholarship surrounding 'The Convent of Pleasure' and the topic of 'slips' in some of Margaret Cavendish's works. 

Since the conference, I've started a literature review of scholarship on these pasted on slips in Cavendish as well as other works in the early modern period. 

To put this topic of editorial slips into context:

One article dates back to 2004, in which Jeffrey Masten discussed the role of paper 'slips' found in some copies of Cavendish's books in his journal article: 'Material Cavendish: Paper, Performance, "Sociable Virginity" in Volume 65, Number 1 of MLQ: Modern Language Quarterly, published by Duke University Press. He even lists exactly how many slips there are, in which copies, housed in which locations around the world. He also mentions that a "paste-on "cancel" slip appears in some copies of the 1651 edition of Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, with the slip correcting a punctuation error". So here we learn how slips were generally used in that era It was a way of cancelling and correcting anything seen as an error by the author in a printed copy. 

Well over a decade ago, in 2012, Heather Wolfe posted a website article for the Folger Shakespeare Library titled: 'A newly uncovered presentation copy by Margaret Cavendish' in which she credits and cites Jeffrey Masten's article as she also takes up the discussion of slips in Cavendish's works, and she provides us with some fabulous images too. 

Furthermore, the Digital Cavendish: A Scholarly Collaborative website, for the Digital Cavendish project, talks about the slips in their introductory note to their edition of 'The Convent of Pleasure' Edited by Liza Blake and Shawn Moore. 

To summarise: The editors explain that Cavendish is believed to have had a secretary who helped Cavendish amend her books after they were printed but before she gave them to readers. These include the secretary's handwritten corrections and printed paper slips which state that a particular section is "Written by my Lord Duke", in other words, her husband William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle had interfered with Margaret Cavendish's text and not for the better, I suspect. So I challenge the idea the two collaborated together on Margaret Cavendish's works in the manner of JS Mill and Harriet Mill. The latter, unlike the former, was a constructive mutually respectful, equal collaboration. 

Moreover, scholars assume these slips represent Cavendish's wishes and tell us that Cavendish was keen to ensure that there were no inaccurate copies lying around that misrepresented her views. This shows how Margaret Cavendish didn't want people to be over-creative and just go off into some wild imaginings when reading her plays, poems and prose. 

Like other scholars, the editors Blake and Moore go on to explain how they have gone to great lengths to chase up all the numerous copies that contain variations, and they went the extra mile by logging all sorts of printing amendments, such as "stop-press changes and post-printing modifications". Liza Blake also took photos during her research field trips. Once satisfied that they had identified all variations and modifications, they "produced a text that allows readers to learn about the interesting features of the original text (where hand corrections appear, and where paper slips appear, for instance), but which is also readable and easy to navigate". So well done to them for spending so much time and energy on all these publication details and archives so we can benefit from the fruits of their arduous labour when reading their edition. 

So there's a brief overview of the paper slips (imagine them as the Early Modern version of post it notes) and other publication variations that puts Robin's paper into the context of other scholarship this century. 

I'd also like to put Robin's trans argument about the Princess in Cavendish's 'The Convent of Pleasure' into the context of another talk they're giving this summer, at the Comparative Drama Conference, hosted by LAMDA next month, 9-11 July, 2025 where they'll be presenting the paper: ' “Merrily, merrily shall I live now”: Reading for Trans Joy and Futurity in Shakespeare’s The Tempest and Margaret Cavendish’s The Convent of Pleasure'. Judging by the abstract, she'll be arguing for a trans or at least a proto-transfigure reading of both the characters of Ariel, a spirit in Shakespeare's The Tempest and the Princess in Cavendish's The Convent of Pleasure and drawing parallels between these two characters. Personally, I'm not too sure about all the ideas in this abstract but I haven't heard or read the paper so I'm in no position to comment. But I wish her well.

Hence, I dusted off my knowledge of Shakespeare's Ariel to see if it throws light on Cavendish's Princess. I discovered that the Canadian Professor of English, Mary Ann Saunders specialises in literature and trans feminist theory so has put forward her original trans interpretation of Shakespeare's Ariel. You can read  this fascinating discussion of her understanding of Ariel through trans issues in a CBC news article, published back in 2016. Saunders also explains how she arrived at her trans interpretation. The article mentions her talk on her trans reading of Ariel for the March 2016 conference: 'Moving Trans History Forward: Building Communities – Sharing Connections', organised by the pioneering Chair in Transgender Studies, Aaron Devor. 

Robin's abstract, however, doesn't mention if they're intending to build on Mary Ann's work on trans feminism and literature, and her trans reading of Ariel, but there's no doubt there are some interesting comparisons to draw between them. 

For more on Cavendish, do join me next week for the next episode of Philosophy Fluency. Enjoy the baking hot sunshine and lovely weather. 

Works cited in this episode: 

*‘CDC 2025’. Accessed 25 June 2025. 

http://comparativedramaconference.org/

*Department of English (incl PhD profile for Robin Elizabeth Haas). ‘Details’. Accessed 25 June 2025.

https://english.rutgers.edu/people/graduate-student-profiles/details.html?start=30

*Fisher, Gavin. ‘Shakespeare’s Transgender Spirit Sparks UBC Professor’s Talk’. CBC News, 14 March 2016. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/shakespeare-s-transgender-spirit-sparks-ubc-professor-s-talk-1.3489788

*Haas, Robin Elizabeth. ‘Collaboration, Publication, and Queer/Trans Recognition in Margaret Cavendish’s The Convent of Pleasure’. University of Southampton, 2025.

*Masten, Jeffrey. ‘Material Cavendish: Paper, Performance, “Sociable Virginity”’. MLQ: Modern Language Quarterly 65, no. 1 (2004): 49–68.

https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/4/article/52938

*‘The Convent of Pleasure.’ Accessed 25 June 2025. 

https://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/newcastle/convent/convent.html

*Digital Cavendish Project. ‘The Convent of Pleasure Edited by Liza Blake and Shawn Moore’ ’(Textual and Editorial Note)’, 5 July 2017. 

http://digitalcavendish.org/complete-works/plays-never-before-printed-1668/convent-of-pleasure/

*Wolfe, Heather. ‘A Newly Uncovered Presentation Copy by Margaret Cavendish | Folger Shakespeare Library’, 26 January 2012. 

https://www.folger.edu/blogs/collation/a-newly-uncovered-presentation-copy-by-margaret-cavendish/

Suggested further reading: 

Joubin, Alexa Alice, and Mary Ann S. Saunders. ‘The Tempest as Trans Archive: An Interview with Scholar Mary Ann S. Saunders’. Borrowers and Lenders The Journal of Shakespeare Appropriations 14, no. 2 (28 April 2023): 117–24. doi:10.18274/bl.v14i2.351.

https://borrowersojsazsu.tdl.org/borrowers/article/view/351

Wang, Karen. ‘Exploring The Tempest’s Ariel as a Lens to Transgender Individuals’. The Ubyssey, 6 April 2016. 

https://ubyssey.ca/culture/exploring-the-tempest-ariel-as-a-lens-to-transgender-individuals-347/

Part 1: Philosophy Fluency Podcast on Southampton Conference on Margaret Cavendish

As part of my professional activities as a Researcher in Philosophy and as a Cavendish scholar, I attended the three day conference: Cavendish on Literature held at Southampton University 10-12th June this year, 2025. I'm currently building on this conference in various ways, one of which is audio-documenting my field research trip of attending this event in my philosophy podcast I script and host. So, during Season 13, which is dedicated to Cavendish, I'm currently podcasting my thoughts on the conference talks, what I've learnt from them, how it relates to my journey and development as a researcher and how I'm journaling and springing off from it in my own Cavendish research. 

I'm posting my podcast scripts to my Cavendish blog because the topics covered in the conference are relevant to my ebook available to read on this Cavendish site. It's also part of sharing my latest research on Cavendish with you, in-between releasing my papers and publishing my books. 

So here's my Philosophy Fluency Podcast transcript I wrote for Season 13, episode 2. This episode titled: 'My Initial Thoughts on the Cavendish on Literature Conference (10-12 June 2025)' was published on Spotify 20th June 2025 and is available on demand here. 

🎧

Hello and welcome to Season 13 episode 2. Summer has definitely arrived. It's 32 degrees here in London, UK so an iced coffee is what we all need right now. 

Last week I was at a Margaret Cavendish three day conference at Southampton University called: Cavendish on Literature which sparks off from the research project: 

‘Sympathy in Harmony.... Margaret Cavendish’s Philosophy of Value’. 

So my head has been full of all the talks I attended. I still haven't quite processed it all. It was an interdisciplinary conference shared between Philosophy and English Literature. Its aim is to raise public awareness of Margaret Cavendish as a philosopher. She was born in Colchester which has a museum exhibition dedicated to her called ‘Margaret Cavendish: trailblazer. It's there until 30th August this year. She is widely acknowledged as a feminist. So I think that's something we all now take as a given. 

But it does illustrate the importance of feminism, but the right sort of feminism, that is, the kind that advocates that women should have the freedom to be educated, write with the pen, and not have their work ignored partly because it's hidden behind anonymity and partly just because they're women.

Although, having said that, the problem isn't all in the past, feminists and academics feel free to ignore my academic research work by simply not citing me. So have we progressed that far from the days of Margaret Cavendish? And, ironically, it's not just men but also women who fail to cite another woman.

Nevertheless, I was excited to attend the conference because Cavendish is high up on my research interests as one out of three philosophers that I write books on. The other two are fellow 17th century Dutch Philosopher, Spinoza and the 18-19th century Philosopher, Mary Shepherd. 

I also thought it would be interesting to immerse myself in a literary approach to Cavendish and see how another academic discipline approaches her and her poetry, plays and novel writing. Would it be similar to my approach or very different?

It had been some time, thirteen years in fact (2012) since I had last been to a conference which included some Cavendish. But it was only a one day symposium at Nottingham University, again shared between Philosophy and Literature, and not all the speakers were talking about Cavendish. 

What I expected to gain from this three day conference was an insight into the process that English Literature scholars use when assessing a text. And what their purpose was in reading her. Cavendish is, after all, a philosopher and scientist even though she did write poetry and plays. This wasn't unusual in the 17th century. Many scholars were polymaths. It's only today that we seem to like people to specialise in one thing and then call them experts. However, these polymaths were also experts just in more areas than one. 

It struck me, though, that all these speakers could be classified as experts yet all had a slightly different angle and perspective on Cavendish. So when we talk about the ‘experts’, in any field or discipline, we need to bear in mind that this can never refer to just one point of view. 

There was much talk at the conference about ‘possible worlds’ which I discuss in my completed book on Margaret Cavendish which was published at the end of 2020, although I released chapters from that book earlier that year. At the time I wrote about the philosophical term ‘possible worlds’ nobody else was writing about it in relation to Margaret Cavendish, as far as I could tell and I checked thoroughly.’ 

Possible Worlds’ is a hybrid of Metaphysics and Logic therefore doesn't appear in English Literature by any stretch of the imagination. Even more so when I bring into the discussion philosophers such as David Lewes, and logicians, such as the Jewish Saul Kripke.

It may be flattering to hear someone imitate my theory of possible worlds in relation to Cavendish but it is expected that if you wish to do so that you cite your source. And that'll be me. I'm even sitting there so extra easy. And I do have copyright on it and an ID research number. You can't ignore all that simply because you live on a different continent and there's no university, funder or famous publisher to come after you. Independent researcher scholars have the same rights, if not more, as those in universities, in terms of copyright. 

At the conference there were also variations on the theme of possible worlds such as:

fictional worlds, 

world making, 

philosophical worlds and 

binary worlds of philosophy and poetry. 

Questions explored included: can these two worlds meet? 

One of the questions in my head were:

How do you define poetry? This seems like a pretty crucial question. 

Furthermore, how do different fields such as English Literature as opposed to Philosophy address questions such as: Was Cavendish a poet and a dramatist or was she just using these devices for a particular purpose such as, controversial scientific issues at a time when the Vatican heavily censored scientific views which they deemed heretical? 

What were Margaret Cavendish's views about literature? Especially since she was the first person to write a critique on Shakespeare, who she viewed as a natural poet. Did Cavendish see herself as a natural poet?

What were her plays about? What style were they in? 

Were they intended for performance? If so, what type of performance? For stage or only as a reading, termed a Closet Drama? Did Cavendish want her plays to remain Closet Dramas, or did she merely struggle to have them staged? 

So having to think about Cavendish from a literary point of view was a different, exciting dimension to my research thoughts on Margaret Cavendish. 

There were a few philosophers there too. So it was a fun exercise to jump between the two disciplines, but I won't be crossing the floor of academic disciplines. I'm staying in my own philosophy lane. However, it has broadened my outlook and enhanced my thoughts on who Margaret Cavendish was and what she may have been trying to achieve. 

So many thanks go to the organisers, Daniel Whiting from Southampton University & Lisa Walters from Queensland, Australia for such an amazing conference.

After the conference, I'm still in two minds whether it's plausible that she was a literary figure like others, since ‘Cavendish was the first woman to produce a comprehensive work of Philosophy in English’ and under her own name, not anonymously, as did many women in that century who published their works. This anonymity, I maintain, is unhelpful because then these women are lost to women's herstory and give men the excuse to claim women traditionally don't do philosophy. 

I recall a new interdisciplinary journal for controversial ideas co-founded by the philosopher Peter Singer circulating on Facebook sometime back, suggesting contributors could submit papers under a pseudonym. And I thought: Who does that? The ideas are then surely up for grabs because it's under a fictitious name. 

J S Mill certainly wouldn't approve hence he wanted Harriet Taylor-Mill's name on all his works because they were a team working together on everything. He didn't want her to be hidden.

Anonymity was used to avoid censorship. For instance, to avoid disapproval as when women such as Cavendish wrote under their own name in the 17th century. This caused a gasp and may have contributed to a negative perception of her.

A parallel to Cavendish in the same era was Bathsua Makin who used a similar style to Cavendish but was seen more positively because she did write anonymously despite being the most learned woman of that era. She wrote a treatise in which she poses both sides of an argument. The humanist educator and polyglot Makin, who tutored Princess Elizabeth, the daughter of Charles I, in a variety of languages, refers to Margaret Cavendish as an educated woman. So she knew of her. Both thought women needed the art of persuasion and should be taught rhetoric not only to be empowered in public but also to be able to hold their own in discourse with their husbands.

Something Wollstonecraft picks up on in the next century.

Anonymity is sometimes necessary if living under a totalitarian state, for instance, when you wish to write something against the regime and it could even cost you your life. 

However, anonymity for no good reason at all is not to be encouraged since it can lower the quality of academic debate because it allows academics to play the field so to speak meaning they can take the credit if their paper goes well, disown it if it doesn't. 

In conclusion, I can't help but still see Margaret Cavendish as primarily a philosopher and scientist. Her literary output, I think, merely supports these two important academic disciplines. However, when undertaking my research I shall bear in mind how a Literature specialist may view the same text.

Enjoy the heatwave. And do join me in the very near future for episode 3. Thank you for listening.

Sources cited in this podcast: 

*Department of English (incl PhD profile for Robin Elizabeth Haas). ‘Details’. Accessed 25 June 2025.

https://english.rutgers.edu/people/graduate-student-profiles/details.html?start=30

*Haas, Robin Elizabeth. ‘Collaboration, Publication, and Queer/Trans Recognition in Margaret Cavendish’s The Convent of Pleasure’. University of Southampton , 2025.