Part 6: The Petticoat in the Convent of Pleasure

Further to my previous series of posts, I'm sharing another of my Philosophy Fluency podcast script. Here's my script for my episode 7, Season 13, where I build on my research thoughts on Cavendish and discuss a question I asked at the Cavendish on Literature conference last month. 

For the reference bibliography of works cited in this episode, see the end of this blog post. 

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

🎧 

Hello and welcome to episode 7 of Season 13 of Philosophy Fluency. Over chilled coffees today, I shall look at the issue of the petticoat in Margaret Cavendish's play, the Convent of Pleasure, first published in 1668. 

In Act IV. Scene I, the stage directions tell us that the Princess "walks a turn or two in a Musing posture, then views her Self, and speaks".¹ After this, her name is shortened to Prin. in the online edition that I gather is a copy of the first ever publication edition of Cavendish's book: 'Plays, never before printed', which was printed in London by A. Maxwell, in 1668². I point this out because some contemporary editions reproducing this play have altered this gender neutral abbreviation by expanding it to Princess. For instance, the editors Liza Blake and Shawn Moore say on the website: Digital Cavendish: A Scholarly Collaborative, that they advise readers to, and I quote:

"note here that by expanding the original’s printing’s “Prin.” to “Princess” we have lost the generative gender neutrality or ambiguity of the original speech prefix."³

Nevertheless, when it comes to stage directions, they took the editorial decision to incorporate brackets and put the c-e-s-s letters in the word princess into square brackets so readers are more aware of the notion that prin refers to stage directions for a princess looking character.⁴

Personally and academically, I never agree with such editorial linguistic alterations to historical original texts. Writers in past eras could be deliberately, very unconventional in their creative decisions so you can never be sure that you are not changing the meaning or implications or message of their work. 

So, although apparently abbreviations were standard practice in the Early Modern era, this does not assure us that Cavendish did not wish to use this convention as a vehicle for playing with gender assumptions about the Princess. Referring to the Princess by using the abbreviation Prin., could symbolise her gender ambiguity, whether she is male, female or non-binary since it's a gender neutral abbreviation. 

So I argue that it's always best practice to retain all the original idiosyncrasies, in case the symbolisms and meanings and unconventional creative practices are lost as we make big assumptions and iron out anything that isn't immediately clear to a reader in the 21st century.  

The Princess's lines are as follows, and I quote:

Prin. "What have I on a Petticoat, Oh Mars! thou God of War, pardon my sloth; but yet remember thou art a Lover, and so am I; but you will say, my Kingdom wants me, not only to rule, and govern it, but to defend it: But what is a Kingdom in comparison of a Beautiful Mistress? Base thoughts flie off, for I will not go; did not only a Kingdom, but the World want me."⁵

Then, according to the stage directions, she leaves.⁶ 

So, what options do we have for interpreting this passage? I think it could be a rather pivotal scene, given the scholarly debate surrounding the Princess's true biological sex and gender identity and the questions raised about the possible sincerity or insincerity with which she presents and expresses her femininity and masculinity. 

In her talk on the 12th of June last month, at the Cavendish on Literature conference at Southampton University, Michaela Tiller brought up this petticoat scene when the Princess is praying to the god of Mars, in her paper: 'Cavendish and crossdressing: on the performance and embodiment of gender in English drama'.⁷ Tiller seemed to suggest that this scene shows that, the Princess is actually somewhat uncomfortable in her female clothing, and this only comes out once she's alone, when she doesn't have to keep up feminine appearances amongst other women⁸. 

I remembered off the top of my head that pagans worshipped their gods whilst wearing clothes that match the gender of the god, not their own gender. Therefore, when worshiping the god Mars, both men and women wore men's armour to honour him as the god of war. I've discussed this elsewhere as part of my research on LGBTQ+ positive interpretations of Jewish scripture, and this pagan crossdressing topic arises in Jewish approaches to and arguments about whether or not there are religious prohibitions on trans people dressing according to their gender identity as opposed to their sex assigned at birth. Whilst researching the religious anti-trans arguments that trans people are having to battle against, I discovered that the Jewish medieval philosopher, Maimonides, argued in his Guide for the Perplexed that Deuteronomy 22:5 which seems to translate as claiming: 

"A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God"⁹

is actually about preventing idolatry by disallowing the pagan custom of dressing in accordance with the gender of the male or female pagan god. This makes sense to me and strikes me as an accurate, objective reading of the Torah, known as the Old Testament to Christians. Since Judaism is a purely monotheistic religion that only has the one God, this polytheistic, pagan custom is irrelevant and contrary to Judaism. 

So I suggest that Cavendish may have known about Maimonides's reference to pagan worship and crossdressing or somehow come across information about pagan worship elsewhere. Like me, Cavendish may have found it fascinating that people's modern day confusion and issues with dressing in gender non-conforming ways, and even crossdressing, were not shared by people in ancient times. Indeed, as I discuss in my volume 3: Research Thoughts on....Spinoza, the Roman emperor Nero expressed various genders through his clothing and took on different gender roles in marriage, being both a husband and a wife to people of different sexes and genders.¹⁰

So gender roles were sometimes more fluid in ancient times than in Cavendish's era, and even these days in the 21st century when binary biological sex ideology is attempting to take over and suppress scientific knowledge and expression of any genders that don't conform to their so-called gender critical opinions. 

Furthermore, Cavendish generally drew on classical Roman culture and literature. In Roman culture, the god of Mars was a military, protective figure who wore chest armour, a Corinthian helmet, shin guards, and held a shield, sword and spear, and so on. The god of Mars is depicted by the colour red which symbolises blood. So wearing a red cloak would be appropriate. You'd also try to look like an heroic and honourable soldier, dressed in the typical attire worn by an army in battle. Nevertheless, Mars was not some vicious warmongering god. His purpose of going to war was to merely bring about peace, so his values are oriented around peace, not war.

He is also the god of Agriculture, so he can be associated with fertility too. 

So, given Cavendish's periodic classical references, she may be picturing the Princess, at this point, as the Roman god Mars may have looked, whilst, at the same time, being aware of the gender debates and religious controversies surrounding Deuteronomy 22:5. 

At question time, I explained to Tiller¹¹ that the pagan custom and ritual was to dress as the gender of the god one is praying to so everyone dressed in women's clothing when praying to the goddess Venus and everyone dressed in men's attire when praying to the god of Mars. Hence, crossdressing was commonplace amongst pagan worshipers irrespective of gender identity. So, I suggest, that the princess may simply know that she shouldn't wear a petticoat when worshiping Mars, and therefore apologises out loud for wearing female attire because she's breaking the pagan etiquette and customs surrounding correct worship rituals. Therefore, if this is true, then on this picture, that passage may not tell us much about the Princess's internal sense of gender identity because she would apologise for breaking this religious practice, irrespective of her biological sex or her gender identity. 

Tiller¹² replied she was unaware of this pagan crossdressing religious custom. She merely saw this scene as being one of the many shifts in gender throughout this play. And she had interpreted this passage within the context of for instance, another scene towards the end of the play, when the princess ends up, seemingly, a macho male Prince who is liable to remove Lady Happy out the convent by force, using the power of the whole army of a nation. Hence, Tiller¹³ related this later section, referring to war, as being relevant as to why the Princess is praying to Mars, the god of war, earlier in the play. 

The passages in the Convent of Pleasure that I assume Tiller is referring to, are in Act V Scene I.¹⁴

I'll resume my philosophical analysis of this section in the Convent of Pleasure in the next episode. Feel free to follow, like and interact with the official social media channels for Philosophy Fluency, on Instagram, Threads, Facebook, and X. You can also leave a comment on the Spotify platform about an episode. Until next time, have a good week! 

References / bibliography:

¹Cavendish, Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle, First published in: 'Plays, never before printed', Printed in London by A. Maxwell, 1668.

Available online at the University of Pennsylvania Digital Library, edited by Mary Mark Ockerbloom 

Accessed 26 July 2025. 

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

²Ibid

³Digital Cavendish Project. ‘The Convent of Pleasure Edited by Liza Blake and Shawn Moore’, 5 July 2017. http://digitalcavendish.org/complete-works/plays-never-before-printed-1668/convent-of-pleasure/

⁴Ibid 

⁵Cavendish 1668 

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

⁶Ibid 

⁷Tiller, Michaela. 'Cavendish and crossdressing: on the performance and embodiment of gender in English drama' University of Southampton, 2025.

⁸Ibid

⁹Deuteronomy 22:5-11 

¹⁰Kaucky, Liba. Chapter 4: 'Women and Eunuchs – Effeminacy and Power (in the TP)' in Research Thoughts on... Spinoza - Volume 3: A Feminist Approach to Spinoza's Political Treatise (2019)

https://myspinozaresearchdiary.blogspot.com/2019/05/spinoza-vol-3-ebook-chapter-4-women-and.html?m=1

¹¹Tiller 2025

¹²Ibid

¹³Ibid

¹⁴Cavendish 1668 

Part 5: Is the Comparison between Ariel and the Princess Helpful?

Further to my previous four posts, I'm sharing my Philosophy Fluency podcast script. The one in this post is my script for my episode 6, Season 13, in which I extend my research thoughts on Cavendish and Shakespeare, following the Cavendish on Literature conference last month. 

For the reference bibliography of works cited in this episode, see the end of this blog post. 

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

🎧

Hello and welcome to Season 13, episode 6 of Philosophy Fluency. Over cooling ice coffees today, I shall build on my research questions and topics in last week's episode. 

So, picking up from where I left off in the previous episode, there's a wide variety of interpretations of Ariel's gender, ranging from: (interview)

1) Ariel is simply a woman: 

for example, Bianca Summons who suggested back in 2004 that Ariel was originally seen as a woman in Shakespeare's day so we should continue with that historical perspective today¹; 

2) Ariel is androgenous: 

for instance, some read Ariel as androgynous, such as Miranda Garno Nesler's interpretation in 2012² and Goga's MA thesis³ which puts forward a trans androgynous argument in 2022; 

3) Ariel is trans: 

for example, Mary Ann Saunders⁴ who sees Ariel as a transwoman or a trans feminine airy spirit; and Ezra Horbury⁵ who gave a very different, nuanced and historically informed trans interpretation of Ariel in 2021. In Robin Haas's abstract for this year's LAMDA run conference⁶, they argue that Ariel is trans and reflects the trans experience, although, in the abstract, they don't specify in what way Ariel is trans. Nevertheless, Haas⁷ sees parallels to be drawn with the Princess (who they interpret as trans feminine) in Cavendish's playwriting. 

This brings me to the nugget of my argument in this episode and the previous one: 

Once we are aware of the many different ways we can interpret Ariel's gender and overall situation and character, does this help or hinder our interpretation of Cavendish's Princess in the Convent? 

There's obvious differences between them: As Ezra Horbury⁸ points out, Ariel is non-human, a fairy and somewhat childlike, and these are important relevant factors that must contextualise our understanding of Ariel, whilst being aware of Early Modern historical concepts, such as their view of both male and female children as genderless people; and their more genderfluid depiction of fairies than we typically have today, when fairies are now portrayed as cis gender, ultra feminine beings. In the Tempest, Ariel is also trapped in a tree by a witch at one point, whereas the Princess is not trapped in the Convent at all, she is choosing to enter and live in and enjoy the all female world of the Convent of Pleasure. So freedom for Ariel is outside of the confines of the tree, whereas for the Princess, freedom is within the convent, away from the confines of her royal duties outside of the Convent of Pleasure. The purpose is totally different too: the witch is being oppressive by forcing Ariel to live in the tree whereas the purpose of the Convent of Pleasure is not to be oppressive, on the contrary, it is to free females from misogynistic, patriarchal oppression in the world outside and to enable them to be happy, free and flourish to their full potential. 

So I argue that, in terms of the plot and character, there are not many parallels to be drawn, indeed there's many important dissimilarities. 

If we nevertheless wish to explore the gender expressions and identities of Ariel and the Princess, perhaps amongst other characters in Elizabethan and Early Modern plays, then I think drawing parallels are interesting but limited. 

Do we: 

1) compare and contrast Ariel and the Princess then interpret their gender as ultimately different expressions and identities? 

Or 2) would we have to remain with the same gender identity between Ariel and the Princess to remain consistent in our research approach? If so, then do we read the Princess's gender in light of Ariel's gender, or the other way round? Should Shakespeare's writings be so influential on our interpretation of Cavendish's own authorial intentions? On this approach, if Ariel is a trans woman or trans feminine then so is the Princess. If Ariel is non-binary then so is the Princess. If Ariel is androgynous then so is the Princess. 

This tension of which to choose and why, should come down to what solid textual evidence we have. Nevertheless, different scholars have different readings of Ariel despite having access to the same original Shakespearean text. With Cavendish's play, the original Convent of Pleasure text has been complicated by the slips which muddy the water about Cavendish's authorial intentions and whether all passages in the printed text inform us correctly about Cavendish's depiction of the Princess's gender. 

Hence, I argue, whether we read the Princess as a woman; a trans woman; a trans feminine person; a somewhat androgynous person; a non-binary person; or a genderfluid person depends more on the wording of the Convent of Pleasure and what weighting we are prepared to give the slips or not, than being too concerned with the literary context of other Early Modern plays, informative and interesting as it is, especially within the field of Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Gender. 

Do join me next week, for more Philosophy Fluency and an analysis of Cavendish's Princess and Lady Happy in the Convent. Have a good week and enjoy the lovely summer weather. If you'd like to read the scripts for these last few podcast episodes, they're available on my blog: The Feminist Margaret Cavendish Circle. 

References/ Bibliography: 

Text discussed:

Cavendish, Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle, First published in: 'Plays, never before printed', Printed in London by A. Maxwell, 1668.

Available online at the University of Pennsylvania Digital Library, edited by Mary Mark Ockerbloom 

Accessed 26 July 2025. 

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

¹Joubin, 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 and Appropriation 14, no. 2 (28 April 2023). doi:10.18274/bl.v14i2.351. pdf version p119

²Ibid 

³Goga, Aurora Jonathan. 'Gendering “Ariel and all his Quality” (I.II.193): Nonbinary Embodiment in Text and Performances of The Tempest.' Master’s Thesis in English Literature and Culture, Department of Foreign Languages, University of Bergen (May 2022)

https://bora.uib.no/bora-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/3000920/Aurora-Jonathan-Goga---Gendering-Ariel-and-All-his-Quality.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

⁴Joubin, Alexa Alice, and Mary Ann S. Saunders. (28 April 2023). 

⁵Ibid; Horbury, Ezra. Early Modern Transgender Fairies. (2020) draft paper available at: 

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10113822/3/Horbury_TSQ%20Early%20Modern%20Transgender%20Fairies%20Revised.pdf 

Later published as: 

Horbury, Ezra. ‘Early Modern Transgender Fairies’. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly 8, no. 1 (1 February 2021): 75–95. doi:10.1215/23289252-8749596.

⁶Haas, Robin. ' “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' paper presentation at the 47th Comparative Drama Conference 9th July 2025

‘CDC 2025’. Accessed 25 June 2025. 

Conference website: 

http://comparativedramaconference.org/

2025 Abstracts: 

https://www.lamda.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Bookof Abstracts-47th ComparativeDramaConference.pdf

⁷Ibid

⁸Horbury 2020; 2021

Part 4: Aesthetics and Gender: Ariel and the Princess

As in my previous three posts, I'm sharing my Philosophy Fluency podcast script. This one below is for episode 5, Season 13, which explores a selection of my research thoughts on Cavendish and Shakespeare after attending the Cavendish on Literature conference last month. 

For the reference bibliography of works cited in this episode, see the end of this blog post. 

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

🎧

Hello and welcome to Philosophy Fluency, Season 13, episode 5. This week in London, UK, we have another heatwave so, I'll pour out some iced coffee and begin exploring a slightly different research angle to the trans reading of Shakespeare's character of Ariel in his play 'The Tempest' and Margaret Cavendish's character of the Princess in her play: 'The Convent of Pleasure'. 

My discussion is within the fields of the History of Philosophy; Aesthetics, in particular the philosophy of literature and the philosophy of theatre; the Philosophy of Gender; LGBTQIAPD2S+ Philosophy; and Intersectional Feminist Philosophy. 

In this episode, I shall continue to disseminate some of my latest Cavendish research thoughts and show its relevance to recent scholarship in academia. 

In this episode, I shall take the parallel between Shakespeare's Ariel and Cavendish's Princess that Robin Haas draws in their paper, when she reads both these characters as transwomen. 

I am currently exploring the following research questions: 

Why read Ariel as being a transwoman as opposed to being a non-binary character? Such as either androgenous, which is a trans non-binary gender identity; or as genderfluid, which isn't an inherently transgender identity, that depends on whether the person or fictional character is still partially cisgender or not. 

If there is a parallel to be drawn between Ariel and the Princess, then, if we were to interpret Ariel as non-binary, would this give us a non-binary understanding of the Princess or not? 

If the Princess is non-binary, would this be a trans non-binary gender identity, such as essentially gender neutral, or androgynous? Or would the Princess be more like a third gender, akin to those in other cultures, such as the Muxes in Mexico who are often born male but present as non-binary or trans feminine and undertake female gender roles and jobs alongside women in female spaces? Or would the Princess be genderfluid, like the ever shape shifting character of Ariel? Would the Princess be a trans or non-trans type of genderfluid person? 

Or, if we understand Robin Haas's argument to amount to the Princess as being more in line with being trans feminine rather than fully a trans woman, then would we end up with the Princess being somewhat non-binary, as in a feminine-aligned non-binary person? 

Or, do the similarities and differences between Ariel and the Princess simply tell us that attempts to draw parallels break down? Why? Because, one could argue, Ariel is a spirit or somewhat non-human therefore inherently more genderless and shape shifting, whereas the Princess is very much a human being, hence gender and social roles and expectations and forming real relationships is a far more relevant concept to explore than it is with Ariel. 

It would seem that Mary Ann Saunders's trans focused reading of Ariel¹, and Robin Elizabeth Haas's trans reading of the Princess² are unusual within Shakespeare and Cavendish scholarship. 

In terms of LGBTQ+ readings of Ariel, especially within English Literature scholarship: 

It is more typical of gender diverse approaches to interpretations of Ariel to argue that Ariel is a non-binary, perhaps a genderfluid, or an androgynous or a genderless character. 

A standard reading of Ariel (on educational platforms) is described thus, and I quote:

"Ariel's gender is flexible, interpreted differently over time, enhancing his magical quality in the play."³

"Over the years, Ariel has been played by both male and female actors, and the character’s gender is open to artistic interpretation."⁴

For instance, in the Elizabethan times, in Shakespeare's era, the role of Ariel was played by young male actors because women by and large were not allowed to go into the acting profession. Later, in the Restoration period, the character of Ariel was played by women. This is perhaps relevant to our understanding of Robin Haas's interpretative approach, given that their research interest and specialisation apparently lies in the Restoration period, because her PhD student profile on the Department of English section of the Rutgers University website states, and I quote:

"They are particularly interested in questions of identity and performance on the Restoration stage and at the 18th-century masquerade"⁵

So perhaps there's some Restoration period staging assumptions at work within Robin Haas's trans approach to Shakespeare's and Cavendish's plays. 

Nevertheless, more standard readings of Ariel highlight that Ariel is referred to using masculine pronouns during the play, including within stage directions (stating "his wings") and Ariel refers to himself with a male pronoun when he talks about "his quality"⁶. 

Nonetheless, some explain away any masculine pronouns by reminding us that this might simply be the playwrighting convention of Shakespeare's time, given that all actors were men. 

However, Jamieson points out in this educational resource that, and I quote:

"Consequently, directors have never taken a hard stance on Ariel's gender. In many ways, this is fitting, as the sexlessness of this spirit helps to perpetuate the airy magical quality for which Ariel is famous."⁷

Hence, for instance, other scholars and graduate students have explored the idea that Ariel is better understood as a non-binary character, outside of the male/female gender binary. For example, in the MA thesis: 'Gendering “Ariel and all his Quality” (I.II.193): Nonbinary Embodiment in Text and Performances of The Tempest.', Goga argues for a non-binary understanding of Ariel⁸. I've only just discovered this MA thesis, but I'd be interested to read it in more detail. What I can initially gather from the thesis abstract, is that this argument may amount to a trans non-binary, and more specifically, an androgenous, interpretation of Ariel⁹. Goga mentions that trans interpretations of Ariel are rare and feels that readings and some stagings of Ariel tend to fall into the gender binary of either masculine or feminine depictions¹⁰. 

Do join me early next week for more Philosophy Fluency, in which I build on this week's episode. In the meantime, enjoy the sunshine! 

Works cited in this episode:

¹Joubin, 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/35

²Haas, Robin Elizabeth. ‘Collaboration, Publication, and Queer/Trans Recognition in Margaret Cavendish’s The Convent of Pleasure’. University of Southampton, (2025).

³Jamieson, Lee. ‘Who Was Ariel in Shakespeare’s “The Tempest?”’ ThoughtCo. (Updated on February 04, 2020) Last Accessed 9 July 2025. 

https://www.thoughtco.com/ariel-in-the-tempest-2985274.

⁴Ibid

⁵Department of English. ‘Details’. Accessed 9 July 2025. 

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

⁶Jamieson (2020)

⁷Ibid

⁸Goga, Aurora Jonathan. 'Gendering “Ariel and all his Quality” (I.II.193): Nonbinary Embodiment in Text and Performances of The Tempest.' Master’s Thesis in English Literature and Culture, Department of Foreign Languages, University of Bergen (May 2022) 

https://bora.uib.no/bora-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/3000920/Aurora-Jonathan-Goga---Gendering-Ariel-and-All-his-Quality.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

⁹Ibid

¹⁰Ibid

Part 3: Cavendish, the Princess, Gender and the Slips

Further to my previous post, here I'd like to share my podcast script for episode 4 of Season 13, which includes a selection of my research thoughts on Cavendish after attending the Cavendish on Literature conference last month. 

For the reference bibliography of works cited in this episode, see the end of this blog post. 

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

🎧

Hello and welcome to Philosophy Fluency, Season 13, episode 4!

In last week's episode, I contextualised Robin Elizabeth Haas's paper¹ at the Cavendish on Literature conference that I attended last month at Southampton University by seeing it in relation to other scholarship in her chosen topics in her paper. Over ice cold coffees today during this heatwave in London, UK, I shall build on the exploration of whether the character of the Princess in Cavendish's play 'The Convent of Pleasure' is trans or not by extending my more descriptive discussion of my research last week to my analytical research analysis of the debate this week. This is still seasonal for LGBT+ Pride, despite Pride Month ending on Monday, because there's still plenty of Pride Parades to go, including the big London Pride Parade this Saturday. 

I ended the last episode on Mary Ann Saunders's interpretation of Shakespeare's character of Ariel in The Tempest as being trans. How so? Well, briefly put, Ariel is referred to with masculine pronouns in the play, but nevertheless, three times within the play, Ariel changes into looking female. 

To be more specific and nuanced about her scholarship, Saunders draws on her personal experiences as she specifically moulds her trans interpretation to the way Ariel was depicted in Julie Taymor's film version of Shakespeare's The Tempest, released in 2010². In her research within the field of Literature, Writing and Discourse, Saunders explores the question of the extent to which cisgender writers fall into, conscious and perhaps unconscious, cisgender bias and stereotyping³. Saunders was especially concerned about scholarly interpretations containing nasty, anti-trans bias when she read a paper which viciously described the film's visual depiction of Ariel as physically looking part male and part female as, and I quote: "grotesque", "monstrous", a "body horror" while wrongly and insultingly claiming that it's an "impossible" looking body, despite this reflecting many trans people's personal experiences of transitioning⁴. So, despite not being a Philosopher, Saunders began her stance by responding to arguments made within secondary literature on Shakespeare. 

She also finds contemporary relevance to this. For instance, raising awareness of anti-trans stereotypes that depict transwomen as faking their womanhood to trick people into relationships they wouldn't consent to if they knew they were trans⁵. In the case of Ariel in The Tempest, the scene in question is when Prospero turns Ariel into presumably a female-presenting sea nymph in order to deceive and entice a Prince into desiring Ariel⁶. 

Here we can see the potential parallel with some anti-trans readings of the Princess in Cavendish's 'The Convent of Pleasure' as essentially being a man tricking his way into the female-only space of the Convent to trick an unsuspecting lesbian into a sexual relationship and marriage with a biological cis man Prince merely masquerading as a biological cis woman Princess. 

However, I think that Saunders has given herself more margin for error so she can keep her argument and scholarship easily plausible, defendable and contained by limiting the scope and focus of her initial trans reading of Ariel to a specific paper about a depiction in a specific film. That way, she can support her arguments as comprising of true, quite indisputable statements, for instance, that there's textual evidence that papers analysing the depiction of Ariel in that 2010 film can contain anti-trans stereotypes and bias that alienate trans people and ignore their trans experiences. 

In contrast, I suggest that Robin Elizabeth Haas⁷ has set herself a much harder task by making more sweeping statements in her scholarship and by relying on the authenticity of the slips. I haven't yet made a detailed study of what assurances we have that these slips are beyond all doubt, definitely written by Margaret Cavendish. 

But let's just indulge in exploring a few hypotheses for a moment, to put together some initial research questions, such as: Why would Margaret Cavendish need to attach corrections slips to books she, I believe, was self-publishing? She began self-publishing, albeit through a printer, from 1653, and The Convent of Pleasure, first appeared when she self-published her collection Plays Never Before Printed in 1668, using the female printer Anne Maxwell. So Cavendish presumably wouldn't need to add slips to correct a publisher or a sexist male printer because she was already using a woman's printing service for about the last two years. 

Suppose Margaret Cavendish never instructed or wrote any paper slips? How could we establish whether any of the slips, all of them, or none of them, are fakes? 

For instance, has the paper used for these slips been scanned and analysed for signs that they date back to her in the 17th century? What assurances do we have that Cavendish authored or instructed these slips herself? Given the shocking discovery of the fake Dead sea Scrolls, what checks have been conducted to ensure none of the slips in Cavendish's works are fakes, either added in a previous century, or in the 21st century? After all, some misogynistic men in her lifetime falsely claimed that Margaret Cavendish did not author all her own work. For instance, even the Cavendish family's own doctor and fellow Natural Philosopher, Walter Charleton, pretended that Cavendish was not the original, independent female writer and sole author of her works as she sold herself to be⁸. Furthermore, although Cavendish had difficult publishers, which is why she went on to self-publish, she is no longer having to battle male publisher's at time these slips were added to The Convent of Pleasure. 

So, given this negative historical backdrop of plotting against the reputation of Margaret Cavendish, it's not impossible that someone would be motivated to create some fake slips to alter her work to make it appear as though she depended on her husband to help her write her work, and to convince people that she, Margaret Cavendish, was misrepresenting herself as a capable, intelligent, independent woman who never needed to co-author in order to produce her ideas and books. 

This is a typical misogynistic stance that attempts to destroy women's reputation and work. As soon as their work is of a high standard you try to pretend they couldn't possibly have done it themselves. Unbelievably, this type of misogynistic nonsense still circulates today against talented, highly intelligent women. And now we're trying to impose this misogyny onto women in the past. The 18/19th century philosopher, Mary Shepherd has also suffered from this recently. Scholarship⁹ is trying to remove one of her treatises by claiming it was written by a man. A preposterous idea because the man in question wasn't even a philosopher. 

Therefore, it is important and rather pivotal to establish the authenticity  of these slips otherwise researchers could be distracted away from focusing on Margaret Cavendish and focusing instead on her husband, William, and whether he, the long-suffering husband, was simply not accredited for his contribution to her writings. This appropriates women's history by coming out with a competing claim that women write men out of history too for which researchers have no evidence. It's rather a fanciful claim in the modern sense of the word. Indeed, this focus on William has already been suggested at the end of the Southampton conference, to my horror because William Cavendish himself stated that her poems were written solely by her and defended his stance against the doctor who tried to claim otherwise. Why are we questioning William's defence of his wife, Margaret? 

It's also unacceptable to take attention away from a female philosopher/scientist and start emphasizing the alleged importance of a man, worse still, a husband. 

This is an identity issue. Just as we try to rebalance the history of philosophy to celebrate under represented groups, such as women, especially as in Cavendish's case, a woman who was genderfluid and a lesbian, we try to turn attention back to a man. 

This sounds like some modern gender critical and anti-LGBT ideology being imposed on past women writers/philosophers especially if they are perceived as going against sexist societal expectations by not being simpering, feminine, good Christian women. In this way, identity is written out of history to support the notion it never existed in the first place.  

The 18th century philosopher and writer Mary Wollstonecraft suffered from this too. Today, many scholars agree that Wollstonecraft was sapphic which led to her being included in Islington's Pride LGBTQ+ heritage plaques project, acknowledging her sapphic identity¹⁰. This plaque is pink coloured but a distinctive rectangular shape which highlights her "queer legacy"¹¹ and that she had lesbian relationships with women. Wollstonecraft used to also have a circular pink plaque, which was pink rather than the usual blue London plaque to specifically commemorate women's achievements in history. Although it was only recently erected, it was no sooner up then down. It's now listed as lost. It has been mysteriously, quietly removed and not replaced. According to London Remembers¹², it was taken down on some vague excuse that it was because of renovations to the frontage of the building. Why wasn't it permanently on the wall of the building like all other plaques? Wollstonecraft is an excellent example of far right ideology suppressing anything that isn't binary, heterosexual, emphasizing the differences between men and women. That is, men being geniuses and women, well, just a sad inferior version of men.

Returning to Margaret Cavendish. I really hope that the slips are authentic and that we can know, beyond all reasonable doubt, that they are originals and therefore can inform our Cavendish scholarship. I presume that such checks have already been carried out before the slips have been incorporated into Cavendish scholarship. Nevertheless, I shall take the precaution of continuing to research and question the authenticity of these slips, before I base my interpretation of Margaret Cavendish too heavily on them. Because, Margaret Cavendish was a very self assured woman who was confident in her own intellectual abilities so she wouldn't want her husband indeed any man to help her or adjust her writings And, furthermore, she was a feminist, before the word was in circulation, so wanted to show that a woman can live by the pen and be famous by their own efforts. 

After all the medieval feminist courtly writer, Christine de Pizan was widely acclaimed by royalty and intellectuals as the first woman to live by the pen. Her poetry and prose was widely known and hugely respected. Perhaps Margaret Cavendish modelled herself on de Pizan. The latter was a court writer and Margaret Cavendish was at court as part of Queen Henrietta Maria's close circle. So there's a similarity between them, right there, especially since both were in French courts for a period of time, even though they were born elsewhere. And this may be why Cavendish, inspired by de Pizan, also wrote poetry and prose.

In my opinion, the certainty of the authenticity of the slips is a pressing issue, given that entire editions of Cavendish's work are relying on the slips being of scholarly value and relevance, and that PhD student researchers such as Robin Elizabeth Haas are relying on the perceived wisdom in academia that these slips are genuine and do tell us something significant about Margaret Cavendish's authorial intentions and wishes. 

Enjoy the lovely weather and do join me next week for the next installment of Season 13 on Cavendish and more Philosophy Fluency. 

Works cited in this episode:

¹Haas, Robin Elizabeth. ‘Collaboration, Publication, and Queer/Trans Recognition in Margaret Cavendish’s The Convent of Pleasure’. University of Southampton, 2025.

²Joubin, 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/35

Ibid

⁴Fisher, 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. 

⁵ Fisher (2016); Joubin, Saunders (2023)

⁶ Fisher (2016); Joubin, Saunders (2023)

⁷ Haas (2025)

⁸Semler, L.E. Stories of Selves and Infidels: Walter Charleton’s Letter to Margaret Cavendish (1655). In: Shaw, J., Kelly, P., Semler, L.E. (eds) Storytelling: Critical and Creative Approaches. Palgrave Macmillan, London. (2013)

 https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137349958_15

⁹Boyle, D., “A Mistaken Attribution to Lady Mary Shepherd”, Journal of Modern Philosophy 2: 5. (2020)

doi: https://doi.org/10.25894/jmp.2077

¹⁰ Islington’s Pride. ‘Our 50 LGBTQ+ Heritage Plaques Across Islington’, 18 May 2021.

https://islingtonspride.com/2021/05/18/50-heritage-plaques-2/.

¹¹ Ibid

¹² London Remembers. ‘Mary Woollstonecraft - Lost Plaque’. Accessed 9 July 2025.

https://www.londonremembers.com/memorials/mary-woollstonecraft-lost-plaque/.