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