Contextualising Cavendish the Cavalier (14.8)

Below is the script for Season 14, episode 8 of my Philosophy Fluency podcast. 

You can listen to this episode here.

🎧 

Hello and welcome to Philosophy Fluency, Season 14 episode 8. During gingerbread mocha coffees today, I shall continue my analysis of Margaret Cavendish, by deepening my discussion of my historical, social, and literary contextualising of her in my research, whilst relating what I'm currently working on to Susan James's three Cavendish talks that I attended this year. 

Last week I was setting out an overview of the generic framework of contextualising Cavendish. This period in history is quite complex and since I'm concerned with only Margaret Cavendish's writings, I'll stay with a relatively simplistic historical overview. 

I mentioned how Queen Henrietta Maria's court heavily influenced the literature that emerged from it and how eminent male writers, such as Davenant, also required approval from the Queen and her circle of women. I also mentioned how 'fancy' was a key concept and tool of the Cavalier writer.

Who is a Cavalier? The word started as an uncomplimentary nickname for wealthy people who were Royalists and believed in the divine right of kings, which, in their day, meant supporting King Charles I and his son, Charles II. I suggest Margaret Cavendish's Royalist views may have influenced her character of the Prince/Princess in her play, The Convent of Pleasure, since the character claims they are wanted as a ruler of a foreign land. Cavaliers would thus assume that this meant the Prince/Princess might have the potential social status of a divine king-like ruler who might only be answerable to God. Given this, it would follow that they can marry the woman of their choosing, irrespective of whether a puritanically pious woman agrees with the marriage or not. 

The ideal Cavalier man combined masculine pursuits, such as knowing how to ride a horse into battle during a war, with being scholarly, especially in the fields of Philosophy, Poetry, and Science. 

So, I suggest, Cavendish is being a typical Cavalier in her writings in not only her subject matters such as war but also in her writing style which drew on poetic techniques together with the scholarly disciplines of natural science and philosophy. She was known to wear a scholars hat so clearly identified as one. 

Furthermore, Cavendish also dressed as a Cavalier, not only when dressing in women's clothes but also when dressing in men's attire. However, her Cavalier allegiances are more obvious when she dresses as a typical male Cavalier because it was a distinctive, visually striking fashion. Hence, I argue, Cavendish was perhaps making a political statement about her Royalist loyalties by choosing to wear men's Cavalier attire specifically, as opposed to men's clothing per se.

I wish to put forward the idea that her Cavalier fashion strongly indicates that this was also part of her identity which is highly relevant to both her style of writing and the content of her works. Therefore, I place Margaret Cavendish and her works within the Cavalier tradition. 

On the opposing side of the Cavaliers were the Roundheads, a political group who were Parliamentarians and anti-monarchy. Therefore, they wanted Parliament to be the main source of power, rather than the Monarch. Most Roundheads also belonged to the Puritans, which was a religious ideology, who wished to impose a strict Christian morality; opposed the monarchy on religious grounds and tried to ensure that all semblance of Catholicism be stripped away. This was unfortunate since the queen, Henrietta Maria, the wife of Charles I, was a Catholic. 

Oliver Cromwell was the leader of both the Roundheads and Puritans. And it was he who replaced the king, Charles I, becoming Lord Protector of the land.

What was distinctive about Cavalier writers? Cavalier writers were usually referred to as Cavalier Poets, even if they didn't exclusively write poetry. They weren't simply Cavaliers who happened to write. There was an entire style and approach that they mostly had in common so they formed a somewhat cohesive group but with many individual differences within it.

The hallmarks of their writings include: the glorification of honour (a favourite topic of Cavendish); the value of fancy and fantasy (which is a theme in Cavendish); being flamboyant (which Cavendish certainly was); valuing and praising pleasure and advocating being the best version of yourself (which reminds me of how the women in Cavendish's play want to become their best selves and live their best life by entering the Convent of Pleasure). 

Cavalier writers used more direct language so it was easier for readers to understand their meaning. This was sometimes denigrated as sounding somewhat uneducated, despite their class. So I wonder whether Cavendish isn't merely talking like a Cavalier when she seems to excuse her uneducated style of writing. 

It's easy to take this too literally these days and jump to conclusions that she's referring to her level of educational attainment and that of Early Modern women.

How elaborate or scholarly a reader finds the style is also relative to the era of the reader. For a Cavalier, a mixture of almost uneducated simplicity together with the use of beautiful poetic devices struck the right scholarly, social and political balance, especially if it was written in such a way that it avoided sounding like the style and values of the Parliamentarian Roundheads, the Puritans or the Metaphysical Poets such as John Donne.

A word of caution here: Don't get confused by the word metaphysical here. These poets were far more religious and spiritual than the Cavaliers and their idea of philosophy conformed to it, hence they favoured topics such as, free will, the existence of God and so on. The Cavalier poets, however, favoured secular subjects and earthly, not transcendent, pleasures.

Thus, when I refer to the way Cavendish has a somewhat ornate style of writing, I'm not referring to the way in which the Metaphysical Poets could be ornate. Theirs was ornate in a more transcendent, artificial, religious way, whereas the Cavaliers were ornate in a more flamboyant, Royalist style, like a beautiful palace, and preferred references to the natural world and romantic love. 

Unlike the Roundheads, the Cavaliers did have a few women writers, so Margaret Cavendish was not the only one. Others included Aphra Behn and Katherine Phillips who both wrote plays and poems, amongst other forms of writing. 

Do join me next week for more Philosophy Fluency which will be a continuation of contextualising Margaret Cavendish's writings. Meanwhile, have a good week and take care.

Contextualising Cavendish (14.7)

Below is the script for Season 14, episode 7 of my Philosophy Fluency podcast. 

You can listen to this episode here.

🎧 

Hello and welcome to Philosophy Fluency, Season 14 episode 7. On Wednesday, 19th of November, I attended the Symposium ‘Exercises in Early Modern Thought: Philosophy, Arts, Science, Theology, Politics’ at the MFO in Oxford, where Professor Emerita Susan James presented an excellent paper which stems from her longer paper that she presented at the 'Cavendish on Literature' 3 day conference at Southampton University in June this year which, as you all know, I also attended. 

So, over caramel coffees today, I shall resume my discussion of Margaret Cavendish, but by springing off from Susan James's three Cavendish talks that I attended this year. 

Therefore, although I have further ideas to explore about Cavendish's play 'The Convent of Pleasure', I shall nonetheless share with you another aspect of my research on Cavendish that I've been working on for a long time, that is: The historical and literary context of, and environment within which Cavendish worked and how it sheds light on her writings and perspective. 

Immediately after attending the Cavendish on Literature conference in June this year, I was inspired by Susan James's talk to research more closely how the historical and the literary contexts are intertwined and mutually supportive and how and why it's useful to look at both when gaining an understanding of Cavendish's various writing styles and books. 

Just like with Spinoza, Susan James and I ended up with our research on him being like two sides of the same coin: We've both taken a contextual approach: She situated Spinoza within the context of the Dutch society, politics, religion and intellectual debates around him; I situated him within the context of being a Dutch Jew with a Portuguese Jewish background, therefore I focused on his Jewish identity, the Jewish education he received at his Dutch synagogue and the Jewish people and Rabbis around him within his Jewish community. 

In much the same way, we seem to be taking two sides of the same coin again, as we contextualise Margaret Cavendish within her historical era and the environment she lived in. For both of us, this includes the backdrop of the English Civil war, during which the royal family and their court were forced into exile. Susan James saw the relevance to the English Civil war during the paper she gave on January the 27th this year titled: “Margaret Cavendish and the Unavoidability of War”. 

We also both look at some influential poets who moved within royal circles, namely Davenant and Philip Sidney with a view to understanding and contextualising Cavendish within her intellectual environment. 

However, because Susan James is responding to the themes set out by the Cavendish on Literature conference, she has expanded on Cavendish's views on writing, as well as the relevance of the context and impact of the literary criticism of others, hence she includes the literary criticisms of George Puttenham (1529–1590), and Philip Sidney (1554 –1586) who wrote critical essays. This is especially apparent in the conference description which asks: 

"How do Cavendish’s claims about literature relate to those of her contemporaries, such as Philip Sidney, Ben Johnson or William Davenant, or to ancient views in circulation in the early modern era."¹

My focus, however, is not on literary criticism but rather on the literary circles that Margaret Cavendish moved in. Since I didn't submit an abstract for the Cavendish on Literature conference's call for papers, I can simply build on my previous research thoughts and add to them as I respond to the latest Cavendish scholarship. I, therefore, outline where my interpretation of Cavendish is situated within the Cavendish research papers presented at talks I've attended this year. 

For instance, this means that I have chosen to add in women's history and women's literature more explicitly as I contextualise Cavendish in my research. This includes the context of the achievements of historical women during the English Civil war and their relevance to Cavendish's views on gender and war. 

I also expand out to look at the sister of Philip Sidney: Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, who left a legacy for other women writers like herself to follow in her footsteps; together with Philip and Mary Sidney's trailblazing niece, Mary Wroth, who was a bold and inventive poet and writer much like Margaret Cavendish herself. 

When it comes to the literary figures of Philip Sidney, Davenant and so on, I'm narrowing down their relevance to the Royalist Cavalier literary movement together with a general awareness of the historical, political and literary context of that movement, such as, the Renaissance, Jacobean and Baroque eras. The early baroque period started in the early 17th century but morphed into the Late baroque period, which is often referred to as the Rococo period, in the early 18th century. But strict demarcations are not always helpful. 

There's always somewhat an overlap between eras.

And so it proves to be in this case which is why I also draw parallels between the light-hearted, witty, entertaining style of the Cavaliers and the lighter, more playful, ornamental style of the Rococo period that follows it. I politically and aesthetically contrast the Cavalier literary and social movement with their opposition: the Puritans, who had a distinctively moralising, stark style, partly due to their aversion to ornamental rhetoric, such as the type used during the Renaissance. The Puritans objected to Royal power for religious reasons so tried to panic people into what they deemed a moral life. 

Early modern Puritans clashed with the attitudes of the Cavaliers in ways relevant to Cavendish, for instance, by being against pleasure, even to the extent of seeing normal public entertainment, such as putting on a play at the theatre, as encouraging vice. Whereas Cavaliers, in their writings, emphasized pleasure and living a flamboyant life.

So, whilst not being bound by the agenda set by these conferences I nonetheless build on them. I'm extending my research into a deeper understanding of the historical context of the royal court of Queen Henrietta Maria, wife of Charles I, who went into exile, to France, during the English Civil War when the monarchy was overthrown and Oliver Cromwell ruled in its stead. 

The Puritans were the dominant force in England at this time hence I think this is an important political, cultural, aesthetic debate and clash within Cavendish's environment within which she writes her works. Cavendish, of course, was not a Puritan as I've shown when discussing her play 'The Convent of Pleasure'. So the title of her play is also telling. The word 'pleasure' aligns with the Cavalier writings which, as I have already mentioned, emphasized pleasure.

As maid of honour to the queen Cavendish moved in royal circles. Therefore, I maintain her greatest influence was the inner royal circle around Henrietta Maria, although, unlike Cavendish, Queen Henrietta Maria was a Catholic. The queen and the women in her inner circle set the standard for literary works. This didn't just affect women writers but men too, such as, Davenant. So, I suggest that Cavendish, being scarcely out of her teens at this point, would have been greatly influenced by, and maybe even intimidated by, this group of women literary critics within the royal court of Henrietta Maria.

Hence, Susan James and I perhaps have slightly different, although not incompatible, purposes for discussing the same literary people such as Davenant: hers is from the point of exploring literary criticisms which may underpin Cavendish's writing style, choices and so on; mine is to explore the Royalist Cavalier environment and social milieu within which Cavendish created her works. 

For me, this extends to my research question I have set myself: Should we also contextualise Cavendish's works and writing style within the context of the debate surrounding her that argued for and against the value of what was termed 'fancy' when trying to attain knowledge in science and natural philosophy? 

For example, in 1668, the Royal Society criticised the use of imaginative fancy because it argued that it was inferior to, and a barrier to, the sciences, which, they claimed, should be rooted in empirical observation only. 

Margaret Cavendish, in turn, was critical of the Royal Society and its narrow attitude. She argued that imagination or imaginative fancy was similar to thought experiments and scientific hypotheses and reason superior to experimental method and equipment.

On Cavendish's view it would be more scholarly and erudite to draw on poetic devices and ornate rhetoric such as was found in the classical period. She disliked the Royal Society's stark, simplistic style, possibly because for her it was reminiscent of the Puritans.

Do join me very soon for more Philosophy Fluency. Meanwhile, have a good week. At least the weather will be warmer.

¹Margaret Cavendish on Literature Conference, Southampton, UK, 10-12 June: Call for Abstracts. Held at: Avenue Campus, University of Southampton

https://margaretcavendishsociety1.wordpress.com/tag/earlymodernwomen/

Cavendish on Witchcraft (Season 14.6)

Below is the script for the Halloween special on Margaret Cavendish's writings, published as episode 5 of Season 14 for my Philosophy Fluency podcast. 

You can listen to this episode here.

🎧 

Hello and welcome to Philosophy Fluency's Halloween themed episode 6 of Season 14. Did you all hear the storm in London, UK this evening, on Halloween?! That wasn't forecast but if you are the superstitious type, it was so bad, you'd think the witches were out in force for Halloween! 

So to comfort ourselves on this cold, wet, windy, thunderstorm night let's all enjoy some pumpkin spiced coffees with chocolate covered slimy witch marshmallows on top. 

I've prepared about 4 versions of this episode, but at the last minute I've decided to go with the Halloween theme by saying a few words about the relevance of witchcraft and superstition to Margaret Cavendish's philosophy. It's not some wacky topic I've just thought up. It's a thing. You can read more about it in scholarship, such as Jacqueline Broad's 2007 paper: 'Margaret Cavendish and Joseph Glanvill: science, religion, and witchcraft' published in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A; and Stewart Duncan's 'Cavendish on the Supernatural' written for the Oxford Handbook of Margaret Cavendish. 

There's also some interesting general knowledge articles freely available on the internet that explain the historical context of the persecution and suffering of ordinary women falsely accused of witchcraft. I'll share some of these sources on the Philosophy Fluency Facebook page for ease of reference. 

Margaret Cavendish mainly analyses the topic of witchcraft in her work: Philosophical Letters, in which she details her natural philosophy. Cavendish was ahead of time in arguing that witches were not some bizarre, dangerous, supernatural women and she's absolutely right. Witches were just innocent women falsely accused and persecuted by religious people and the patriarchy. 

In England this persecution was at its height during Cavendish's lifetime, especially during the puritanical era. 

Cavendish wrote how normal women were even put to death, simply due to the false accusation of witchcraft. As a scientist and materialist, Cavendish thought witchcraft was merely the product of people's superstitious tendencies. It's important to remember that she doesn't believe in immaterial things, hence she even argues for a material, natural soul, as opposed to a supernatural, divine soul. Cavendish's explanation for the fear and superstition surrounding so-called witchcraft was that it arises whenever there's a failure in understanding a cause. So ignorance about causation generates superstitious, false beliefs. 

To give you a flavour of the original wording and arguments in Cavendish's Philosophical Letters, I'll read the opening section of Letter XVI: 

 "MADAM,

MY opinion of Witches and Witchcraft, (of whose Power and strange effects your Author is pleased to relate many stories) in brief, is this; My Sense and Reason doth inform me, that there is Natural Witchcraft, as I may call it, which is Sym∣pathy, Antipathy, Magnetisme, and the like, which are made by the sensitive and rational motions between several Creatures, as by Imagination, Fancy, Love, Aversion, and many the like; but these Motions, be∣ing sometimes unusual and strange to us, we not know∣ing their causes, (For what Creature knows all moti∣ons in Nature, and their ways.) do stand amazed at their working power; and by reason we cannot assign any Natural cause for them, are apt to ascribe their effects to the Devil; but that there should be any such devillish Witchcraft, which is made by a Covenant and Agreement with the Devil, by whose power Men do enchaunt or bewitch other Creatures, I cannot readily believe. Certainly, I dare say, that many a good, old honest woman hath been condemned innocently, and suffered death wrongfully, by the sentence of some foolish and cruel Judges, meerly upon this suspition of Witchcraft, when as really there hath been no such thing; for many things are done by slights or juggling Arts, wherein neither the Devil nor Witches are Actors."¹

So, as we see here, Cavendish, like Spinoza, is against superstitious mental habits and patterns of thinking as a lazy, unscientific way of filling in gaps in our knowledge. I've only begun researching this aspect of Cavendish's philosophy so I'll expand on this at a later date. Do join me next time for more Philosophy Fluency. Have a fun Halloween and weekend. 

Cavendish, Margaret 'Philosophical letters, or, Modest reflections upon some opinions in natural philosophy maintained by several famous and learned authors of this age, expressed by way of letters / by the thrice noble, illustrious, and excellent princess the Lady Marchioness of Newcastle.' 1664, 

published in London, available at:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53058.0001.001/1:6.3.16?rgn=div3&view=fulltext 

Lady Happy's Sexual Orientation (Season 14.5 Part 2)

Below is the script for Season 14, episode 5 of my Philosophy Fluency podcast. 

You can listen to this episode here.

🎧 

Hello and welcome to Philosophy Fluency Season 14 episode 5. This week has been rather rainy and stormy here in London, UK, so let's settle in and make ourselves comfy on the sofa with our large mugs of warming gingerbread coffees as I continue my research thoughts on the possible sexual orientation of the character of Lady Happy in Margaret Cavendish's play The Convent of Pleasure. 

Last week I covered several possible sexual orientations for Lady Happy: Lesbian; Sapphic; Plurisexual; Pansexual; Omnisexual; Polysexual; Berrisexual (otherwise known as Laurian). 

In this episode, I'll cover various lesser-known sexual orientations that describe a preference for people whose gender is outside the sex binary. 

1) Lady Happy could be specifically attracted to only non-binary people and women. This sexual orientation has been referred to as Neptunic since 2017. This means that someone whose sexuality is Neptunic is attracted to all genders with the exception of cis men and man-aligned or even just highly masculine-aligned non-binary people. 

Why use such an obscure, detailed term? Well, it helps people express and communicate their sexual orientation using language that isn't restricted by binary words, concepts and definitions. So these lesser spotted terms and ever growing list of detailed options helps, everyone, whether cis, genderfluid, non-binary and or trans people to describe how they feel about their sexual and or romantic orientation using a language constructed outside binary linguistic conventions. 

Language matters. Without it it's difficult to express yourself and indeed understand yourself and others. Language grows with the times. If it doesn't it's no longer a spoken, living language. Latin being the obvious example.

Another term that I think predated Neptunic but means more or less the same thing is the sexual orientation termed Nomasexual, which specifies having an attraction to all genders other than binary cis men. When I say all genders, examples listed are: "women, non-binary individuals, masculine aligned non-binary individuals, feminine aligned non-binary individuals, unaligned non-binary individuals, agender individuals, etc.". A lovely alternative term for this description of sexual orientation is Freyic, which was apparently inspired by the Nordic goddess of love, Freyja. So that's a rather romantic name for this orientation. 

Interestingly for the Convent of Pleasure, in which the Princess prays to the god of War, Mars, who falls in love with the goddess of love, Venus, the goddess Freyja not only symbolises love, sex, beauty and fertility, but she's also a strong woman of war, who, I believe, acted as a commander during battles. So I think Freyja is a rather apt goddess for Cavendish scholarship since Cavendish combines references to love and war quite prolifically across her writings. 

(If you are wondering what the opposite of Neptunic is, it's a sexual orientation termed Uranic which describes people who are attracted to non-binary people and men, irrespective of their own gender identity for instance, whether they are otherwise seemingly gay men or heterosexual women or non-binary.) 

Or 2) Lady Happy could be especially or only attracted to non-binary people, irrespective of whether they are classified biologically as male, female or intersex. This sexual orientation is termed Saturnic (a spelling based on the planet Saturn). Hence she could become more attracted to the Princess than any of the other cis lesbians and cis bi+ women in the Convent of Pleasure. 

Or 3) Lady Happy's sexuality could be Androgynosexual, and androgyneromantic, which specifically refers to only having an attraction to people who have a combined masculine and feminine appearance, irrespective of that person's gender identity, although they're usually non-binary. If Lady Happy had this sexual orientation, she may be more attracted to the Prince / Princess precisely because he / she is a wonderful blend of both genders in their somewhat androgynous appearance. This is similar but not entirely identical to transromantic attraction, which is a romantic preference for people who have either an ambiguous or variant gender identity. 

Or lastly, 4) Lady Happy could have a skoliosexual sexual orientation, which means she is specifically and especially (sexually) attracted to non-binary people; intersex people; and genderqueer people. Which could explain why the Prince / Princess and Lady Happy are such a good match and happy together, and why the mediator struggles to understand their attraction from her sexist, binary perspective. 

This may sound all very contemporary rather than 17th century, and oh goodness me, do we really need all these different words to describe people's attraction to others? Well, yes we do. It's not that we've suddenly invented all these different attractions. They've existed all the time we just haven't had the vocabulary to describe it all. Language runs behind what already exists in the world. And that's the purpose of language: to help us to understand experience more precisely and be able to express it and describe it verbally. It helps people to understand themselves and others and it furthers knowledge about gender and sexual attraction, both of which is rather fundamental to people's identity and sense of self, which in turn is part of wellness. 

Only Fascists, and others with an extremist ideology, seem to have a problem with gender and sexuality outside heterosexual, cisgender binary concepts, as we saw in Hitler's Germany, when Nazis destroyed the Institute for Sexual Research in Berlin, which didn't just focus on their pioneering work on understanding the spectrum of transpeople, but also fought against heterocentricism and mistaken notions that it's abnormal to be bisexual or gay and lesbian. 

It's unbelievable that Hirschfeld's arguments and scientific studies were more advanced than we are now and that we're letting illogical far-right ideology to drag us back to an horrific bygone era despite us now having sufficient education and social awareness to know better and not repeat the mistakes of the past. 

Do join me next week for more Philosophy Fluency. Meanwhile, have a good weekend, spreading joy and love. 

References/Bibliography:

Cavendish, Margaret 'The Convent of Pleasure', 1668, available at: 

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

What Is Lady Happy's Sexual Orientation? (Season 14.4, Part 1)

Below is the script for Season 14, episode 4 of my Philosophy Fluency podcast. 

You can listen to this episode here.

🎧 

Hello and welcome to Philosophy Fluency, Season 14, episode 4. Let's sip our pumpkin spiced lattes as we continue this season and slip into more autumnal weather. 

In this episode, I shall further the lesbian topic in last week's episode by exploring and discussing the sexuality of the character of Lady Happy in Margaret Cavendish's play published in 1668, titled: The Convent of Pleasure. 

1) Was Lady Happy a lesbian? If so, what type of lesbian? 

The relevance being, that this analysis helps us to respond to criticisms along the lines of whether the Princess ‘tricked’ the lesbian Lady Happy into a heterosexual relationship because the Princess must have mislead her into thinking she's a biological woman wanting a typical lesbian relationship with her. 

Let's unpick this type of criticism. 

Firstly, this assumes that Lady Happy is a Gold Star Lesbian (in other words, has no sexual or romantic attraction to biological men) and that she's also the type of Gold Star who is only attracted to biological women who identify as cis. However, this may not be the case. There are other options. 

For instance, Lady Happy could be what I call an Inclusive Lesbian, in other words, she's attracted to women of all genders, such as various types of non-binary women; trans women; and intersex women. This is quite common in the lesbian community and can include gold star lesbians. An example of a lesbian couple in which one of the lesbians is intersex, is the athlete Caster Semenya. She is what people in Cavendish's early modern era would refer to as a hermaphrodite because she has both male and female biological characteristics although these days we no longer use that term and the medical profession now classifies her as intersex, although she herself doesn't wish to be called intersex. 

Assigned female at birth, Caster was brought up as a girl and calls herself just 'a different woman' and identifies as a lesbian. She's in a very happy and affectionate lesbian marriage to her wife Violet Raseboya, since their traditional African wedding and civil wedding, and they have two young children together. 

An example of a non-binary lesbian couple, I believe, is the trans non-binary potter AJ Simpson who uses the pronouns they/them and their partner they're engaged to, Celda, a jewellery designer and maker who flies the rainbow flag (but not the trans flag for herself) on Instagram and uses both she and they pronouns, which probably tells us that Celda is perhaps a Demi-cis non-binary woman. 

Exclusionary lesbians who claim the meaning of lesbian is a cis biological woman being only attracted to fellow cis biological women are actually very rare in the lesbian community, despite what TERFS claim.  

2) Was Lady Happy Sapphic? Women who identify as a woman or who are woman-aligned in their gender identity may describe their attraction to another woman or woman-aligned person as sapphic. Unlike the term lesbian, sapphic is a very broad umbrella term that incorporates lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals, and other sexualities. 

The term Sapphic can also be used by non-binary people who are sexually and romantically attracted to women. 

3) Or, Lady Happy need not be a lesbian or sapphic, simply because she is not attracted to men, especially cis men and perhaps also male-aligned non-binary people. 

The unscientific binary ideology confuses people into thinking that just because someone is not attracted to cis men, it follows they are monosexual, in other words, only attracted to one sex or gender. This is not so. 

People can be plurisexual without being attracted to the so-called opposite sex because there's a mirad of non-binary gender shades that exist outside of the binary sex ideology that influence sexual attraction.

The most well-known examples today of sexualities that encompass people and attraction outside the binary are pansexual (attraction to all genders irrespective of the gender); then a few lesser known sexualities such as polysexual (attraction to many but not all genders, and involving feeling a specific attraction to those genders, not irrespective of the person's gender identity and expression). And so on.

So 4) it's not out of the question that Lady Happy is plurisexual, for instance, pansexual, hence her attraction to the Princess transcends gender so she's no less attracted to the Princess after the gender reveal than before and still wants to have a wedding, whether society labels them a prince or a princess. Lady Happy could therefore be attracted to the person not the gender. Perhaps Lady Happy is the original pansexual! 

Or 5) Lady Happy could be omnisexual, meaning that she is actively attracted to all genders, not irrespective of the gender, as is the case with pansexuals. Perhaps she simply doesn't want to marry a man because heterosexual marriage is a patriarchal institution, and being a woman in a heterosexual marriage would seriously disadvantage her and severely restrict her in a patriarchal society. 

We still live in this oppressive patriarchal, heteronormative society. A very up to date example is the appalling response to Cherry Vann, a lesbian who just this year has become the new Archbishop of Wales, making her the first woman and first LGBTQ+ cleric to become an archbishop in Britain and she's the first lesbian to be an archbishop on the international stage. However, despite this seeming inclusiveness and progress, suddenly, the bishops in Britain stop the debate concerning the blessing same sex couples. 

Or 6) Lady Happy could be polysexual, so she could be attracted to many genders, just not cis men. Then she wouldn't mind whether the Prince/Princess is a woman, a trans woman, an intersex person, non-binary or even masculine-aligned person, so long as they're not a cis man. Thus, as long as the Princess is not a cis man, then she is still attracted to the Princess / Prince. 

Or 7) Lady Happy could be what's now known as Berrisexual or Laurian. This specifies that although the person has an attraction to all genders, as pansexuals and omnisexuals do, the difference is that their attraction levels are not equally strong across all these genders. They find they are very rarely attracted to cis men and masculine-aligned people (who are usually mildly trans or masculine leaning non-binary women). 

There's a lot of definitions to balance this week so I'll leave you to think about all the various ways of understanding who Lady Happy is and how this shines a light on the play and Cavendish's complex portrayal of the central character. After all, it's Lady Happy that starts the Convent in the first place for women who wanted to be outside the patriarchal system. So she's not someone who buys into the gender binary and the misogyny that comes with it as exemplified in the mediator who puts a 'spanner in the works' driving the plot from start to finish.

Do join me next week for more Philosophy Fluency. Meanwhile, have a good week spreading empathy and love.

*A further strong possibility I have explored shortly after this podcast episode is whether Lady Happy's sexuality fits the description of Finsexual, which refers to an attraction to femininity, regardless of the feminine person's biological sex or gender identity. Hence, this spans an attraction to cis women; trans women; non-binary people whose gender expression is feminine; effeminate men. 

References/Bibliography:

Cavendish, Margaret 'The Convent of Pleasure', 1668, available at: 

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