Margaret Cavendish: Autobiography, Fiction, And Gender Politics In 17th Century Women’s Writing

The paper attempts to explore Margaret Cavendish's notions about the ill-treatment of women in the 17th century as being a result of suppression caused by a society formed for and by men. The differences based on sex, in her life, as seen in her autobiographical work A True Relation Of My Birth, Breeding, And life (1656), are reflected in her fictional play The Convent Of Pleasure (1668). Cavendish dots loss of identity of women in her autobiography through which she explores the notions of women-empowerment in the play. Cavendish is cleverly proving that women should be perceived as equal to men because women are most capable of self-satisfaction, that is to live without the use of men, but, in fact, it is men who can not live without the roles that they themselves have designated as effeminate. To put forth the distinct notions between men and women, the paper uses the term 'Old World' to suggest orthodox thinking of the real world, (which is the 17th century). The conventional thinking is a result of stereotypical misconceptions of women being inferior solely based on sex, which Cavendish contradicts by the use of modernistic logical thinking by exploring the capacity of women to establish a society without men, as seen in the play.

A True Relation Of My Birth, Breeding, And Life (1656): Writing And Oppression In Cavendish’s Autobiography

In the introduction of Margaret Cavendish’s A True Relation Of My Birth, Breeding, And Life (1656) Bowerbank and Mendelson describe the text as “an unusually vivid example of a personal and secular autobiography” which speaks about “Cavendish’s own physical and psychological body” (Cavendish et al. 12). While their notion is indeed acceptable and may hold more true, this paper takes the course of interpreting the autobiographical narrative of a female author by describing her inspiration to write a play that comments on the gender disparities and politics of the 17th century. In doing so, Cavendish not only cristalizes the gender dynamics of her own era, but, in order to do so, she also reverts the logics of her time by including secular, new thinking logics within the paradigm and mechanisms of the Old World as will be discussed later in this paper through her play The Convent Of Pleasure.

Margaret Lucas Cavendish was a pioneering figure of the 17th century, who, much like Shakespeare, was not appreciated in her own lifetime (Cunning). Her upbringing (or breeding) was inherently linked to her place of birth, which dictated her social status, but was also in accordance with her sex (Cavendish et al. 42). Even though she married a Duke, William Cavendish, she experienced the fatality of being a woman in a society that does not recognise women as citizens but merely a means and cause of entertainment. To understand the segregation based on sex that Cavendish experienced, this section will first examine her education, followed by her influences and observations.

As for my breeding, it was according to my Birth, and the Nature of my Sex, for my Birth was not lost in my breeding, for my Sisters was or had been bred, so was I in Plenty, or rather with superfluidity;

(Cavendish et al. 42)

Margaret Lucas Cavendish, the youngest child of Thomas Lucas of St. John’s Abbey, was born around the time in which her father died. Her father was an affluent man who left sufficient sums to be divided between his three sons and their mother, his wife, who responsibly brought up their children in England. Following the mandates of her social status, Mrs. Lucas (Margaret’s mother’s name is never mentioned in the course of her autobiography), formally educated her children in various disciplines like philosophy, mathematics, natural sciences, reading and writing. Young Cavendish had access to a library and was an avid reader (Cunning), an activity which she refers to as “childish sport” in her autobiography; which she often accompanied with the activity of writing meticulously every detail of her life. Cavendish emphasizes on several occasions that, even though a formal education was necessary, her mother gave more heed to her children being brought-up with integrity, morals and honesty.

As for tutors, although we had for all sorts of virtues, as singing, dancing, playing on Musick, reading, writing, working, and the like, yet we were not kept strictly thereto, they were rather for formality than benefit, for my mother cared not so much for our dancing and fiddling, singing and prating of severall languages; as that we should be bred virtuously, modestly, civilly, honourably and on honest principles.

(Cavendish et al. 43)

Cavendish appears to be happy and in agreement with her mother’s opinion as she stated that her formal education was a “formality [rather] than a benefit”. It can be rightfully assumed that being learned, especially for a woman of any class or status, was an important trait of being in a society that consisted of nobles and aristocrats. To be able to talk-the-talk and have Lady-like mannerisms, appearing with integrity and knowledge in court-like spaces would be accepted as the maiden being well-accomplished amongst her sex. Therefore, having been taught to dance, sing, stitch, and have knowledge of different languages, were parts of the societal expectations of women in the 17th century. In the 21st century, these expectations would be interpreted as a woman being used as a means of entertainment for the rest of society.

The difference that Cavendish creates between gender norms becomes further clear as she focuses on men’s breeding of the time, thus drawing further attention to effeminacy or unmanliness.

Likewise the breeding of men were after different manner of wayes from those of women: but this I know, that they loved Virtue, endevour’d Merit, practic’d Justice, and spoke Truth; they were constantly Loyal, and truly Valiant; two of my three brothers were excellent Soldiers, and Martial Discipliners, being practic’d therein

(Cavendish et al. 43)

Although Cavendish loved her brothers dearly, she recognises educational disparities created based on gender norms (elaborated on below). Her close-knit relations with her “Naturall friends” (Cavendish et al. 59) shows the family members’ love, loyalty and respect towards each other. In several other occasions in her narrative, she refers to her brothers with great fondness, stating who they were married to (Cavendish et al. 45), and how she would never hesitate to call her sister Catherine Pye, whom she often lived with on her visits to London (Cavendish et al. 47). This deepend loyalty was not restricted to the bounds of the family itself. Cavendish endured the death of her brothers because of their passionate dedication to their posts in wartime (Cavendish 49). This goes on to yet again prove that Mrs. Lucas did uphold and execute the notion of having all her children brought up with higher values such as virtue, modesty, civility, honorability and honesty. The mother did not differentiate between her children when it came to morality, but she did accept the gender role formalities required by society. In this sense, it is key to remark that, while the men in the family are usually referred to through their name, women are not - being, constantly, defined in terms of their male counterparts. Women in the 17th century led their lives in accordance to men, and under strict patriarchal rules.

Exercise themselves with fencing, wrestling, shooting, and such like exercises, for I observ’d they did seldom hawk or hunt, and very seldome or never dance, or play on Musick, saying it was too effeminate for Masculine Spirits

(Cavendish et al. 44)

This is a differentiation that, thus, is further elaborated in the realms of activities and sports, and their division according to gender. The acknowledgement that “exercises” were considered as spirits that fueled masculinity does not win the opinion of Cavendish. The author’s experience with men disassociating themselves or trying to move away from effeminacy is pondered upon through the quote mentioned above. However, this particularly highlights a direct influence on the Prince’s character who dresses as a Princess to enter the Convent in The Convent Of Pleasure. Nonetheless, Cavendish’s education and observation of segregation between the sexes would have been the basis for the formation of strong opinions from an early age.

However, Cavendish’s being born in a conformed society creates a conflict and even slight hesitation when it comes to deliberately calling out the society around her on its problems. There is, indeed, a deliberate intention behind the choice of not naming female characters in her story -- specifically her mother and her sisters. This, it can be argued, is made to emphasize the segregation between sexes, underscoring ignorance of the issues surrounding her; due to her prolonged conformity in society.

Having called her family “naturall friends,” it can be well assumed that Cavendish had more than good relations with her family and that they were an integral part of her life and decision making. For instance, she states that her brother was concerned about her going abroad to wait on the Queen as her maid in honor (Cavendish et al. 46) because she had never been away from home before, further stating that she is “afraid to dishonor [her] Friends and Family” (Cavendish et al. 46) while contemplating returning early from her time with the Queen in exile. But she seems to disregard the identities of her four sisters in her autobiography. She only refers to her sister Catherine once, using her husband’s last name, Pye (Cavendish et al. 47). Her disregard of women is further iterated as she speaks about her brother’s and sister’s spouses.

My brother the Lord Lucas to a virtuous and beautifull Lady, Daughter to Sir Christopher Nevil, Son to the Lord Abergavenny, and my brother Sir Thomas Lucas to a virtuous Lady of an ancient Family, one Sir John Byron’s Daughter; likewise, three of my four sisters, one married Sir Peter Killegrew, the other Sir William Walter, the third Sir Edmund Pye, the fourth as yet unmarried

(Cavendish et al. 45)

As previously stated, the names of the sisters are mentioned by the editors in the margins: Cavendish does not entirely acknowledge the names of any female figures in her narrative. Nonetheless, she does mention the names of her brothers and the names of their spouses with an association to their paternal parentage. She later concludes her autobiography stating:

Because I write it for my own sake, not theirs; neither did I intend this piece for to delight, but to divulge, not to please the fancy, but to tell the truth, lest after-Ages should mistake, in not knowing I was daughter to one Master Lucas of St. Johns neer Colchester in Essex, second Wife to the Lord Marquis of Newcastle, for my Lord having had two Wives, I might easily have been mistaken, especially if I should dye, and my Lord Marry again

(Cavendish et al. 63)

Through doing this, Cavendish seems to be acknowledging the loss of female identity in the patriarchal society of the 17th century. Taking example from first her mother, who lived for her husband and then lived to see the ruin of her children (Cavendish et al. 49) -- first through war and, subsequently, through her daughter being heartbroken over the loss of her own child. Cavendish’s autobiography speaks vastly about her mother being a good human being who wanted her children to exceed in society and be kind to all, whether servant (Cavendish et al. 49) or Queen. However, Cavendish uses associations (such as connecting her mother with her father or her children) whenever she is mentioned, never fully using her whole maiden name. This underscores the notion by which Cavendish’s mother’s identity was always connected to another, which portrays her loss of identity as a woman. Likewise, following suit of a married woman, Cavendish does not refer to her sisters by their names but as ‘wife of.’ Women, indeed, are defined in terms of men: as a complement rather than an entity of their own. The loss of identity dawns on the author as she concedes that her identity as Lady Margaret Lucas Cavendish can easily be forgotten because she, as a woman, will only be recognised in her society if associated with a man. The notion of always being attached to another must frustrate Cavendish, who values individuality as a way of life, a trait that can be seen in her modes of thinking but also dressing:

Also I did dislike any should follow my Fashions, for I always took delight in a singularity, even in acoustrements of habits, but whatsoever I was addicted to, either in fashions of Cloths, contemplation of Thoughts, actions of Life, they were Lawfull, Honest, Honorable and Modest, of which I can vouch to the world with great confidence, because it is a pure Truth

(Cavendish et al. 60)

Here, Cavendish cleverly puns on the word “fashion” in the passage above, speaking about fashion in regard to clothing but also as ‘mannerisms’ as presented in society, in customs, and traditions as a whole. In talking about her unbothered nature for satisfying the wants of society, she speaks about the pleasures she received from “singularity” by standing out of the crowd. Being a woman with eminent understanding about several disciplines and a high regard for reading and writing puts Cavendish on a pedestal. However, since her pioneership was not entirely recognised in her lifetime, she seeks being known as her own person-- as an individual with mannerisms that can be distinguished in a crowd. This search for individuality (an entirely modern notion) is put forward in stark contrast to women not having an identity in the 17th Century society. Historically known, women were not given basic rights such as the right to vote or own property until the early 20th century, which means that they were not truly accepted as citizens. As stated earlier, their identity as an individual human being did not exist as they were always associated with a male counterpart. Therefore, if women did not have their identity (name) and either were considered citizens (by not having basic rights), they are considered non-existent. This suppression of women was caused by men as they held the powers in the places that could allow change to take place. In order to revert this, the gesture of writing itself arises as a mode to contrast the lack of individuality with the pronunciation and description of her own life -- where, even while Cavendish is underscoring the oppression of women, she is gaining a sense of subjectivity and individuality in the process of doing so.

Command respect from the rudest, I mean the rudest of civiliz’d people, I mean not such Barbarous people, as plundered her, and used her cruelly, for they would have pulled God out of Heaven, had they had power, as they did Royaltie out of his Throne

(Cavendish et al. 48)

Cavendish recognises this power struggle is caused because of men. Women were not allowed to be elected in the Parliamentary house until the 20th century. But Cavendish’s approach in showing her embarrassment of the system as she “whisperingly spoke to [her] brother” (Cavendish et al. 51) to take her out of the house proves the uneasiness created for women in the patriarchal society. In the second part of this paper, I am interested in the modes in which this strict power structure between men and women as seen in Cavendish’s autobiography is further complicated in The Convent Of Pleasure and how, even living in the 17th century, Cavendish managed to first create a utopian space of her own within the Convent through which, additionally, the rules and mandates of said power structure would be dislocated in an inherently modern way.

The Convent of Pleasure: A Utopia Of The Logical Thinking

This inquiry into her autobiography is therefore crucial to further analyze the processes by which Cavendish keeps elaborating on the position of women in her society through her fiction. In The Convent of Pleasure, she goes on to recognize the working of a patriarchal society in which she lives, but through a series of complicated processes that involve meta-fiction and reflexive narratives. Thus, in The Convent of Pleasure, Cavendish creates a utopia where women are living by use of logic, while inversely also presenting the outdatedness and illogical social construct of society. She does so by depicting the thinking of men which have influenced the notions of society. Thus, she is creating a divide between new, modern and logical thinking and old thinking by presenting a play within a play, where one structure takes place in the real world and the other in the idealistic world created by her character, Lady Happy. The real world depicts the old thinking, while the pragmatic world represents the new thinking where there is equality between all alike. Through the idea of having a convent of pleasure (i.e. Lady Happy’s estate); a place of retreat where women do not have to succumb to the pressures of patriarchal society, Cavendish is attempting to create a Utopia.

This idea of creating a world where women can be happy is however possibilitated through the death of Lady Happy’s father, which causes her to gain wealth and, with it, creates her as a sort of prey to several men who seek comfort and wealth.

2 Gent. I have been at the Funeral of the Lord Fortunate; who has left his Daughter, the Lady Happy, very rich, having no other Daughter but her.

1 Gent. If she be so rich, it will make us all Young Men, spend all our Wealth in fine Clothes, Coaches, and Lackies, to set out our Wooing hopes.

3 Gent. If all her Wooers be younger Brothers, as most of us Gallants are, we shall undo our selves upon bare hopes, without Probability: But is she handsome, Tom?

2 Gent. Yes, she is extream handsome, young, rich, and virtuous.

1 Gent. Faith, that is too much for one Woman to possess.

(Cavendish et al. 97-98)

The beginning of the play sets, then, the tone of expectation from women in the 17th-century society. Women were looked at for their beauty, wealth and chastity. The importance that Cavendish draws upon by calling the characters “gentlemen” depicts the generic thinking of all men’s expectations from women. This notion of expectation builds on the concept of their belief that women are made for entertainment. Men, here, want to gain the idea of a ‘trophy wife’ - a wife who is young, beautiful and virginal. By the same logic through which women were not citizens, they also have had to historically rely on men for money because they were denied possessions -- or, inversely, they were looked down upon for working to earn their own money. Therefore, Cavendish is establishing the objectification of women in a patriarchal society where women are interchangeable if they have set features that adhere to social conditioning, i.e. being “handsome, young, rich, and virtuous.” Furthermore, Cavendish is also portraying that men do not want women to have all features, therefore suggesting that the patriarchal society sets standards for women that can not be met. Cavendish recognises the suppression of women to make them dependent on men. However, what makes Lady Happy different in terms of society’s standing is her access to wealth. The patriarchal society is created in a manner where women have to rely on men, which is why the idea of a woman having beauty and wealth makes herself-satisfied but a threat to men. Men perceive an empowered woman as a threat because then women would not require men, which is why the “1 Gent.” suggest that having beauty, chastity, youth and wealth are “too much for one Woman to possess.” Cavendish is, therefore, building a structure to present the clash of the real world masculine thinking and the modern, thinking, more advanced in terms of gender politics, as she moves to Lady Happy’s stance of female empowerment.

Put the case I should marry the best of Men, if any best there be; yet would a marry’d life have crosses and sorrows then pleasure, freedom, or happiness: nay marriage to those that are virtuous is a greater restraint then a Monastery. Or, should I take delight in Admirers? They might gaze on my Beauty, and praise my Wit, and I receive nothing from their eyes, nor lips; for Words vanish as soon as spoken, and Sights are not substantial. Besides, I should lose more of my Reputation and turn Courtizan, there would be more lost in my Health, than gained by my Lovers, I should find more pain then Pleasure; besides the troubles and frights I should be put to, with the Quarrels and Brouillers that Jealous Rivals make, would be a torment to me; and ‘tis only for the sake of Men, when Women retire not: And since there is so much follow, vanity and falsehood in Men, why should Women trouble and vex themselves for their sake; for retiredness bars the life from nothing else but Men

(Cavendish et al. 98-99)

Through Lady Happy’s speech, Cavendish is threading on the perception of women being a necessity for men. In this complex passage, Lady Happy is putting forth the troubles of marriage that every societally constrained woman would experience with a vain husband. After generalising that all men think the same way, she is saying that men are full of “vanity and falsehood” because they take away “pleasure, freedom, [and] happiness” from their spouses lives after marriage. She is suggesting that men are full of praises in the courting period, but their “words vanish” as after women give into their flattery. Cavendish, through Lady Happy, is bringing forth her argument that it is better to turn a prostitute and be aware of men’s empty words than lose their mental health and reputation in having a husband who makes their wife jealous by being unfaithful. In this sense, she is putting forward notions of economic freedom through sexuality, which are revolutionary and innovative for the time. She is, in addition, pointing out at the dynamics of the current society by depicting women as “slaves” to men after marriage (through which, additionally, the vanity of women’s situations being portrayed as a burden by men but also as victims of society. Therefore, women must quit society by retiring from men.) Her argument is further supported by the men in the play, who accept their faults in trying to find ways to vex the women in their convent by trying to join their company.

The nature of the play begins with the male characters discovering that Lady Happy is going to cloister herself with twenty other women, to which the men start finding ways to join the women suggesting that “If there be so many Women, there will be the more use for Men” (Cavendish et al. 104). However, their false assumption is broken on hearing that the women have made arrangements for every small aspect and would not require the company of men. In conclusion to the disposal of men by women, the men decide that “since Women can quit the pleasure of Men, we Men may well quit the trouble of Women” (Cavendish et al. 108) to no avail. The men, therefore, seem to be complying to Lady Happy’s opinion of their “words vanish[ing] as soon as spoken.” These men understand that they require the companionship of women to live in peace and cannot imagine a society without women, which is why they turn a dead ear to every comment made of quitting women’s company.

Court. But we will go as string lusty Country-Wenches, that desire to serve them in Inferior Pleases, and Offices, as Cook-maids, Laundry-maids, Dairy-maid; for I cannot milk Cows, nor starch Gorgets, but I think I could make a pretty shift, to wash some of the Ladies Night-Linnen.

Takepl. But they employ Women in all Places in their Gardens; and for Brewing, Baking and making all sorts of things; besides, some keep their Swine, and twenty such like Offices and Employments there are which we should be proper for.

Facil. Oh yes, for keeping of Swine belongs to Men; remember the Prodigal son

Adviser. Faith, for our Prodigality we might be all Swine-herds.

Court. Also we shall be proper for Gardens, for we can dig, and set, and sow.

Adviser. We are more proper for drinking, for I can drink good Beer, or Ale, when ‘tis Brew’d; but I could not brew such Beer, or Ale, as any man could drink

(Cavendish et al. 109)

In trying to discover ways through which they can enter the “Grates,” which Lady Happy had covered with a “Brick and Stone-walls” (Cavendish et al. 108), the men attempt at conniving ways through which they can enter the ladies only sanctuary. Through their discussion, they discover that not only are they incapable of performing the most menial positions of women, but also that men are only capable of drinking and taking care of pigs. Here, the primitive thinking of men is brought into perspective by the biblical references in their speech. Cavendish uses intertextual references to showcase and satirize on the orthodox thinking of men in comparison to Lady Happy’s understanding of the wrongs of society; which allows her to refer to men as the “prodigal son” and feeding “swines.” This enables the readers to realise that men were incapable of performing more than half the tasks women performed, thus inverting the hierarchies constructed by society.

This passage builds upon the religious idea that a woman was a burden in society from the genesis. These power dynamics go beyond the text to the advent of time. The biblical story that was widely studied in England speaks about the creation of women for a man; that Eve was created to give Adam company in The Garden. While the creation of a woman was for a man holds true, the notion of a woman being created out of the rib of a man (Eve being created by God from the rib of Adam), suggests that a woman is not inferior or superior to a man but in fact, a complement of man that is directly derived from him (in the same way, perhaps, in which the women of Cavendish autobiography are directly understood in terms of their husbands and fathers). This reference also drew attention to Lady Happy’s understanding of women living for and with men:

Men are the only troublers of Women; for they only cross and oppose their sweet delights, and peaceable life; they cause their pains, but not their pleasures. Wherefore those Women that are poor, and have not means to buy delights, and maintain pleasures, are only fit for Men; for having not means to please themselves, they must serve only to please others; but those Women, where Fortune, Nature, and the gods are joined to make them happy, were mad to live with Men, who make the Female sex their slaves; but I will not be so inslaved, but will live retired from their Campany. Wherefore, in order thereto, I will take so many Noble Persons of my own Sex, as my Estate will plentifully maintain, such whose births are great ginity: with these I mean to live incloister’d with all the delights and pleasures that are allowed and lawful; My cloister shall not be a cloister of restaint, but a place for freedom, not to vex the Senses but to please them

(Cavendish et al. 101)

Lady Happy logically differentiates between living for and with men, acknowledging that both circumstances lead to a depressing ending for a woman. She says that women who are less fortunate or “poor” have to rely on men’s satisfaction to gain some aspect of pleasure and those women that have the means of pleasuring themselves are “mad” to be in the company of men as their values would be depreciated to being a “slave” after marriage. Cavendish is drawing attention to the notion that marriage is both a necessity and an affliction for a woman, while also portraying a new thinking and the ignorance of society’s misconceptions. This pioneering figure is challenging the rationality of the practices of religion that created gender disparities.

No Madam, it is not for the gods sake, but for opinion’s sake; for, Can any Rational Creature think or believe, the gods take delight in the Creature’s uneasie life? Or Did they command or give leave to Nature to make Senses for no use; or to cross, vex and pain them? For, What profit or pleasure can it be to the gods to have Men or Women wear coarse Linnen or rough Woollen, or to flea their skin with Hair-cloth. Or to fast?

(Cavendish et al. 99)

Then notions of women and men punishing themselves in any manner are contrived by the patriarchal society. Cavendish is commenting on the irrationality of vexations caused by humans to other humans or upon themselves by rationalising the existence of men and women. The notion of God’s creation of man stems from creating a place where men and women live and celebrate their lives on Earth. Therefore, Cavendish draws that the systems which are created in the name of Christ or the bible are not entirely well translated into society. For God, who created humans, would not want His children to live with “uneasie.”

In this way, when Lady Happy decides to cloister herself on her own Estate, she is building her own idea of a Monastery by not enclosing herself in an actual monastery. She is establishing a system within a system, to the contrivances of society and Nature that was created by God but also inverting them. In other words, Lady Happy is removing herself from social conduct but not from society wholly, and she is creating a space where women have sanctuary from men but in a place where she is not entirely going against the Church or christinaity because her house is merely embodying a Monastery but is not in fact one itself. Furthermore, in designating herself as “confessor” (Cavendish et al. 103), Lady Happy is edging on a fairy-tale theme. Cavendish, while pragmatically proving that women should be given more concessions, is also tugging on the idea that women can only be truly happy when living in their Utopia, which is an imaginative world (one that, by definition, doesn’t exist).

the Lady Happy is Lady-Prioress her self, and will admit none of the Masculine Sex, not so much as to a Grate, for she will suffer no grates about the Cloister; she has also Women-Physicians, Surgeons and Apothecaries, and she is the chief Confessor her self, and gives what Indulgences or Absolutions she pleaseth: Also, her House, where she hath made her Convent, is so big and convenient, and so strong, as it needs no addition or repair: Besides, she has so much compass of ground within her walls, as there is not only room and place enough for Gardens, Orchards, Walks, Groves, Bowers, Arbours, Ponds, Fountains, Springs and the like; but also conveniency for much Provision, and hath Women for every Office and Employment: for though she hath not above twenty Ladies with her, yet she hath a numerous Company of Female Servants, so as there is no occasion for Men.

(Cavendish et al. 103-104)

The arbitrary roles assigned to each woman within the established pleasure hall advocates to the imaginative realms in which Lady Happy lives. Based on the educational divide between men and women, as presented in Cavendish’s autobiography, women were not trained in the same fields as men. Hence, they could not become “Physicians, Surgeons and Apothecaries” as suggested, in the same manner in which the most pragmatic character (Lady Happy) could not become a servant of God (Confessor). Therefore, Cavendish is acknowledging women can be happier without men being factored into the equation, and that they are the happiest within the realms of their own imaginations. The perfection of the convent seems like a dream for every person living outside. Through this child’s play, then, Lady Happy, along with barring men, also barred the entrance to married women (Cavendish et al. 106) because she wants her utopia world to live up to her imaginative standards. She is therefore inserting herself into the logics that create a patriarchal society (those of the real world, as supported by the biblical reference) but, from within this logic, she manages to create a utopian space that reverts it and that puts forward innovative understandings of gender politics instead.

Cavendish further supports Lady Happy’s childs-play by punning on her name. In a conversation between take-pleasure and his servant Dick, they discuss the wooing of Lady Happy, coming to the conclusion that if Take-pleasure marry’s Lady Happy, she would certainly have to change her name (Cavendish et al. 102).

Dick. Because Women never think themselves happy in Marriage.

Takepl. You are mistaken; for Women never think themselves happy until they be Married.

Dick. The truth is, Sir, that Women are always unhappy in their thoughts, both before and after Marriage; for, before Marriage they think themselves unhappy for want of a Husband; and after they are Married, they think themselves unhappy for having a Husband.

Takepl. Indeed Womens thoughts are restless.

(Cavendish et al. 102)

This evaluation of marriage between Dick and Takepleasure suggests two things: a) Men make women unhappy no matter men’s efforts and b) Women’s “thoughts are restless,” which leads them only to be happy in their imaginations. Cavendish is thus, creating the idea that Lady Happy is the happiest when she is living in her imaginative, fairy-tale world, away from vexations (who are men) and within her own sanctuary of her house. This notion is enhanced when Lady Happy is affected by falling in love with the prince who is disguised as a princess.

MY Name is Happy, and so was my Condition, before I saw this Princess; but now I am like to be the most unhappy Maid alive: But why may not I love a Woman with the same affection I could a Man?

No, no, Nature is Nature, and still will be

The same she was from all Eternity.

(Cavendish et al. 118)

Lady Happy is not aware that the Princess is a disguise for the prince. Therefore, the notion of men as being a cause of vexation gets rescinded and the argument that Cavendish makes about women as not being happy in love is instilled. In other words, no matter man or woman, love is the cause of affliction for Lady Happy. However, even though Lady Happy’s affliction is love, it can also be argued that this affliction is caused by the notions that a patriarchal society holds, repressing the pains of womanhood. The Prince (in disguise) and Lady Happy spend ample time together in the convent, but their interactions are full of falsehood from the royalty present, which adds to Lady Happy’s notion by which men are full of “vanity and falsehood” as previously discussed. It is clear that the Prince was present in the disguise in the convent only to win Lady Happy over and not to learn from the plays that the women perform soon after their first meeting.

This brings me to my last point of the paper, by which the patriarchal nature of the society that Margaret Cavendish inserts is put forward through the meta-textual discourse of the plays that are being performed. Within the already utopian space of the convent, then, these plays allow Cavendish to vocally, directly and masterfully voice the pain of women in 17th century society. These different plays portray women’s troubles caused by men and even depict the ignorance of patriarchs in recognising the labour pains and immaturity of men in filling their roles as sons, lovers and husbands. While multiple scenes show cheating and drunk husbands (Act III, Scenes II, IV, VI, X), some of them show the pressures that society puts on women to have offspring and the literal pains that women carry when doing so (Senes III, V, VII, IX).The plays indeed point at the idea that, even if women comply with the harsh pressures of society, they will always be repressed (Scene VIII and X). Finally, in Scene X,they also prove that “going into a nunnery” is the only way to “leave [that] wicked World and Vanity” (Cavendish et al. 117).

The life created within the convent creates, then, a play within a play that mirrors the treatment of women in society, showcasing the faults of the old world is not being able to recognise the true essence of women and the toxicity of masculinity. In doing so, Cavendish is also differentiating between Logical thinking (by trying to find a solution for the problem) and Religious thinking (which is accepting the problem as is, without attempting to perceive all sides.) Upon the completion of the plays, the following dialogue takes place, which conveys the Prince as an example of all men turning a blind eye to women’s problems even when they speak out about their troubles:

L. Happy to the Princ. Pray Servant, how do you like this Play?

Prin. My sweet Mistress, I cannot in conscience approve of it; for though some few be unhappy in Marriage, yet there are many more that are so happy as they would not change their condition.

L. Happy. O Servant, I fear you will become an Apostate.

Prin. Not to you sweet Mistress.

(Cavendish et al. 117)

The Princes’ optimism that marriage is a happy affair for “many more,'' depicts the contradiction of men and women thinking. Through the plays Cavendish is portraying (presumably) the most common issues of marriage in the 17th century. Through the falsehood of a Prince dressed as a female, she is suggesting that perception does not change because of clothes. The problem with the patriarchal society is deeply embedded in men’s ignorance towards women. This ignorance is more prominently echoed by Madam Mediator taking notice of Lady Happy looking “pale and lean,” and the Prince passing it off as his lover “appear[ing] with greater splendor then the Gods of Light'' and calling Madam Mediator blind in the process (Cavendish et al. 124). This, therefore, is proving that men are ignorant even when the problem is directly in front of them.

Moreover, through the course of the play, Cavendish is also commenting on the differences in approach to heterosexual and homosexual love through the various differences in logical and conformed thinking, both commonly meet at agreeing that Hetrosexual love is natural. Homosexual love is and accepted within the play because even though Lady Happy kisses the Princess, the Princess is a Prince in disguise. Which instills the concept of “Nature is Nature” (Cavendish et al. 118). Similarly, Lady Mediator who comes from the real world conception calls “womens kisses unnatural” (Cavendish et al. 130). However, the essence of the argument lies that Lady Happy does not shun the idea of being in love with another woman, showing the logical thinking is open to new changes-- she does not dissuade the notion of two women loving each other as more than friends. Conversely, Madam Mediator in calling two women kissing with more vigour than usual unnatural is showing her opinion of two women being more than friends as going against natural instincts or sacrilegious.

Conclusion

It is possible to state, then, that both the autobiography and The Convent of Pleasures by Margaret Cavendish are showcasing, challenging, and reinventing imaginatively the gender structures and problematics of the time. In order to do so, Cavendish first creates an autobiography in which the structures and rigidity of the patriarchal society are enclosed and heavily underscored, and where the gesture of writing arises as the main defiant trait of the text itself. However, this is further elaborated in Cavendish’s fiction, where the utopian space of the convent not only allows her to insert herself in the logics of this patriarchal society, but also to revert them. Finally, it precisely is through this utopian space in which the meta-textual comment is enabled, and where Cavendish’s plays within the plays allow her to openly voice, mock, and disregard the patriarchal structures where she was brought up in, allowing for the opening of new, modern logics within the structures of the past. It is then possible to conclude that Cavendish’s fiction and autobiography are two indissociable pieces where gender politics play a major role in structuring the world as a whole, and where the possibility of a modern world where women are emancipated progressively - and hopefully - arises.

---

Works Cited

Cavendish, Margaret. Paper Bodies: A Margaret Cavendish Reader. Edited by Sylvia Bowerban and Sara Mendelson, Broadview Press, 2000.

Cunning, David. “Margaret Lucas Cavendish.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 29 May 2017, plato.stanford.edu/entries/margaret-cavendish/.

Elizabeth Garrett Anderson. (2020, December 04). Retrieved December 19, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Garrett_Anderson

Social and Family Life in the Late 17th & Early 18th Centuries. (n.d.). Retrieved December 19, 2020, from https://sites.udel.edu/britlitwiki/social-and-family-life-in-the-late17th-early-18th-centuries/