Time: Winter, Sophomore Year
The Class: Shakespeare’s Sisters: Early Modern Women Writers
The Assignment: As usual, I’m reverse-engineering from the paper a bit, but I imagine it was something like “Analyse the portrayal/subversion of gender norms in Margaret Cavendish’s A Description of a New World, Called the Blazing World.” You may want to familiarize yourself with the work before continuing, but it is a little dense for quick reading, so a summary may suffice.
Final Draft
Sub-Creation and Subversion in Margaret Cavendish’s A Description of a New World, Called The Blazing World
According to J.R.R. Tolkien, since God is the Creator, and humans were created in God’s image, we are Sub-Creators. Thus, Tolkien considered literature, especially fantasy, to be not just a valid pursuit, but a holy one. This is especially clear in his poem “Mythopoeia,” in which he says that “Man, Sub-Creator, refract[s]” God’s light (Tolkien 61). Even more than this, he saw it as empowering, as he “bow[s] not yet before the Iron Crown, / nor cast[s] [his] own small golden sceptre down” (129-130).
Tolkien was writing at Oxford in the 1930s, as a white, male Catholic. As a Royalist exiled from Parliamentarian England and, more importantly, a women in the 17th century, Margaret Cavendish faced quite a bit more pressure to ‘bow’. One of the main authorities she had to bow to was, in fact, religion itself, as society was centered around it. The religious definition of a virtuous woman was one who was “chaste, obedient, silent, pious and humble” (Pacheco 23). In The Blazing World, Cavendish rebels against or subverts all of these qualities in taking on the holy role of Sub-Creator.
At first glance, The Blazing World thoroughly upholds the principle of chastity. The Empress does not have a sexual relationship with her kidnapper at the beginning of the story, and in fact earns “the favour of the Gods” by virtue of her virtue (Cavendish 125). Neither does she have a sexual relationship with anyone else before she is married to the Emperor, while she is married to the Emperor, nor, seemingly, with the Emperor himself. She is as chaste as chaste can be.
At second glance, however, things get a bit steamy – in a platonic sense. It is difficult not to read at least a little into a particular passage later in the story, after the Empress has met Cavendish’s fictional avatar, the Duchess. The narrator states that the Empress and the Duchess “became platonic lovers, although they were both females” (Cavendish 183). Without that last clause, the use of the word ‘lovers’ would probably seem to be only analogical, the way ‘the law’ can be used analogically in the phrases ‘the law against stealing’ and ‘the law of gravity.’ No one would be likely to think that any untoward sexual metaphor was at play.
What is implied, however, by the need qualify this relationship as existing in spite of their shared gender? Was there a prohibition against women being intimate friends, or doubt as to their ability to do so? Jeremy Taylor writes in a 1657 letter to Katherine Philips, who was known for her Society of Friendship, that “both brave men and women are capable” of friendships that consist of, among other qualities, “the greatest love,…and the most open communication,…and the greatest union of mindes” (qtd. in Llewllyn). This was just ten years before The Blazing World was published, so it seems reasonable to assume that it was not scandalous for two women to have a platonic relationship.
Given that assumption, it’s not entirely clear what purpose the qualifying clause is serving. One could interpret it as being humorous, simply making light of the analogy of ‘lovers’, similar to when Cavendish jokes that, if the Duke’s body contained many souls, “the Duke would [be] like the Grand Signior in his seraglio [harem], only it would have been a platonic seraglio” (194). Even if that were so, for a woman to acknowledge, however implicitly or humorously, that two women might be actual physical lovers surely stretches the boundaries of chaste thought, even if not chaste action.
One could go even further, and interpret ‘lovers’ to be literal, not analogical, and ‘platonic,’ rather than providing context for the analogy, is indicating the realm in which they are lovers, that of the soul. This interpretation could be even more significant considering that the Duchess is the fictional version of Cavendish herself. Granted, this interpretation seems directly contradicted later on, when the Duchess realizes “that no adultery [can] be committed amongst Platonic lovers” (195). She only says, however, that no ‘adultery’ can be committed, which does not exclude the possibility of sex. What if, assuming adultery requires sex, ‘soul sex’ does not count as sex (to Cavendish)? Or does it not count as sex if it involves two women? While these definitions would then not be explicitly unchaste, they would subvert the possibilities of chaste behavior.
Compared to her subtle subversion of chastity (so subtle, admittedly, that it might not even exist), Cavendish takes obedience head on. The Lady at the beginning of the story is, in one sentence, transformed into an Empress who has “absolute power to rule and govern [the Blazing] world as she please[s]” (Cavendish 132). Clearly, she is then obedient to no man.
This isn’t necessarily subversive. The Empress is seen by the people as a goddess (which might be a problem, religion-wise, in an earlier time, but Renaissance Christians seem to be perfectly fine with polytheistic language in literature), and a goddess would not be expected to be obedient to mere mortals. Even if they treated her as a human, she holds the office of Empress, and the reign of Elizabeth I had already established that a woman could be a successful sovereign (unless you gauge success by how few times people try to secretly depose you).
This interpretation, however, sheds a somewhat subversive light on the Duchess’s behavior. She frequently argues with the Empress, whether about her fitness as a secretary (181-182), about what the Empress should write about (182-183), about whether they should visit the Duchess’s world (189), or more besides. This is, perhaps, evidence that despite Cavendish’s Royalism, she would still speak truth to power should the opportunity and necessity present themselves.
Which brings us to silence and humility, two sides of the same coin. Both the Duchess and the Empress speak their minds frequently. The Duchess does so in situations such as those previously listed, and she also expresses the ambition of an Empress herself, and says she would “rather appear worse in singularity, then [sic] better in mode” (Cavendish 218). The Empress often speaks her mind in her discussions with her societies; for example, when she calls the telescopes of the bear-men “false informers,” or when she dissolves the society of logicians (141, 161-162).
Of course, there is also the outspoken hubris of Cavendish herself. In her statement “To the Reader” that proceeds the story, there is almost none of the apologetic, self-effacing tone common to other women writers of the period. Rather, she is “ambitious as any of [her] sex [have been], is, or can be,” and she even “endeavour[s] to be Margaret the First” (Cavendish 124). Humble, she is not. The closest she gets to apologetics is at the very end of this statement, where she acknowledges that she has “made a world of her own,” but “no body, [she] hope[s], will blame [her], since it is in every one’s power to do the like,” which is really just a polite way of saying, “If you don’t like my book, go write your own” (124).
Last, but certainly not least (although possibly least entertaining), is piety. It should be noted that at no point in the book does anyone pray to God. It is mentioned that the people of the Blazing World “unanimously worship and adore” one God, and that this “worship consists only in prayers” (Cavendish 134-135). However, not only does the narrator not ever see any of this praying, but their ‘one God’ is not even the Christian God. Of course, the Empress does rectify this. She builds two chapels and “convert[s] the Blazing World to her own religion,” “preach[ing] sermons of terror to the wicked” and “sermons of comfort to those that repented of their sins;” all very pious (although there’s still no praying) (Cavendish 164). Still, for a brief moment, Cavendish almost hints at the possibility of there being another God (or at least of people believing in another God), and not in a pseudo-Greek, Renaissance kind of way.
But what’s most interesting is that all of these subversions mentioned above take place within the frame of Sub-Creation which, if we go by Tolkien’s model, is one of the most pious acts a person could participate in. The two main character’s themselves engage in Sub-Creation, when they both make, on the advice of the spirits, their own imaginary worlds. So, these three women engage in an act which is at once pious, and incredibly empowering. At a time when women were constantly bowing to others, these three stand up tall, and refuse to “cast [their] own small golden sceptre[s] down” (Tolkien 130).
Bibliography
Tolkien, J.R.R. “Mythopoeia.” <http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/mythopoeia.html>. Web.
Pacheco, Anita. A Companion to Early Modern Women’s Writing. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Print.
Cavendish, Margaret. The Blazing World & Other Writings. London: Penguin Books, 1994. Print.
Llewellyn, Mark. “Katherine Philips: Friendship, Poetry and and Neo-Platonic Thought in Seventeenth Century England.” Philological Quarterly. 81.4 (2002). Web. 12 Feb. 2014. <http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-131053513/katherine-philips-friendship-poetry-and-neo-platonic>.
Grade: B+
Professor’s Comments: “It’s really refreshing to read a critical essay written with seeming ease and fluency (even if those qualities were in fact the product of sweat and revision). [NB: I turned this paper in a day late even after getting an extension.] Your critical voice is breezy and commanding without being inelegant or lacking seriousness. I really enjoyed the process of reading the paper.
And you certainly know how to mount an argument that depends on cultural context coupled with textual evidence. My one criticism is that in a couple places, notably in the middle of page 2, the argument seems over-compressed and therefore hard to follow. I see two problems: (1) Significant terms, including ‘sex’ and ‘adultery,’ require careful definition. I truly don’t know what comprises sex, by your definition, in this paragraph. (2) And I found it hard to follow your line of reasoning because it moved so quickly, as if you were assuming that your reader was inside your head. Would ‘soul sex’ count as sex in the 17th century? Would ‘soul sex’ count as adultery—for a woman? If you check out the topic sentence in this paragraph, I think you’ll see its lack of clarity, which then makes the rest of the paragraph problematic.
Some of the other points in your argument seemed a bit rushed to me as well, but this is the place where clarity really suffered. And this is a really important one, as chastity is so big a deal in gender arrangements and standards.
Finally: You have mastered the rare artistry of intro and conclusions. Bravo.” [NB: No, I have not.]
My Comments: Sometimes you’ve just gotta let ‘er rip. I was beating my head against the wall trying to write this paper and I just wasn’t getting anywhere. Eventually something clicked (and/or snapped) and I just went on a first-thought-best-thought spree. I would be lying if I said reading “soul sex” now doesn’t make me cringe a little (ok, a lot), but that’s what it took to get the thing done. And the professor liked the paper, even if they rightly took me to task for that specific section. Particularly with how rushed it felt—a lot of the time when I’m following a train of thought I don’t like stopping to explain myself (“as if you were assuming that your reader was inside your head” is a pretty insightful criticism, in an “oof, that’s a little too real” kind of way.)
Still, don’t be afraid to untether yourself a bit if you’re on a tight deadline and experiencing writer’s block. Think of each paragraph as a bridge—the weaker ones might crumble behind you, but at least you got to the other side. And, if you have better time management skills than me, you may be able to go back and rebuild them with stronger materials once you’ve finished (or remove them entirely but at this point the metaphor is feeling a little stretched).
That being said, it also helps to have a sense of what your professor will let you get away with.
Pre-Production
Outline/Notes
Subcreation and female empowerment
Look at each person: Empress, Duchess, author (mini-essay for each one e.g. mini-theses?)
How does gender affect role as sub-creator and viceversa?
Type of subcreation affected by gender?
Tolkien, J.R.R. “Mythopoeia.” <http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/mythopoeia.html>. Web.
Pacheco, Anita. A Companion to Early Modern Women’s Writing. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Print.
Cavendish, Margaret. The Blazing World & Other Writings. London: Penguin Books, 1994. Print.
Katherine Philips: Friendship, Poetry and and Neo-Platonic Thought in Seventeenth Century England <questia>
-Intro:
- Tolkien and subcreation
- topic: subcreation as a religious act (quote Mythopoeia)
-Emperess and Duchess
- Talk about ’em (look at mental world part, but if that’s not enough, you may be able to make an argument for the Empress’s changes to BlazingWorld as subcreation, maybe)
- (actually, start with Cavendish; you might talk about E/D mental worlds in that context. If you don’t/ if just Cavendish isn’t enough, go back and bit about E/D specifically
-Cavendish
- religious subjugation of women
- ways she uses subcreation to rebel against (specifically) religious subjugation; show how she “refuses to lay her own small golden sceptre down)
- chaste, obedient, silent and humble, pious
- the Duchess is Adam
- piety: while these <> would be <> just by themselves, they are even more so since we are considering Cavendish as occupying a holy role
BONUS
I really did not enjoy writing this paper, and wasn’t looking forward to having to do it again for the final. Fortunately, I happened to be in Intermediate Poetry at the time, for which the final was to be a 3-sonnet series, and the professors were best friends. So I convinced each of them to let me write not just a sonnet series but a whole sonnet crown to use for both classes, under the condition that it had to summarise what I’d learned in Shakespeare’s Sisters, and they had to be classic Shakespearean sonnets in iambic pentameter.
Ultimately, I only got 8 out of the 15 sonnets completed, which was still enough for a B±. It’s not really worth making it its own Office Hours entry, so I’m including it here because I honestly think it’s surprisingly good and kind of fun. Note that the name of the class comes from Virginia Woolf’s famous essay, “A Room of One’s Own.”
Shakespeare’s Sisters
Virginia Woolf, in nineteen twenty-eight,
was asked her wisdom kindly to impart.
The theme was women writers; to orate
her thoughts she used the fiction-writer’s art
and spun a tale of her most recent days
in Oxbridge, and in Fernham, where she met
with challenge after challenge. Sad cliches
to us, yet sadder still to her, I’d bet,
these problems were. And yet again, as she
concluded, surely worse than these oppressed
her predecessors. But there seem to be
solutions to the problems she assessed:
a woman must have, for her words to bloom,
some money and possession of a room.
Some money and possession of a room –
no little thing for those whose money was
not owned but owed to father or a groom;
so too their property was owed, because
of coverture, the doctrine by which men
and women would become as one, though each
not equal in their part. Just as a hen
is barely heard when loudly roosters preach,
so was a woman lost among the din
of men’s supposed primacy. But wait,
take heart, for not all hope was lost; even
this theory could, although the test was great,
be fought, or bent, at least, and there were those
who to this on’rous challenge bravely rose.
Who to this on’rous challenge bravely rose
were not an insubstantial company.
Some women gave defense in pamphlets, prose,
or letters, some in plays or poetry.
For though a room or money many lacked,
still women wrote: of Eve, on whom Man’s fall
was blamed by men; of Love, both thought and act,
in all its permutations; and of all
else which might have a bearing on their goal,
religion, science, law, et cet’ra. Though
they differed in their thoughts, some common soul
they shared, to dare to break the status quo.
Here, then, some of their tales, and first of them:
the battle known as the Querelle des Femmes.
The battle known as the Querelle des Femmes
comprises one attack and four replies.
First Swetnam woman’s nature did condemn
as crooked since from rib they did arise.
He was, no doubt, surprised when Rachel Speght
derided his conclusion, saying that,
in fact, the rib gave women some respect
since neither head nor foot but side begat
that bone. Yet this conclusion too was then
rebuffed by Sow’rnam (who, though maybe man,
wrote in a woman’s voice); she said that men,
whose crooked rib it was, were more crook’d than
a woman. This, indeed, might be the blame,
that Eve was simpl’r than he from whence rib came.
That Eve was simpl’r than he from whence rib came,
Amelia Lanyer claimed to be the case.
For Adam, she said, did Eve’s sin proclaim;
yet it was he whom God with strength did grace,
so surely he it was whose strength did fail
or was misused, and to this all is due.
While Eve sought innocently to avail
herself of knowledge Adam ’twas who knew
the sin in what they did, and he who had
the power to refuse; and so might not
the blame be laid on him? So Lanyer said
in Eve’s Apology. Yet some have thought
that woman is the wiser of the two,
and better fit to shape the world anew.
And better fit to shape the world anew
than any man is Cavendish’s queen,
who finds a Blazing World and people who
obey her every whim. She’s very keen
to learn about their world, and so she speaks
with them on subjects as diverse as God
and stars. It could be said that this queen seeks
the fruit of knowledge, by which Eve was awed
in Eden. Queen of one world, hero of
another, surely is a well earned prize,
more just, indeed, than punishment; for love
of knowledge serves the lover, I’d surmise.
While Margaret sought to learn of nature’s truth,
Eliz’beth turned to language as a youth.
Eliz’beth turned to language as a youth,
to read and write, her favorite things to do.
The Tanfield’s servants she would bribe, in truth,
for candles by whose light she might pursue
the treasures books did hold. In Latin, French,
Italian, Spanish, Hebrew she immersed
herself, and even marriage could not quench
her thirst, nor could she ever be coerced
to quit her studies or the writer’s life,
though poverty and censure she did face.
Though marriage ended still she was a wife
to writing, always her pen she embraced.
Again, though often Woolf’s needs were remote,
these early modern women writers wrote.
These early modern women writers wrote.
That is, perhaps, the best conclusion I
can give. Though there were many more of note,
their names and stories I could not supply
in this too-modest crown. Suffice it, then,
to give a decent sample, which, though few,
still show Virginia’s seeming truth t’ have been
a falsehood, well-intentioned but undue.
For me, though I did think I could achieve
a crowning moment with this final task,
it seems I must lay down my pen and heave
a heavy sigh. This lastly I would ask,
that Woolf’s requir’ments be amended slight:
One must possess both will and time to write.
Certain of Eventual Failure 