In Bell In Campo, Margaret Cavendish contrasts the plight of two widows with Lady Victoria’s success in leading her Effeminate Army. While Lady Victoria vanquishes the kingdom’s foes and wins new rights for women, Madame Passionate marries an abusive new husband and the Lady Jantil dies in her mourning. Why does Cavendish juxtapose these three women? Is she commenting on the dangers of marriage, and the way in which it can destroy women? At the same time, Lady Victoria is married, but she remains an independent woman even in her marriage. What does Cavendish imply about the role of women and their relations to men in society?
In The Convent of Pleasure, Margaret Cavendish critiques marriage again. But this time, Lady Happy falls in love with a prince who is masquerading as a princess in order to be allowed access to his love. Cavendish offers a play within a play to highlight many of the horrors that marriage can lead to. This mirrors some of the dangers Cavendish described in Bell In Campo. And yet, in this play we find support for marriage in the ‘happy ending’ of Lady Happy and the prince. Does this cancel out Cavendish’s critique of marriage? It seems that if she kept with the themes of the play, Lady Happy would reject the prince or the prince would actually continue to be a princess. Did Cavendish end the play happily simply because of genre and for the pleasure of the audience? Would a different ending make more sense?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment