Gender and Cross-dressing in the Seventeenth Century: Margaret Cavendish Reads Shakespeare

Abstract

Is there a woman in Shakespeare? This might sound facetious, but it is not so outlandish in the context of boy actors. Elizabethan drama was after all designed and stagemanaged by men mostly for men. In this context, is there an “essential” woman on the stage? In this essay, I examine issues of gender and sexual identity in Shakespeare’s drama by looking at how one particular woman reader of the seventeenth century, Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, perceived femininity in his plays. In particular, I look at what can be read as a commentary on the ambivalent ending of Measure for Measure in her own Convent of Pleasure (1668) to try and offer a contextualized reflection on notions of gender expectations, and issues of reception. Is there a female character in Shakespeare? This might sound tongue-in-cheek, but not so outlandish when confronting once again the bare fact that female roles were held by young actors, and that we are dealing after all with a theatre designed and stage-managed by men mostly for men. Is there a “woman” (even a mythic one) in Shakespeare? And what does this mean? In this article, I will discuss and reflect on issues of gender and sexual identity in Shakespeare’s drama by comparing our modern perspectives with how one seventeenth-century woman (and author), Margaret Cavendish, perceived the representation of women in Shakespeare. In one of her plays in particular, Cavendish obviously gave the issue of cross-dressing as it was represented in Shakespeare a great deal of thought. Published in 1668, The Convent of Pleasure reveals her familiarity with several of Shakespeare’s comedies in which cross-dressing played a key role. My claim is that this 1668 play written by a woman only half a century after Shakespeare’s death offers a fascinating insight into historicized gender expectations and conceptions of sexual identity. Cavendish was obviously fascinated with the question of transvestism, which included that of the cross-dressed actor. Interestingly, her play shows both an awareness of the constructed nature of gender, and of the resisting presence of the female as an essential identity. After describing what I call the paradox of the critic in which I think we are now trapped, I will turn to Cavendish’s treatment of the