Talk:The Convent of Pleasure

Identifying the Prince(ss)

Hello @Amyalyce925: I see that you changed the description to say that the prince is discovered by Madam Mediator and not by an Ambassador -- I don't think that's quite right, so I changed it, but we can talk here if you disagree. The way I read the text, Madam Mediator believes that there is a man in the convent, and she suspects the Princess, but she can't confirm her guess until the Ambassador kneels to the Prince. This is the scene where the stage directions change:

in comes Madam Mediator wringing her hands, and spreading her arms; and full of Passion cries out.

O Ladies, Ladies! you're all betrayed, undone, undone; for there is a man disguised in the Convent, search and you'l find it.

They all skip from each other, as afraid of each other; only the Princess and the Lady Happy stand still together.

Prin. You may make the search, Madam Mediator, but you will quit me, I am sure.

Mediat. By my faith but I will not, for you are most to be suspected.

Prin. But you say, the Man is disguised like a Woman, and I am accoustred like a Man.

Mediat. Fidle, fadle, that is nothing to the purpose.

Enter an Embassador to the Prince; the Embassador kneels, the Prince bids him rise.

Prin. What came you here for?

Embass. May it please your Highness, The Lords of your Council sent me to inform your Highness, that your Subjects are so discontented at your Absence, that if your Highness do not return into your Kingdom soon, they'l enter this Kingdom by reason they hear you are here; and some report as if your Highness were restrained as Prisoner.

Prin. So I am, but not by the State, but by this Fair Lady, who must be your Soveraigness.

I suppose it's a fairly minor detail, but to me it's always seemed like, if the Ambassador hadn't arrived from the Prince's country, nobody would ever have been suspicious of the Princess. So even though Madam Mediator becomes the "voice" of the news (she tells the rest of the town later), the discovery itself is due to the ambassador. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 23:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(I should also say that I was excited to see someone else working on this somewhat neglected article, so thank you for your edits, and I am totally game to add a mention of Madam Mediator to this section too if you think it clarifies who the Prince(ss) is as a character!) ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 23:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Husband's authorship

The article states that "it is important to note that the ending of the play was supposedly written by her husband William Cavendish who also helped her publish some of her work." Unfortunately, the supplied reference [3] makes no reference to this.

I am aware that Cavendish credited some parts of the play to her husband, and have seen pictures of where she has pasted "my lord, the Duke" into copies to give him credit. I have not seen him credited with the entire ending and find the statement doubtful. Does anyone have an actual source for this?

Also, stylistically, adding into the introduction that her husband financed her (while true), particularly after a claim of authorship, feels a bit demeaning of Cavendish's achievement. Sean.pk.mcgrath (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Who Is This Brash Unnamed Scholar of Mystery?

Who is being referred to with, "and an uprising scholar has argued"? Names and citations, please, names and citations.Syssk Tarot (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

If material is uncited or fails verification, you can always remove it. The non-neutral descriptor “uprising” should certainly be removed. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Over-emphasis on Megan Cole's scholarship under queer themes?

In the section about asexuality under "queer themes," there's repeated reference to "scholars" making this argument about the asexual themes of the text, but only Megan Cole's scholarship is cited, and the same work at that. It's the longest paragraph yet represents the least amount of research; the text about lesbian themes and cross-dressing have so many more sources, but are understated compared to it. I feel it should be heavily truncated if not removed? ~2026-45700-3 (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think it should be removed, since it is an appropriate published source on the play, but it could be trimmed down a little and attributed more directly to Cole rather than “scholars” (unless her article cites other scholars who also make this argument). ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I trimmed it down and removed the references to "scholars," but in a way that I hope is still fair and respectful to Cole's argument. Let me know if it was too many changes; I feel it's more consistent with the rest of the section now, and much more concise. ~2026-45700-3 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! When I looked I actually cut even more, since the last sentence was just repeating what the previous ones had already said. One of Wikipedia's principles is to be WP:BOLD in making changes (since others can always revise later on if needed), so I hope you'll consider more edits when you notice opportunities for improvement in futures. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)