Chapter 3: Backdrop 2: Cavendish within a Feminist and Historical Context

Chapter 3:

Backdrop 2: Cavendish within a Feminist and Historical Context 

Breaking the glass ceiling

The first book Cavendish ever published seems to be a piece of creative writing. However, her first book, ‘Poems and Fancies’[i], was supposed to comprise of a collection of her poems as well as her philosophical treatise, ‘Philosophical Fancies’[ii]. When the publisher deemed her philosophical treatise to be submitted too late for publication alongside her poems, it was printed later that year[iii]. Women academics and researchers face enough discrimination and have their work published far less than men even these days, never mind back in 1653 when Cavendish’s first publications were released, so her publications, whether treatises or those written in a more creative style, constituted a breakthrough for women. Although women wrote and some published their works, a disproportionate amount of them published anonymously, meaning they disappeared from history, and indeed herstory, more readily. This is not just because anonymous books are more likely to become invisible and forgotten but also because they are highly prone to being misattributed. Sexism in society means it is far more common for an anonymous book written by a woman to be misattributed as the work of a man than vice versa, despite men not needing to avoid discrimination by publishing anonymously as often as women. Mary Shelley was one victim of this misattribution, after publishing her first edition of Frankenstein anonymously, and despite putting her name on the second edition only three years later. Simply because her husband proofread it, this was exaggerated into claims he had co-written the book, which he did not. She was, however, hugely involved in his writings but nobody suggested she co-authored his books, although this would not have been far-fetched. Recently, there has been an outrageous suggestion that one of Mary Shepherd’s treatises (published anonymously) was actually written by James Mill, despite an historical dictionary of anonymous authors listing Shepherd as the author of the anonymous work[iv]. In my research on Shepherd[v];[vi], I see no convincing evidence in support of this claim. JS Mill (son of James Mill) and his wife Harriet also suffered from the same rumours that he had helped her with her work despite him strenuously pointing out that they worked collaboratively and seamlessly together in equal measure, especially when it came to his writings. At no point has anyone suggested that Harriet helped JS Mill, when indeed she did.

Therefore, I fully understand why writing and publishing anonymously or under a pen name did not appeal to Cavendish, especially for feminist reasons. She did not do it out of vanity or an obsession with fame for its own sake, as we see in her preface ‘To all Noble, and Worthy Ladies’:

“Condemne me not as a dishonour of your sex, for setting forth this Work for it is harmelesse and free from all dishonesty I will not say from Vanity: ….”[vii] (no page number)

(my modernisation of 17^th century typeset of the letter ‘s’ which was written more like our present day f)

Cavendish’s aim always was to become a published writer who proudly displayed her authorship in her books. She was also exceptional in that she did not use a pseudonym or hide behind a male name as George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans) did two centuries later. As Cavendish points out herself, it was a big step for her as a woman to have her poetry published since this was considered a male preserve. We can see this in her first preface ‘The Epistle Dedicatory to Sir Charles Cavendish’:

“True it is. Spinning with the Fingers is more proper to our Sexe, then studying or writing Poetry, which is the Spinning with the braine”[viii] (no page number)

In much the same way as Indie authors and Indie publishers these days, Cavendish also did a lot of the publishing and distribution work herself, on top of philosophising and writing the books:

“Cavendish was actively involved with the production of her texts as books, not only having her works printed, but also seeing her printed books bound, annotated, corrected, and deposited in public and private libraries.”[ix]

She retained her manuscripts up until the books were published and then burnt them. 

“In addition, Cavendish states that while she kept manuscript copies of her work until a book had been printed, she burned her manuscripts after printing.”[x]

Indeed, it was very common during this period for printers to dispose of authors’ manuscripts once they no longer needed it for typesetting: 

“we have no manuscript versions of any of Cavendish’s printed works. This lack of earlier manuscript versions of texts that went into print is not unusual for the early modern period (printers frequently discarded manuscripts once they had set the type)”[xi]

Nevertheless, it is just as well Cavendish stated this explicitly because stories were already circulating by the following century (18^th) that there were manuscripts of her work in Cambridge Library, until they confirmed that no such manuscripts existed there[xii]. Or anywhere else, as we can see from Cavendish’s statement! This shows how careful one must be as a researcher when stories of hidden or lost manuscripts emerge about a writer or philosopher in history. This was clearly shown by the recent shock to the academic world that some Dead Sea Scrolls fragments, discovered in the 21^st century, were found to be contemporary forgeries that had “duped outside collectors, the museum’s founder, and some of the world’s leading biblical scholars”[xiii]. Worse still, before these scrolls were uncovered as fakes, “leading scholars threw their support behind the fragments” and had already published peer approved works about it, including books, perhaps because it was a professor who declared them authentic[xiv]. It is also unfortunate that these scrolls that the independent researchers have now declared as fakes have already been published by Brill who admit they would withdraw their book if it was proved that the scrolls concerned are fakes[xv]. And it does not just stop at these fragments. Similar ones are also stored at “academic institutions around the world”[xvi]. Moreover, even if the best scenario were true and they had not been fake scrolls, they would still pose a problem because, in order to come to light in the first place, they apparently may have been stolen and or smuggled[xvii], something even an Oxford professor has been suspected of being involved in[xviii]. As Justnes points out, “But if they are authentic, unprovenanced artifacts, they must have been looted, they must have been smuggled”[xix].

Hence, given the inevitable mess and confusion that arises from contemporary discoveries of historical manuscripts, I, for one, as an independent researcher/scholar, shall steer clear of researching, writing about and publishing anything supporting or taking an interest in such discoveries (of which there are a few in my field of research, such as the Vatican manuscript of Spinoza’s Ethics and a hypothesis raised by Boyle[xx] that there may be a forgotten work by Mary Shepherd), no matter how peer reviewed and accepted the texts are and irrespective of their potential authenticity. These Dead Sea Scroll fragments demonstrate, as do the 18^th century rumours about forgotten texts by Cavendish, how fraught such a research task would be. Consequently, I would also not consider letting such discoveries influence my methodology or interpretation of any philosopher. Furthermore, I maintain that it should be a requirement that any newly discovered manuscripts should go through many years of rigorous analysis of their physical and chemical composition and cutting edge techniques, such as multispectral imaging, to determine their authenticity before researchers waste their time writing about them. For me, it also throws into doubt the practice of peer review which failed to question these scrolls early enough and the research based on them. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate the value of independent researchers!      

 

Philosophy or Creative Writing? Cavendish’s Methodological Approach 

 

Given that ‘Poems and Fancies’[xxi] was meant to be published alongside a philosophical treatise, I suggest these are deeply philosophical poems which attempt to convey arguments and thought experiments in philosophy. Cavendish was critical of how practical experiments in science were conducted. Instead of just heavily relying on practical experiments, Cavendish also advocated the method of engaging one’s reason and imagination to carry out thought experiments. She considered such theoretical, philosophical methodology, as opposed to only pure practical scientific method, to be potentially more reliable than the equipment science was using to learn about the world. Wilkins summarises it wonderfully in her paper ‘Margaret Cavendish and the Royal Society’:

“Cavendish enjoyed greater opportunities than most when it came to experimenting with the latest instruments. During their exile in Paris during the 1640s, the couple acquired an impressive collection of microscopes and telescopes, two of which were made by Torricelli, the famous Italian experimentalist, and four by Eustachio Divino, of which the largest, the ‘Great Glass’, was 29 feet long.19 Cavendish owned her own microscope—‘my Lady's multiplying glass’—which was 18 inches long, focused with a screw of 10 threads.”[xxii]

One has to bear in mind that the 17^th century scientific equipment Cavendish is referring to was very basic and had many design flaws, such as, if a lens grinder produced faulty lenses which incurred erroneous observations for the scientist then the results of the experiment would be inaccurate[xxiii]. (So the philosopher/scientist Spinoza had a very responsible job in science as a high quality lens grinder thereby ensuring scientists received and used lens that would yield accurate scientific results, as far as possible.) Cavendish’s concerns about the lack of quality control of the equipment used in many scientific experiments were justified and shared by other philosophers, namely Locke and Hobbes[xxiv]. Her main concern, as it should be for all philosophers, was a search for truth, in this case, scientific truth[xxv]. Or more precisely and historically speaking, what we now refer to as science was termed natural philosophy which spanned all three main sciences together with maths and metaphysics[xxvi].  

Cavendish’s concerns about the way scientific experiments were carried out using the equipment available in her day extended to experiments performed at the Royal Society (academy for sciences). The Royal Society invited her to a meeting of theirs (the first woman to be thus invited) during which members demonstrated some scientific experiments for her to observe, including contras to her stances, for instance, on vacuums. Cavendish must have been extremely knowledgeable to cope with these rebuttals coming from so-called learned men! A fellow feminist in her era, Bathsua Makin (1600-c. 1675) was not only supportive of Cavendish but even declared her to be better at science than the male university graduates[xxvii]. So when reading Cavendish it is important to bear in mind that, like Spinoza, she was both a philosopher and a scientist. They were also both very creative people. Spinoza was an artist and Cavendish a literary figure. Makin’s views on women’s educational abilities in general led to her setting up a school for girls and distributing the women’s education pamphlet "An Essay to Revive the Ancient Education of Gentlewomen’. She published a treatise on this subject the year Cavendish died titled ‘An Essay To Revive the Ancient Education of Gentlewomen, in Religion, Manners, Arts & Tongues, with an Answer to the Objections against this Way of Education’ (1673). Makin’s views were then repeated by Mary Astell not long after (1666 – 1731). Makin[xxviii] considered Cavendish to be one of the most educated and intelligent women in history, alongside Arete of Cyrene, who was venerated in her day (4^th-5^th century BCE, North Africa) and argued for gender and racial equality, taking a stand against slavery[xxix]. This is amazing given she lived so far back in history. We assume that back then, things were so dire that women just sat at home and spun while slavery was so entrenched as a societal norm that nobody questioned it until centuries later. In addition, Arete worked as a philosopher, led the Cyrenaic School of Philosophy, trained around 110 Philosophy students and wrote 40 books[xxx]. Many still assume women only became philosophers until relatively recently but Arete shows, as do the Jewish women philosophers of Alexandria[xxxi], that herstory tells us otherwise. Since Makin referred to Arete in her treatise on women’s education, it is highly plausible that Cavendish was also aware of her, especially since Makin and Cavendish belong to the same era, both were educated women feminists and knew of each other. So perhaps Arete was a role model for Cavendish, as perhaps, I think, was Christine de Pizan (née Cristina da Pizzano, 1364 – circa 1430). Both Cavendish and Pizan were part of court life, albeit in different ways, and spent time living in France. They were both prolific writers who not only wrote poetry but also dealt with the theme of war and the military. This is an unusual combination of writing interests that they had in common. Cavendish was also widely read because she had tutors and access to a scholarly library from a young age. In addition, one of her brothers (John) was a scholar who was highly educated in philosophy, natural science, as well as all three Ancient languages and became a founding member of the Royal Society. (He was also a soldier and Royalist Commander in the English Civil War.) This means that Cavendish was used to academic debate, dialogue and contras from intellectual discussions with him especially given it was part of her home environment. So I think it is possible she was mostly academically inspired by her brother [rather than by academic discussions later as an adult with her husband (MP) and his brother (mathematican and MP)] alongside perhaps wishing to emulate strong, intellectual women  in history, such as Arete and Pizan. Hence, we can see that Cavendish is, in fact, very much in the tradition of intellectual women down the ages. She is not some bizarre, freak of nature who is an aberration in the history of philosophy. On the contrary, she built on and developed the history of women in philosophy with the same style and strength of those who came before her.  

Furthermore, even in modern times when scientific equipment and research is much more advanced, Cavendish’s rational, thought experiment approach still has merit, especially when it comes to making new discoveries. Einstein is one example of a scientist who used philosophical reasoning coupled with imagination for constructing theories which have stood the test of time and have yet to be disproved by fellow present day scientists, especially his Theory of General Relativity:

“He liked to think visually, coming up with experiments in his mind’s eye and working them around in his head until he could see the ideas and physical principles with crystalline clarity.”[xxxii]

“…Einstein got started on his thought experiments when he was just 16, and.. it eventually led him to the most revolutionary equation in modern physics.”[xxxiii]

Hence, given the various arguments I have presented above, I shall explore the possibility of Cavendish using literary devices as a vehicle for her imaginative and rational philosophical methodological approach, rather than for creative writing purposes in themselves. In this volume, I shall begin to explore in depth my overall hypothesis that Cavendish’s creative writing was mainly a vehicle for her to publish her philosophy. Although Cavendish was creative and innovative, I suggest her main aim, in perhaps all of her books, was to convey her philosophical knowledge, theories and arguments to readers.

 

Criticisms which Hinder an Understanding of Her Texts

In this section, I wish to discuss criticisms (of which there were many) aimed at Cavendish’s writings which, I think, hinder reading, understanding and appreciating her texts.

Cavendish’s Style of Writing

Cavendish is often criticised for her spelling and for her seemingly rudimentary poetic and creative writing style. However, her spelling is of her era and is perfectly understandable. After all, if we look at Shakespeare, we do not see modern spelling or modern grammar but nobody suggests he could not spell or write English! A further example of a similar style of writing, in Cavendish’s era, is Countess Mary Sidney (Herbert) whose works are written with very similar spelling and rhyming to Cavendish. Countess Mary Sidney (Herbert) was a literary figure who died (1621) only two years before Cavendish was born (1623). It is likely Cavendish would have read Sidney’s works especially since they were both of the same class and Cavendish was supportive of women becoming writers. According to Robin Williams, Sidney may well have been the woman behind Shakespeare’s (1564-1616) plays and sonnets and was “a woman at the forefront of the literary movement in Elizabethan England, yet forbidden to write for the stage because of her gender”[xxxiv].

For example, the opening verse of ‘The Dolefull Lay of Clorinda’ (1595): 

“AY me, to whom shall I my case complaine?

That may compassion my impatient griefe?

Or where shall I unfold my inward paine,

That my enriuen heart may find reliefe?

Shall I vnto the heauenly powres it show?                        

Or unto earthly men that dwell below?”[xxxv]

I’m aware that Sidney is rhyming lines 1&3, 2&4, 5&6 whereas Cavendish favours rhyming in couplets[xxxvi]. Nothing unusual or pedantic about this, given that a famous male poet/s (Jonson or Browne) wrote a poetic epitaph[xxxvii] in honour of Mary Sidney on her death, written in the same rhyming couplet style as Cavendish herself employed:

“Underneath this sable hearse

Lies the subject of all verse,

Sidney's sister, Pembroke's mother;

Death, ere thou hast slain another

Fair and learned and good as she,

Time shall throw a dart at thee.

Marble piles let no man raise

To her name, for after-days

Some kind woman, born as she,

Reading this, like Niobe

Shall turn marble, and become

Both her mourner and her tomb.”[xxxviii]

So it is not a facile style and hence such criticisms are unwarranted, flawed and plain wrong. This includes Virginia Woolf’s essay ‘The Duchess of Newcastle’ in her collection ‘The Common Reader First Series’ (1925)[xxxix] in which she attempts to dehumanise and demolish Cavendish as a person as well as her life’s work, both her philosophy and her literary works:

“Naturally, then, her language was coarse. Nevertheless, though her philosophies are futile, and her plays intolerable, and her verses mainly dull, the vast bulk of the Duchess is leavened by a vein of authentic fire. One cannot help following the lure of her erratic and lovable personality as it meanders and twinkles through page after page. There is something noble and Quixotic and high-spirited, as well as crack-brained and bird-witted, about her. Her simplicity is so open; her intelligence so active; her sympathy with fairies and animals so true and tender. She has the freakishness of an elf, the irresponsibility of some non-human creature, its heartlessness, and its charm.”[xl]

What an unpleasant read! None of the other essays[xli] are as scathing about anyone, be it George Eliot, the Brontes, Jane Austen or Archbishop Thomson, amongst others. And this tirade[xlii] is ironic given that Woolf is considered to be at the forefront of 20^th century feminism and emphasized that women should be free to follow their life’s ambitions and dreams without worrying about other people’s criticism. Yet Woolf is denigrating Cavendish[xliii] for doing precisely that which she is advocating that women should do. Furthermore, it shows incredible ignorance, disregard and disrespect on the part of Woolf that she has no feminist interest in how Cavendish broke through the glass ceiling of the publishing, philosophical and literary worlds of the 17^th century yet is happy to benefit from her advancements for women by becoming a famous, published writer herself. 

Moreover, if there are inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Cavendish’s writings, these are mainly down to her publishers and printers mistyping her manuscript. She was forever engaged in correcting their errors.[xliv]   

Cavendish’s Supposed Atheism

A further criticism levelled at Cavendish, which she had to correct in writing, was that she was an atheist. This was a serious problem for anyone during the Early Modern period in various countries. In England, Cavendish was writing in the years leading up to the introduction of a Bill (1666) against atheism, especially in books. In her ‘Physical Opinions’[xlv], Cavendish is very clear in one of her epistles to her readers that on no account is she an atheist:

“Desire my Readers to give me the same priviledge to discourse in natural Philosophy, as Scholers have in schooles, which I have heard speak freely, and boldly, without being condemned for Atheisme; for they speak as natural Philosophers, not as Divines: and since it is natural Philosophy, and not Theologie, I treat on, pray account me not an Atheist, but beleeve as I do in God Almighty.”[xlvi] (no page number)

Misunderstanding Cavendish as being an atheist leads to misinterpreting her philosophy. The same can be said of Spinoza who had to put up with similar misunderstanding (within the same century) which he kept attempting to correct. Lady Mary Shepherd may well have had the same problem, for one of the same reasons that, like Spinoza and Cavendish, she wished to keep philosophy and theology as separate fields. This is exactly right. Philosophy and theology have very different methodologies, priorities, ways of thinking and structure of argumentation. Not forgetting that their use of logic has some differences, most strikingly, that theological arguments are allowed to become more circular in order to support the inevitable conclusion that God exists. Philosophy is more open ended in its search for truth and no logical, rational conclusion is dismissed. It is also not judged in relation to religious dogma. In this way, conflating the two creates confusion and encourages a battle between the two which does not do either discipline any favours. Both disciplines and their respective methodologies are weakened by attempts to merge the two into a hybrid discipline. This, I maintain, is as much of a mistake today as it ever was. It does not follow that a philosopher who keeps the two disciplines separate is atheistic, agnostic, or indifferent. Indeed, all three philosophers saw themselves as religious believers.                    

 

---

[i] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, Poems and Fancies (London, UK: J. Martin, and J. Allestrye at the Bell in Saint Pauls Church Yard, 1653), https://ia800802.us.archive.org/35/items/poemsfancies00newc/poemsfancies00newc.pdf.

[ii] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, PHILOSOPHICALL FANCIES (London UK: J. Martin, and J. Allestrye, at the Bell in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1653), http://tei.it.ox.ac.uk/tcp/Texts-HTML/free/A53/A53057.html.

[iii] Eugene Marshall, ‘Margaret Cavendish (1623—1673)’, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n/d, https://iep.utm.edu/cavend-m/.

[iv] Deborah Boyle, ‘A Mistaken Attribution to Lady Mary Shepherd’, Journal of Modern Philosophy 2, no. 1 (1 June 2020), https://doi.org/10.32881/jomp.100.

[v] Liba Kaucky, Research Thoughts on...Lady Mary Shepherd, 1st ed., vol. 1, Research Thoughts On... 2 (United Kingdom: blog ebook on Blogger.com, 2018), https://theladymaryshepherdphilosophysalon.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/my-blog-ebook-research-thoughts-on-lady.html.

[vi] Liba Kaucky, Research Thoughts on...Lady Mary Shepherd, 1st ed., vol. 2, Research Thoughts On... 2 (London UK: ebook on blogger.com, forthcoming), https://theladymaryshepherdphilosophysalon.blogspot.com/2019/01/my-blog-ebook-research-thoughts-on-lady.html.

[vii] Newcastle, Poems and Fancies.

[viii] Newcastle.

[ix] Liza Blake, ‘Textual and Editorial Introduction’, in Margaret Cavendish’s Poems and Fancies: A Digital Critical Edition., ed. Liza Blake (Toronto, Canada: Powered by Wordpress, 2019), http://library2.utm.utoronto.ca/poemsandfancies/textual-and-editorial-introduction/.

[x] Blake.

[xi] Blake.

[xii] Blake.

[xiii] Michael Greshko, ‘Exclusive: “Dead Sea Scrolls” at the Museum of the Bible Are All Forgeries’, National Geographic, 13 March 2020, Exclusive: ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ at the Museum of the Bible are all forgeries.

[xiv] Greshko.

[xv] Greshko.

[xvi] Greshko.

[xvii] Arstein Justnes and Josephine Munch Rasmussen, ‘Soli Deo Gloria? The Scholars, the Market, and the Dubious  Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments’, November 2017, https://www.academia.edu/35155496/_Soli_Deo_Gloria_The_Scholars_the_Market_and_the_Dubious_Post_2002_Dead_Sea_Scrolls_like_Fragments_Bible_and_Interpretation_November_2017_.

[xviii] Greshko, ‘Exclusive: “Dead Sea Scrolls” at the Museum of the Bible Are All Forgeries’.

[xix] Greshko.

[xx] Boyle, ‘A Mistaken Attribution to Lady Mary Shepherd’.

[xxi] Newcastle, Poems and Fancies.

[xxii] Emma Wilkins, ‘Margaret Cavendish and the Royal Society’, Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science 68, no. 3 (20 September 2014): 247, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2014.0015.

[xxiii] Wilkins, 247–48.

[xxiv] Wilkins, 248–49.

[xxv] Wilkins, ‘Margaret Cavendish and the Royal Society’.

[xxvi] Wilkins, 256; note 2.

[xxvii] Bathsua Makin, AN ESSAY To Revive the Ancient Education of Gentlewomen, in Religion, Manners, Arts & Tongues. With An Answer to the Objections against This Way of Education. (London UK: Printed by J. D. to be sold by Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Crown at the lower end of Cheapside, 1673), http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/makin/education/education.html.

[xxviii] Makin.

[xxix] None given, ‘Arete of Cyrene’, in Encyclopedia.com (Encyclopedia.com, September 2020), https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/arete-cyrene.

[xxx] None given.

[xxxi] Joan E. Taylor, Jewish Women Philosophers of First-Century Alexandria: Philo’s ‘Therapeutae’ Reconsidered, Reprinted (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).

[xxxii] Mitch Waldrop, ‘Einstein’s Relativity Explained in 4 Simple Steps’, National Geographic, 16 May 2017, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/05/einstein-relativity-thought-experiment-train-lightning-genius/.

[xxxiii] Waldrop.

[xxxiv] Robin Williams, Sweet Swan of Avon: Did a Woman Write Shakespeare? (Berkeley, CA: Wilton Circle Press, 2006).

[xxxv] Mary Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, ‘The Dolefull Lay of Clorinda’, Educational, Luminarium, 1595, http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/dolefull.htm.

[xxxvi] Newcastle, Poems and Fancies.

[xxxvii] William Browne, ‘On the Countess Dowager of Pembroke’, Educational, www.web-books.com, 1621, http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Poetry/Anthology/Browne/OnCountess.htm.

[xxxviii] Browne.

[xxxix] Virginia Woolf, The Common Reader., 1st ed., 1925, http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300031h.html#C06.

[xl] Woolf.

[xli] Woolf.

[xlii] Woolf.

[xliii] Woolf.

[xliv] Blake, ‘Textual and Editorial Introduction’.

[xlv] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND Physical Opinions (London UK: J. Martin, and J. Allestrye at the Bell in Saint Pauls Church Yard in 1655; Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership in 2011, 1655), https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53055.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext.

[xlvi] Newcastle.