Chapter 5: Possible Worlds and a Flourishing Life: A Scholarly Debate in Cavendish's Orations

Chapter 5: Possible Worlds and a Flourishing Life

A Scholarly Debate in Cavendish's Orations

In the previous chapter, I evaluated Cavendish's poems which involve a metaphysical, scientific-based concept and methodological use of possible worlds. This pursuit of metaphysical and scientific knowledge is one aspect of flourishing. To show the breadth of the types of possible worlds concepts and applications Cavendish adopts I shall, in this chapter, analyse a contrasting style of possible worlds thinking in Cavendish's writings - possible worlds as mental states or perhaps simply ways of thinking and living. One of these states Cavendish calls poetic worlds, thus giving us an insight into the broader context of her poetry[i]. Not only are there possible worlds within Cavendish's poems, poetry itself is a possible world, or more precisely, a plurality of possible worlds[ii]. In this chapter, I shall focus on the first two orations in 'Scholastical Orations' (in Part XV of Cavendish's 'Orations'[iii]^; [iv]), in which two scholarly orators debate what kind of world and life they think constitutes the best of all worlds, where we could live the good life and flourish as a scholar. The first oration I shall examine is 'A Sleepy Speech to Students' (oration 170[v]) before comparing it to the second oration, 'A Waking Oration of the Former Sleepy Discourse' (oration 171[vi]), which functions as a contra to the previous oration. I conclude by assessing what both arguments tell us about the types of possible worlds in which different scholars think they would flourish. I shall refer to the orator of oration 170 as Orator 1[vii], and the orator for the following one as Orator 2[viii], for ease of reference.

Oration: 'A Sleepy Speech to Students' (oration 170) (Orator 1)

The concept of "worlds"[ix] appears in the very first sentence of the opening oration, 'A Sleepy Speech to Students'. Cavendish describes many worlds and "Kinds or Sorts of Life", such as the material, poetical, drowsy, dreaming, contemplating, active worlds and lives[x]. Out of all these, the first orator prefers, and argues in favour of, worlds which are “Drowsie” and “Dreaming”[xi]. One fascinating claim that Orator 1 puts forward, is that the mental states of dreaming and drowsiness give us access to "an Unknown World, and an Unknown Life" whereby life and death become almost interchangeable[xii]. Orator 1 supports this claim by pointing out some similarities. For instance, whether asleep or awake, the passions remain just as varied and strong[xiii]. Furthermore, our dispositions, appetite, judgement and reason also stay similar between the two states of being awake or being asleep[xiv]. Nevertheless, there are some important differences too, Orator 1 argues. The dreams we have while asleep last less time than our waking state[xv]. Once awake, the dreams we had when asleep stay in our mind (and memory) less long than our experiences when awake[xvi]. In addition, our dreams when asleep are more prone to being confused and disorganised, whereas when we are awake and in our so-called active life, this is not the case[xvii]. In this way, Cavendish presents the argument, through Orator 1, that our sensory life is not qualitatively different whether we are awake or asleep[xviii]. Even complex emotional reactions remain the same between the two states, such as feelings of loss, suffering, attachment and, as Cavendish puts it, "our bonds"[xix]. I suggest that Cavendish may be presenting the possibility that we retain our sense of self when asleep and dreaming. I think she achieves this by making Orator 1 point out that people attempt to "Help Our Selves" in their dreams while asleep[xx]. This suggests that we are aware of who we are and retain a sense of our personal identity when in this drowsy, dream world. Thus, in dreams, we seem aware of the difference between attracting help from others as opposed to helping ourselves.

According to Orator 1, we are also capable of striving and attempting to preserve our life whether we are awake and living the active life or dreaming life[xxi]. We are also capable of experiencing other this-world phenomenon and events. Orator 1 argues that we feel as though we are using all of our five senses while asleep and dreaming, just as we do in our waking lives[xxii]. He attributes such capacities to the existence of "Sensitive Spirits" and not people's material bodies' senses[xxiii]. Further similarities that Orator 1 cites between the dreaming and active lives is that, in dreams, people retain a sense of there being states of affairs and events[xxiv]. They can even ascribe things to themselves and feel that they are able to physically see themselves and what they look like[xxv].

How strong is Orator 1's argument? How does this compare to what we know today? There are three known states of consciousness for a healthy, functioning brain: being awake, REM sleep and non-REM sleep[xxvi]. We move between these states of consciousness when the "switch" in our brains turns these states on and off[xxvii]. Sometimes this switch in the brain malfunctions and causes a hybrid between the state of being awake and REM sleep[xxviii]. Such errors cause symptoms such as not being able to move on waking up and experiencing hallucinations[xxix]. This, perhaps, demonstrates through contemporary science that Orator 1 is right to claim that there is a finer line between the waking life and the dreaming, drowsy life than people realise. Orator 1, I suggest, even argues along the right lines to support his claims. For instance, he maintains that we do not use our bodies when we feel as though we have used our five senses in our dreams[xxx]. Given that people cannot move during REM sleep and the brain needs to switch this state off to allow movement on waking, this shows that bodily movement and physical systems can be turned off when asleep. A further example is how Orator 1 describes the phenomenon of feeling as if you have experienced events and states of affairs in your dreams[xxxi]. Kondziella and Nelson hypothesize that the brain processes which cause sleep disturbances also cause visualisation, especially in life threatening situations[xxxii]. This may provide a contemporary, scientific explanation for Orator 1's argument that:

“would we see the Ruine of our Enemies, do not we so in Dreams? would we have our Enemies Dye or be Kill'd, do not they Dye or are Slain in Dreams?..... would we Fight Duells and Battels, and have Victory, have not we Victory in Dreams?”[xxxiii]

Here, we see that Orator 1 has an awareness of people both dreaming about life threatening situations and visualizing them or experiencing these events when awake. The way he parallels the two would fit either visualized experience or sleep disturbances, especially REM dreaming which generates the "most vivid dreaming"[xxxiv].  Another striking similarity is that people who merge REM sleep and waking consciousness are more prone to near-death experiences[xxxv]. This is perhaps relevant to oration 170 because, rather like Lady Mary Shepherd, Cavendish, or at least Orator 1, seems to believe in the possibility that "...Sleep is a Type of Death"[xxxvi].

Orator 1 concludes that the drowsy, dreamy life is the best of all possible mental lives and worlds, followed by the poetical and contemplative life[xxxvii]. A downside of the contemplative life is that all the senses are not present in it[xxxviii]. If the contemplative life could somehow be combined with the senses we are capable of in dreams, then, hypothetically, the life of contemplation would be the best of all lives, according to Orator 1[xxxix]. Like the contemplative world, Orator 1 considers the poetic world "a World for the Thoughts, and a Life for the Mind, than the Senses”[xl]. Although poetic worlds seem to appear lower down in his list of best possible worlds, he does not devalue poetry but rather recommends it as "a Delight to View as well as to Live in”[xli]. Orator 1 seems to classify the poetic world as not only a valuable world in itself, but also sometimes refers to it in the plural (poetical worlds) which may mean that he sees poetry as possibly constituting a plurality of worlds in itself, within its own poetic category, rather than being only one world amongst other, different categories of worlds[xlii]. 

Oration: 'A Waking Oration of the Former Sleepy Discourse' 

(oration 171) (Orator 2)

An oration in the style of a contra to refute the previous oration (170)

In this oration[xliii]^; [xliv], we see a fellow scholar attempt a refutation of Orator 1's argument, something which is standard practice in academia and scholarly discourse, as well as in debating societies.

Orator 2 begins his contra argument by stating that sleeping and dreaming are "an Enemy to Study"[xlv]. He supports this claim by pointing out what he takes to be obvious, the fact that you cannot study in your sleep, therefore, no scholars would be "Learn’d"[xlvi] simply through dreaming. Thus, Orator 2 reaches his first sub-conclusion: it is not plausible that there would be scholars in a drowsy world or dreaming life. Related, supporting claims to this sub-conclusion is that dreams are not conducive to academic debate and delivering orations. We see this when Orator 2 explicitly argues that "as for School Arguments and Disputations, they are quite Banished”[xlvii] in a dream world and "neither are there Eloquent Orators, for Dreams will be Faded before an Oration is half Spoken, or else the Subject of their Oration will be Lost in the Variousness of Dreams”[xlviii]. It seems to me that Orator 2 has very disturbed sleep patterns in mind because he depicts politics and law in a dream world as very chaotic, frightening and disorderly. He claims:

“…neither can there be a Setled Government in Dreams, for the Government may End in a Piece of a Dream, or instead of a Commonwealth of Men, be a Forest of Wild Beast; neither can there be Wise Counsellours, or Grave States-men…”[xlix]

In terms of the legal and justice system, in summary, Orator 2 maintains that "...neither can they be Pleaders at the Barr .... neither can there be Justice on Life and Death.." [l] Orator 2's depiction of dreams, as mostly being disturbed and unhelpful for flourishing, continues into his preamble prior to his conclusion:

“…yet there are more Bad Dreams than Good, more Fearfull than Delightfull, more Troublesome than Quiet, more Painfull than Easie; Wherefore, the Dreaming Life is a worse Life than any, and the Drowsie or Sleepy World is only good for Dull, Lasie, Unprofitable Creatures;”[li]

Moreover, Orator 2 gives a Shakespearean-style description of dreams, reminiscent of Midsummer Night's Dreams when he says "…and many other such like Disorders, Confusions, and Extravagancies, as Asses Heads or Bulls Horns set on Mens Bodies…”[lii]

This would be an interesting reference given that Shakespeare was not only a playwright but also a poet. Perhaps Cavendish wishes to bring to life the imagery that Orator 2 is trying to explain, maybe hinting also at the potential influence creative writing can have on scholars' academic concepts and arguments. Nevertheless, despite the possible example of dreams being a useful source of creative ideas for Shakespeare, Orator 2 argues against Orator 1's notion that poets flourish in a drowsy or dream world. On the contrary, Orator 2 claims “neither are there Poets, for Poets Live altogether in their Own Poetical World, and Contemplative Life”[liii]. In this way, Orator 2 pairs the poetic world or worlds with the contemplative world, not the drowsy or dream world. This pairing of the Poetic and contemplative life and worlds has a deep connection for Orator 2. He believes that the contemplative life provides "the Spiritual Life in this Poetical World.”[liv]

Orator 2 concludes that the contemplative world wins out, but ideally it is paired with, and sustains, the poetic world:

“…the Dreaming Life is the Worst, so the Contemplating Life is the Best, and the Poetical World the Pleasant'st, for all Wise, Witty, Learn'd, Ingenious, Good, and Pious men dwell all in the Contemplative Life…”[lv]

Orator 2, unlike Orator 1, is not concerned with preserving the full power of the senses, but rather prioritizes "true Pleasure and Delight" through the mind more than through the senses[lvi]. For Orator 2, the mind is the most important capacity we have, combined with the "most Splendorous" poetic "World"[lvii]. The mind rules over more than the senses can even help us know and many key aspects of our life and flourishing, such as "....the Satisfactions of the Appetites and the Objects and Subjects of the Senses... "[lviii].

How do the scholars, Orator 1 and Orator 2, compare?

In short, Orator 1's speech[lix] argues in favour for the drowsy, dream worlds as the best of all possible worlds for a flourishing, scholarly life. This is mostly because he emphasizes the importance of the senses, which are less prevalent in the contemplative and poetic worlds. If these worlds did incorporate at least the senses we are capable of experiencing in dreams, then they would become the best of all possible worlds, for Orator 1. On the other side of the debate, Orator 2[lx] argues in favour of the contemplative and poetic worlds, over the drowsy and dream worlds In order to flourish as a scholar and lead a learned life. This is partly because Orator 2 does not place the same level of importance on the senses, but instead, emphasises how the mind rules over the senses and all our other capacities, making it the most vital capacity we have. So both scholars would agree that, in theory, the contemplative and poetic lives are the best possible worlds. The difference is Orator 2 sticks to this conclusion whereas Orator 1 leaves this as an hypothesis and draws a different conclusion. One possible reason for this, although not explicitly mentioned in the text, could be if Orator 1 was an empiricist and Orator 2 a rationalist. Perhaps Cavendish is especially capable of keeping an open-mind about the value of dreams and examining dreams as part of our mental life when writing this two-sided debate because, quite unusually among academics especially in her era, she views both the imagination and empirical science positively.

There are merits to both their arguments. Although Orator 2 is right to point out that nobody studies by falling asleep, it has been found that sleep can boost memory, academic or creative cognition. So Orator 1 is not completely wrong to bring out the beneficial effect dreaming has on study. Indeed, psychology has taken the topic of dreams and streams of consciousness very seriously in a range of theories, dating back to the beginning of psychology becoming a separate, distinct field from philosophy, around the latter 19th to early 20th century. So it is very advanced of Cavendish to have already taken dreams to be academically significant, back in the 17th century.

Cavendish is also on track about possible worlds in philosophy by considering to what extent they can sometimes be viewed and debated in terms of being mental states. Absolutists about possible worlds, I suggest, have a version of Orator 1's[lxi] argument for the existence of a dream world. On their view, all possible worlds, other than the ontological distinct actual world, "are the product of mental activity, such as dreaming, imagining, foretelling, promising, or storytelling"[lxii]. This is in contrast to a Lewis-style moral realism view of possible worlds, where imagination does not play a role in analysing the actual world or possible worlds, instead prioritising the notion and language of indexicals and reference, to give an alternative sense of location and point of view[lxiii].

---

[i] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle and Susan James, Political Writings, First published, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 284–88.

[ii] Newcastle and James, 286.

[iii] Newcastle and James, 284–88.

[iv] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, Orations of Divers Sorts Accommodated to Divers Places (London, UK: First printed by W. Wilson; online Public Domain version: Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 1662), http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A53051.0001.001.

[v] Newcastle and James, Political Writings, 284–86.

[vi] Newcastle and James, 287–88.

[vii] Newcastle and James, 284–86.

[viii] Newcastle and James, 287–88.

[ix] Newcastle and James, 284.

[x] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, ‘A Sleepy Speech to Students’, in Orations of Divers Sorts Accommodated to Divers Places (London, UK: First printed by W. Wilson; online Public Domain version: Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 1662), 292, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53051.0001.001/1:20.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext.

[xi] Newcastle, 292.

[xii] Newcastle, 292.

[xiii] Newcastle and James, Political Writings, 284.

[xiv] Newcastle, ‘A Sleepy Speech to Students’, 293.

[xv] Newcastle and James, Political Writings, 284.

[xvi] Newcastle and James, 284.

[xvii] Newcastle and James, 284.

[xviii] Newcastle and James, 284–86.

[xix] Newcastle and James, 284.

[xx] Newcastle, ‘A Sleepy Speech to Students’, 294.

[xxi] Newcastle, ‘A Sleepy Speech to Students’.

[xxii] Newcastle.

[xxiii] Newcastle, 294.

[xxiv] Newcastle, ‘A Sleepy Speech to Students’.

[xxv] Newcastle.

[xxvi] Erika Edwards, ‘Can Science Explain What People See and Feel during a near-Death Experience?  New Research Points to Brain Activity That Occurs When the Body Isn’t in Any Danger at All: REM Sleep.’, NBC News, 29 June 2019, https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/can-science-explain-what-people-see-feel-during-near-death-n1024316.

[xxvii] Edwards.

[xxviii] Edwards.

[xxix] Edwards.

[xxx] Newcastle, ‘A Sleepy Speech to Students’.

[xxxi] Newcastle.

[xxxii] Edwards, ‘Can Science Explain What People See and Feel during a near-Death Experience?  New Research Points to Brain Activity That Occurs When the Body Isn’t in Any Danger at All: REM Sleep.’

[xxxiii] Newcastle, ‘A Sleepy Speech to Students’, 296.

[xxxiv] Edwards, ‘Can Science Explain What People See and Feel during a near-Death Experience?  New Research Points to Brain Activity That Occurs When the Body Isn’t in Any Danger at All: REM Sleep.’

[xxxv] Edwards.

[xxxvi] Newcastle, ‘A Sleepy Speech to Students’, 292.

[xxxvii] Newcastle and James, Political Writings, 286.

[xxxviii] Newcastle, ‘A Sleepy Speech to Students’.

[xxxix] Newcastle and James, Political Writings, 286.

[xl] Newcastle, ‘A Sleepy Speech to Students’, 297.

[xli] Newcastle, 298.

[xlii] Newcastle, ‘A Sleepy Speech to Students’.

[xliii] Newcastle and James, Political Writings, 287–88.

[xliv] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, ‘A Waking Oration of the Former Sleepy Discourse.’, in Orations of Divers Sorts Accommodated to Divers Places (London UK: First printed by W. Wilson; online Public Domain version: Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 1662), https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53051.0001.001/1:20.2?rgn=div2;view=fulltext.

[xlv] Newcastle, 298.

[xlvi] Newcastle, 298.

[xlvii] Newcastle, 299.

[xlviii] Newcastle, 298.

[xlix] Newcastle, 298–99.

[l] Newcastle, 298.

[li] Newcastle, 300.

[lii] Newcastle, 300.

[liii] Newcastle, 298.

[liv] Newcastle, 301.

[lv] Newcastle, 300.

[lvi] Newcastle, 300.

[lvii] Newcastle, 301.

[lviii] Newcastle, 301.

[lix] Newcastle, ‘A Sleepy Speech to Students’.

[lx] Newcastle, ‘A Waking Oration of the Former Sleepy Discourse.’

[lxi] Newcastle, ‘A Sleepy Speech to Students’.

[lxii] Marie-Laure Ryan, ‘Possible Worlds’, Educational, the living handbook of narratology, 2 March 2012, http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/node/54.html.

[lxiii] Ryan.