Contextualising Cavendish (14.7)

Below is the script for Season 14, episode 7 of my Philosophy Fluency podcast. 

You can listen to this episode here.

🎧 

Hello and welcome to Philosophy Fluency, Season 14 episode 7. On Wednesday, 19th of November, I attended the Symposium ‘Exercises in Early Modern Thought: Philosophy, Arts, Science, Theology, Politics’ at the MFO in Oxford, where Professor Emerita Susan James presented an excellent paper which stems from her longer paper that she presented at the 'Cavendish on Literature' 3 day conference at Southampton University in June this year which, as you all know, I also attended. 

So, over caramel coffees today, I shall resume my discussion of Margaret Cavendish, but by springing off from Susan James's three Cavendish talks that I attended this year. 

Therefore, although I have further ideas to explore about Cavendish's play 'The Convent of Pleasure', I shall nonetheless share with you another aspect of my research on Cavendish that I've been working on for a long time, that is: The historical and literary context of, and environment within which Cavendish worked and how it sheds light on her writings and perspective. 

Immediately after attending the Cavendish on Literature conference in June this year, I was inspired by Susan James's talk to research more closely how the historical and the literary contexts are intertwined and mutually supportive and how and why it's useful to look at both when gaining an understanding of Cavendish's various writing styles and books. 

Just like with Spinoza, Susan James and I ended up with our research on him being like two sides of the same coin: We've both taken a contextual approach: She situated Spinoza within the context of the Dutch society, politics, religion and intellectual debates around him; I situated him within the context of being a Dutch Jew with a Portuguese Jewish background, therefore I focused on his Jewish identity, the Jewish education he received at his Dutch synagogue and the Jewish people and Rabbis around him within his Jewish community. 

In much the same way, we seem to be taking two sides of the same coin again, as we contextualise Margaret Cavendish within her historical era and the environment she lived in. For both of us, this includes the backdrop of the English Civil war, during which the royal family and their court were forced into exile. Susan James saw the relevance to the English Civil war during the paper she gave on January the 27th this year titled: “Margaret Cavendish and the Unavoidability of War”. 

We also both look at some influential poets who moved within royal circles, namely Davenant and Philip Sidney with a view to understanding and contextualising Cavendish within her intellectual environment. 

However, because Susan James is responding to the themes set out by the Cavendish on Literature conference, she has expanded on Cavendish's views on writing, as well as the relevance of the context and impact of the literary criticism of others, hence she includes the literary criticisms of George Puttenham (1529–1590), and Philip Sidney (1554 –1586) who wrote critical essays. This is especially apparent in the conference description which asks: 

"How do Cavendish’s claims about literature relate to those of her contemporaries, such as Philip Sidney, Ben Johnson or William Davenant, or to ancient views in circulation in the early modern era."¹

My focus, however, is not on literary criticism but rather on the literary circles that Margaret Cavendish moved in. Since I didn't submit an abstract for the Cavendish on Literature conference's call for papers, I can simply build on my previous research thoughts and add to them as I respond to the latest Cavendish scholarship. I, therefore, outline where my interpretation of Cavendish is situated within the Cavendish research papers presented at talks I've attended this year. 

For instance, this means that I have chosen to add in women's history and women's literature more explicitly as I contextualise Cavendish in my research. This includes the context of the achievements of historical women during the English Civil war and their relevance to Cavendish's views on gender and war. 

I also expand out to look at the sister of Philip Sidney: Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, who left a legacy for other women writers like herself to follow in her footsteps; together with Philip and Mary Sidney's trailblazing niece, Mary Wroth, who was a bold and inventive poet and writer much like Margaret Cavendish herself. 

When it comes to the literary figures of Philip Sidney, Davenant and so on, I'm narrowing down their relevance to the Royalist Cavalier literary movement together with a general awareness of the historical, political and literary context of that movement, such as, the Renaissance, Jacobean and Baroque eras. The early baroque period started in the early 17th century but morphed into the Late baroque period, which is often referred to as the Rococo period, in the early 18th century. But strict demarcations are not always helpful. 

There's always somewhat an overlap between eras.

And so it proves to be in this case which is why I also draw parallels between the light-hearted, witty, entertaining style of the Cavaliers and the lighter, more playful, ornamental style of the Rococo period that follows it. I politically and aesthetically contrast the Cavalier literary and social movement with their opposition: the Puritans, who had a distinctively moralising, stark style, partly due to their aversion to ornamental rhetoric, such as the type used during the Renaissance. The Puritans objected to Royal power for religious reasons so tried to panic people into what they deemed a moral life. 

Early modern Puritans clashed with the attitudes of the Cavaliers in ways relevant to Cavendish, for instance, by being against pleasure, even to the extent of seeing normal public entertainment, such as putting on a play at the theatre, as encouraging vice. Whereas Cavaliers, in their writings, emphasized pleasure and living a flamboyant life.

So, whilst not being bound by the agenda set by these conferences I nonetheless build on them. I'm extending my research into a deeper understanding of the historical context of the royal court of Queen Henrietta Maria, wife of Charles I, who went into exile, to France, during the English Civil War when the monarchy was overthrown and Oliver Cromwell ruled in its stead. 

The Puritans were the dominant force in England at this time hence I think this is an important political, cultural, aesthetic debate and clash within Cavendish's environment within which she writes her works. Cavendish, of course, was not a Puritan as I've shown when discussing her play 'The Convent of Pleasure'. So the title of her play is also telling. The word 'pleasure' aligns with the Cavalier writings which, as I have already mentioned, emphasized pleasure.

As maid of honour to the queen Cavendish moved in royal circles. Therefore, I maintain her greatest influence was the inner royal circle around Henrietta Maria, although, unlike Cavendish, Queen Henrietta Maria was a Catholic. The queen and the women in her inner circle set the standard for literary works. This didn't just affect women writers but men too, such as, Davenant. So, I suggest that Cavendish, being scarcely out of her teens at this point, would have been greatly influenced by, and maybe even intimidated by, this group of women literary critics within the royal court of Henrietta Maria.

Hence, Susan James and I perhaps have slightly different, although not incompatible, purposes for discussing the same literary people such as Davenant: hers is from the point of exploring literary criticisms which may underpin Cavendish's writing style, choices and so on; mine is to explore the Royalist Cavalier environment and social milieu within which Cavendish created her works. 

For me, this extends to my research question I have set myself: Should we also contextualise Cavendish's works and writing style within the context of the debate surrounding her that argued for and against the value of what was termed 'fancy' when trying to attain knowledge in science and natural philosophy? 

For example, in 1668, the Royal Society criticised the use of imaginative fancy because it argued that it was inferior to, and a barrier to, the sciences, which, they claimed, should be rooted in empirical observation only. 

Margaret Cavendish, in turn, was critical of the Royal Society and its narrow attitude. She argued that imagination or imaginative fancy was similar to thought experiments and scientific hypotheses and reason superior to experimental method and equipment.

On Cavendish's view it would be more scholarly and erudite to draw on poetic devices and ornate rhetoric such as was found in the classical period. She disliked the Royal Society's stark, simplistic style, possibly because for her it was reminiscent of the Puritans.

Do join me very soon for more Philosophy Fluency. Meanwhile, have a good week. At least the weather will be warmer.

¹Margaret Cavendish on Literature Conference, Southampton, UK, 10-12 June: Call for Abstracts. Held at: Avenue Campus, University of Southampton

https://margaretcavendishsociety1.wordpress.com/tag/earlymodernwomen/