Chapter 4: Possible Worlds in Cavendish’s Poems

Chapter 4: Possible Worlds in Cavendish’s Poems

In this chapter, I shall analyse the topic of possible worlds where they explicitly appear in six of Cavendish’s poems[i]. In this way, I aim to establish that Cavendish used possible world concepts right from the very first book she published. I will be drawing on my chapter 2 in this volume and assuming some of this theoretical background information on possible worlds and applying it to these six poems. I think these poems are a good starting point because in them she develops complex ideas and metaphysical theories using far fewer words than would be the case had it been a treatise. Hence, they demonstrate some of the main arguments that I develop in this volume. Namely, one, Cavendish’s so-called creative writings can be better interpreted as philosophical works. Here, we shall see how Cavendish uses poetry as a vehicle for releasing the reader’s imagination so they can understand her abstract arguments about philosophical and scientific possibility. Engaging the imagination through poetry also helps us visualize the existence of things she describes which are otherwise invisible to the naked eye. Two, these poems illustrate that Cavendish has a highly developed concept of and methodological use of possible worlds, that is both ground-breaking and ahead of her time.  

Cavendish was a prolific writer so this list of her works below situates these six poems[ii] within the wider context of her writings:

1653 Poems and Fancies

1653 Philosophicall Fancies

1655 The World's Olio

1655; 1663, Cavendish, Margaret, Philosophical and Physical Opinions (first edition 1655; second edition 1663).

1656 Nature's Pictures drawn by Fancy's Pencil to the Life, which includes A True Relation of my Birth, Breeding, and Life in the addendum;  second edition 1671 Natures Picture Drawn with Fancies Pencil

1662 Cavendish, Margaret, Orations of Divers Sorts, Accommodated to Divers Places

1662 Two volumes of Cavendish's dramatic works were printed. Playes includes the following:

Loves Adventures

The Several Wits

Youths Glory, and Deaths Banquet

The Lady Contemplation

Wits Cabal

The Unnatural Tragedy

The Public Wooing

The Matrimonial Trouble

Nature's Three Daughters, Beauty, Love and Wit

The Religious

The Comical Hash

Bell in Campo

A Comedy of the Apocryphal Ladies

The Female Academy

Plays, Never Before Printed (1668) contains:

The Sociable Companions, or the Female Wits

The Presence

Scenes (edited from The Presence)

The Bridals

The Convent of Pleasure

A Piece of a Play

1664 Philosophical Letters

1664 Sociable Letters

1666 Observations upon Experimental Philosophy

1666 The Description of a New World, Called the Blazing World

1667 Life of William

1668 The Blazing World

1668 Observations upon Experimental Philosophy with The Blazing World

1668 Grounds of Natural Philosophy (this is a revised version of ‘Philosophical and Physical Opinions’, which included ‘Philosophical Fancies’ in part 1)

As far as I am aware and can see from searching through academic publications, to date, scholarship (not just in philosophy but in any field) seems to have never focused on Cavendish’s discussion of the topic of worlds in her poetry. So, in this chapter, I shall attempt to close this research gap with, what I believe to be, the first scholarly analysis of the topic of possible worlds in Cavendish’s poems[iii]. Nevertheless, I predict that after this volume, there may well soon be an explosion of academic interest in researching and publishing on this aspect of Cavendish in the next few years or near future.      

In ‘Poems and Fancies’[iv], the following poems which refer to worlds in their title are:

•             Of the Center (of the World)

•             If Infinite Worlds, Infinite Centers

•             It Is Hard to Believe that there Are Other Worlds in this World

•             Of Many Worlds in this World

•             A World in an Eare-Ring (earring)

•             Several Worlds in Several Circles

This is the order in which these poems appear in her book. However, I have taken the liberty of shifting ‘A World in an Eare-Ring’ so it is the last poem I discuss because, I feel, it has the potential to rewrite the scientific history of planetary discovery.

 ‘Of the Center of the World’: Is this Cavendish’s first work to discuss possible worlds?

In the above list, I put ‘of the World’ into brackets to reflect that, in the original 1653 first edition of ‘Poems and Fancies’, the title of this poem was simply ‘Of the Centre’[v]. Later on, the words ‘of the World’ were added to the title and the poem[vi]. Between the elongated title including the word ‘World’ and noticing that all editions of this poem heavily refer to worlds[vii], I have decided to include it here as a ‘worlds’ themed poem. By doing so, I categorize this poem as perhaps being Cavendish’s first significant mention of possible worlds in her published writings.

I shall include the original 1653 poems[viii] alongside my discussion of them because this first edition of her poems is the only text I am analysing in this chapter. I am also including the 1653 editions[ix] of these poems in full to save readers from having to place the poems side by side with my analysis and constantly flick between the two. By showing the primary source itself in its entirety early on in this volume, I also hope to demonstrate two further things more clearly. One, it illustrates what Cavendish’s creative style of writing looks like after having examined this in my previous chapter. Two, I wish to show how to read her creative writing and examine the philosophy contained within it.

The ‘Of the Centre’ (of the World) poem reads as follows:

“In Infinites no Center can be laid.

But if the * World has Limits, Centers made.

For whatfoe’re’s with Circumference fac’d,

A Center in the midst must needs be plac’d.

This makes all Formes that Limit have, and Bound,

To have a Center, and Circumference round.

This is the Cause the World in circle runs,

Because a Center hath, whereon it turnes.

The Center small, Circumference big without.

Which by the weight doth make it turne about.”[x]

This poem depicts a world which has a circumference, rotates and moves in circles. This sounds rather like our world as science describes it today, for instance turning on its axis and circling the sun. So if this world is a possible world, it would be a world which is either our world or a very similar world to ours. Here, Cavendish structures the poem as an (a philosophical) argument to make the claim (and logically show) that:

(P1) (if you can measure a circumference around something, then it has a limit)

P2: If something has a circumference, then it has a centre 

(P3) (All forms that have a limit have a circumference)

(P4) (If the form has a circumference then it has a centre)

Thus C1: All forms with limit have a circumference and centre

And Thus C2: The world is a form therefore it has a limit, circumference and a centre

(premises are labelled as P or (P) if a supressed premise and conclusions are labelled C)

I have set out these premises and conclusions starkly and without making too many logic-based reformatting changes to Cavendish’s claims in her poems to demonstrate how the contemporary reader can identify the philosophical, logical nature of her arguments in her poetry, without being distracted by poetic conventions such as rhyme. At the end, we see that Cavendish additionally argues that the world can turn (on its axis) and move in a circle (around the sun) because it has a centre (and a weight).

Here we see what I suggest could be a rationalist, natural philosophical argument for at least one world existing which has a limit, circumference and centre. Although this could be a merely logically and mathematically possible world (which, if it were a Kripkean-style world, may well be our actualised world we live in), in this poem, Cavendish may also be conceptualising and imagining this world as a concrete, physical world, not just a mathematically possible one. Even so, we learn that the rules of mathematics help us to understand the structure and workings of this world by, for instance, applying the mathematical and logical principle that things with a circumference have a centre. This is certainly a helpful methodology because one cannot simply slice a world in half to check!   

‘If Infinite Worlds, Infinite Centers’

Here, the concept of one world in the poem above is extended to imagining the possibility of the existence of an infinite amount of worlds. Cavendish explores the logical possibilities:

“If Infinites of Worlds, they must be plac’d

At such a distance, as between lies waste.

If they were joyned close, moving about,

By justling they would push each other out.

And if they swim in Aire, as Fishes do

In Water, they would meet *as they did go.

But if the Aire each World doth inclose

Them all about, then like to Water Flowes;

Keeping them equall, and in order right.

That as they move, shall not each other strike.

Or like to water wheels by water turn’d.

So Aire round about those Worlds do run :

And by that Motion they do turne about,

No further then that Motions strength runs out.

Like to a Bowle, which will no further go,

But runs according as that strength do throw.

Thus like as Bowles, the Worlds do turne, and run

But still the Jacke, and Center is the* Sun.”[xi]

 

The asterisks correspond to these notes in the margin:

“* They would beat against each other.”[xii]

“*They are stinted according to the several strengths of their motion. They turne as they go. A Jacke Bowle is the mark.”[xiii]

These infinite worlds Cavendish refers to in this poem seem to be concrete physical worlds because Cavendish begins by hypothesising that worlds cannot move in very close proximity to each other. They could not do so without “justling”[xiv] (a rarer variant of jostling but far more commonly used in the Early Modern period) and colliding. If the space between them acts like water, then the worlds would also collide, as fish do in water. But if air fills the space between them, then the air flow may help regulate their movement so they do not collide. To express these thoughts, Cavendish uses the conditional ‘if’ often in this poem followed by a consequent. In logic, this takes the form of X → Y (pronounced if x then y) where X is called the antecedent and Y is called the consequent. So in logic, we can see the structure of her statements by putting them into the format of conditionals followed by logical consequences:

If there are infinite worlds (IW), (then) they must be placed at a distance D from one another:

IW → D

 If worlds are placed too close to each other (¬D, pronounced not D, meaning not distanced from each other), (then) they will collide (C):

¬D → C

If air (A) is enclosed around them (then) they will not collide (¬C):

A → ¬C

Rearranging this, we get the following train of thought/ flow of argument:

P1: ¬D → C

P2: A → ¬C

P3: IW do not C

Therefore, C1: IW are D & A (because they do not collide)

 

It is noteworthy that Cavendish makes use of conditional ‘if’ statements because conditionals are a feature of possible worlds semantics, that is to say, the language of possible worlds and counterfactuals, where alternative scenarios can be expressed in the form of if-then. 

I suggest that this shows that Cavendish manages to juggle two types of possible world-talk and philosophizing:

·         abstract possible worlds which she uses to hypothesize, theorise and analyse logical possibilities

·    concrete possible worlds which help us analyse scientific and natural philosophy hypotheses about our world (both observable phenomenon and microscopic atomic level phenomenon) and space/planetary life and systems. 

Cavendish then expands on her reasons for thinking that infinite worlds (I suggest these are infinite, physical/concrete possible worlds) do not collide by arguing that each world has a limited strength which brings the scope and distance of their motion to a natural end. This has the effect of stopping them from colliding with each other. To illustrate this imaginatively, I suggest that perhaps Cavendish is using the game of bowling as an analogy in the last 4 lines of the poem. This is because Cavendish uses the words “bowles” (which is the name of and same spelling as a bowling game referred to in writing from the end of the 15^th century), “jacke” (which could refer to a smaller ball which players aimed to throw/roll their ball towards, stopping just short of it) and “mark” (which is the purpose of the jacke, to mark out the spot you needed your ball to land closely to without hitting it)[xv]. Thus, the analogy with bowling serves the purpose of helping us to visualize how spherical shapes can move through the air while preventing a collision, whether they be worlds or bowling balls. This analogy also explains why she thinks it is possible for worlds to move around without crashing into each other. Cavendish reasons that, like the distance of a bowling ball is determined by the strength of the impetus it is thrown with, so it is possible that physical worlds also could have a limit on how far they will go, according to some similar strength of motion giving them the impetus to move. This reading is supported by the word “stinted” in her notes in the margin[xvi], which can mean limited, so could be read as claiming that worlds are limited by their amount of strength of motion.

Cavendish mentions the sun being a jacke (marker) and at the centre (of our solar system)[xvii]. So Cavendish is explicitly referring to concrete physical worlds, perhaps a planetary-type of system. Cavendish has been interpreted as discussing astronomy in her poetry, but this is within the field of English and Creative Writing[xviii]. I acknowledge that there are references to space here so Cavendish, as a natural philosopher and scientist, is informing Astronomy and Space Science with her hypotheses about their nature and motion in these poems. However, I have not chosen this approach for my overarching interpretation, because it explains some types of possible worlds-talk but not others. Possible worlds can draw inspiration from a planet-like way of conceptualising them, as we can see with David Lewis. So Cavendish may be taking this Lewis-style approach to possible worlds, at times, when drawing on her scientific knowledge. At other times, however, this approach does not account for other passages in her writings which, I claim, contain possible world concepts, counterfactuals and conditional statements that are not about planets. Thus, I maintain that a planetary explanation or a purely Lewis-style explanation, is too restrictive for an interpretation spanning Cavendish’s complete works. Hence, I shall adopt a cluster concept approach, whereby I interpret Cavendish as having a flexible concept of possible worlds which combines counterfactuals and abstract possible worlds, together with concrete possible worlds, depending on the subject she is discussing.

 

‘It Is Hard to Beleive, that there Are Other Worlds in this World’

 

“Nothing so hard in Nature, as Faith is,

For to beleive Impossibilities :

As doth impossible to us appeare.

Not *cause* tis not, but to our Sense not cleere;

But that we cannot in our Reason finde.

As being against Natures Course, and Kinde,

For many things our senses dull may scape.

For sense is grosse, not every thing can Shape.

So in this World another World may bee.

That we do neither touch, tast, smell, heare, see.

What Eye so cleere is, yet did ever see

Those little Hookes, that in the Load- Stone bee,

Which draw hard Iron ? or give Reasons, why

The Needlespoint still in the North will lye.

As for Example, Atomes in the Aire,

We nere perceive, although the Light be faire.

And what foever can a Body claime,

Though nere so small, Life may be in the same.

And what has Life, may understanding have,

Yet be to us as buried in the Grave.

Then probably may Men and Women small,

Live in the World which wee know not at all;

May build them Houses, severall things may make,

Have Orchards, Gardens, where they pleasure take

And Birds which sing, and Cattell in the Feild ,

May plow and sow and there small Corne may yield;

And Common-wealths may have, and Kings to Reigne,

Wars, Battells have, and one another slaine :

And all without our hearing or our sight,

Nor yet in any of our Senses light.

And other Stars, and Moones, and Suns may be.

Which our dull Eyes shall never come to see.

But we are apt to laugh at Tales so told

Thus Senses grosse do back our Reason hold.

Things against Nature we do thinke are true,

That Spirits change, and can take Bodies new;

That Life maybe, yet in no Body live,

For which no Sense, nor Reason, we can give.

As Incorporeall Spirits this Fancy faines,

Yet Fancy cannot be without some Braines.

If Fancy without Substance cannot bee,

Then Soules are more, then Reason well can see.”[xix]

Margin note: “*As it seems to us”[xx]

This poem begins by relating worlds to possibility and impossibility, suggesting that Cavendish may be discussing possible worlds explicitly here. Cavendish explores why we find something implausible and seemingly impossible. She considers how people may not believe something through using their reason or their senses, but the focus of her argument is on the latter. These arguments showing the unreliability of the senses are, I think, reminiscent of rationalist concerns with empiricism. She even calls the senses “dull”, and lists all the five senses (touch, taste, smell, hearing and sight)[xxi]. Thus, in this poem, Cavendish puts forward the argument that we can lack knowledge of, and be very dismissive of, many possible worlds because they escape our senses. Hence, Cavendish maintains that many possible worlds exist within the world we live in, of which we are ignorant, especially if we rely on empirical confirmation alone. She realises that some will find this claim far-fetched, so she provides strong examples to support her argument.

One compelling reason Cavendish provides is the example of “Load-Stone”[xxii], which I read as lodestone, which refers to magnetic parts of magnetite. Cavendish owned lodestone herself so would have been familiar with it, which is impressive as it is extremely rare in the world. On the whole, minerals do not become naturally magnetic. It is an excellent example of something which possesses properties that escape our observations and understanding because, even now, scientists are still lacking a satisfactory explanation why magnetite turns into magnetic lodestone. Yet, as Cavendish points out, it certainly is observable that lodestone attracts iron objects. This shows how the senses can lead to only a partial understanding. In other words, we see lodestone’s magnetism when it reacts to iron, and other pieces of lodestone, but we cannot see how this phenomenon came to be. In addition to lodestone’s attraction to iron, Cavendish points out that lodestone is also capable of indicating where North is. Indeed, lodestone was used in compasses in her era as the best material available for navigation. At the same time, like Early Modern microscopes, lodestone compasses were unreliable:

“Despite its acknowledged value, the magnetic compass long remained a fragile, troublesome, and unreliable instrument, subject to mysterious disturbances.”[xxiii]

For Cavendish, these unknown factors raise the question of what else is a possible world in this world which may have escaped our observations or knowledge. This leads her to consider whether there are more stars, suns and moons than we realise and suggest that there could be spirits and souls which are beyond our understanding and that have been overlooked, especially given how much phenomenon cannot be explained.

One might assume that Cavendish argues from this claim to an animist and/or vitalist conclusion in this poem when she brings up spirits and souls. Indeed, some believe that Thales of Miletus (generally considered to be the first philosopher and an Animist/Vitalist/Panpsychist) discovered lodestone and its magnetic properties. Thales, who was also a scientist, used water waves as an analogy for his theory of how earthquakes could occur due to natural forces rather than the gods. Cavendish also seems to use similar analogies to Thales when, for instance, she uses the example of water to explain how worlds need not collide with each other. So, given Thales, it would be an obvious philosophical step for Cavendish to go from examining the properties of lodestone to a vitalist, animist or panpsychist conclusion. However, I suggest that this is not how Cavendish’s argument develops in this poem, for the following reasons:

One, vitalism generally draws a sharp distinction between animate and inanimate things in the world and provides different explanations for their respective phenomenon. However, in this poem, Cavendish is not creating this type of delineation between the inanimate lodestone and bodies with spirits (line 36), substance (line 41) and souls (line 42). By moving from the properties of an inanimate object to the properties of having a spirit or soul more generally (without stating anything about lodestone having a soul) means, I maintain, that Cavendish is perhaps not attempting to make a vitalist argument in this poem.

Two, in my opinion, Cavendish is not espousing animism in this poem either, a simple reason being that the term animism did not exist until after Cavendish (early 18^th century) and it was not explicitly used in English until the 19^th century. Otherwise, the concept was popular among indigenous, tribal populations which would not have been something Christian Royal court life would have accepted because it might make Cavendish seem pagan. So Cavendish is unlikely to have intended to refer to animism as a theory, given the royal and historical context of her writings.

Three, it is not a panpsychist poem (the belief that everything animate and inanimate in the world has a mind) because her magnet example does not lead her argument to the conclusion that lodestone, or anything else, possesses a mind-like property. Although some philosophers conflate mind and soul, I suggest that this should not be assumed in this poem since Cavendish does not depict the soul as a thinking thing here. So it is best not to add in a premise to her argument which is not explicitly there.

Four, it could be tempting to draw parallels between Cavendish’s magnet example and Mesmerism, otherwise known as Animal Magnetism, an 18^th century version of Vitalism. Mesmerism similarly examines the imagination and magnetic fields and its effects, but unlike Cavendish, it discounts parallels with mineral, cosmic and planetary magnetism, which is an important difference.             

Cavendish also refers to atoms in this poem, which I shall discuss in the next poem where she revisits the topic of atoms.

 ‘Of Many Worlds in this World’ 

“JUST like unto a Nest of Boxes round,

Degrees of sizes within each Boxe are found.

So in this World may many Worlds more be,

Thinner, and lesse, and lesse still by degree;

Although they are not subject to our Sense ,

A World may be no bigger then two-pence .

Nature is curious, and such worke may make,

That our dull Sense can never finde, but scape.

For Creatures, small as Atomes, may be there,

If every Atome a Creatures Figure beare.

If foure Atomes a World can make, * then see,

What severall Worlds might in an eare-ring bee.

For Millions of these Atomes may bee in

The Head of one small, little, Single Pin.

And if thus small, then Ladies well may weare

A World of Worlds, as Pendents in each Eare.” [xxiv]

Margin note: “* As I have before shewed they do, in my atomes.”[xxv]

In this asterisked note, Cavendish is referring her readers back to an earlier poem in this book called ‘A World by Foure Atomes’[xxvi] and her footnote accompanying that poem in which she outlines her concept of an atom in her natural philosophy.

At the beginning of this poem, we see Cavendish approaching metaphysics and the ontology of existence in terms of degrees of size. She lists three ways size can vary in degrees – thinness, surface area such as a coin, and a stacking effect of smaller inside ever increasing larger objects in the world. Cavendish gives the example of boxes but another more familiar example is nesting dolls where you open wooden dolls and find a doll within a doll in ever decreasing sizes (otherwise known as Russian dolls). Here, Cavendish revisits the idea that there could be worlds that our senses cannot detect but just because such minuscule worlds go unperceived, it does not follow that they do not exist. She then expands this to make the general claim that nature is such that things exist that may never be perceived by the senses. After all, she reasons, we cannot see atoms but that does not mean they are not there and the same could apply to the existence of microscopic creatures too. Microscopic arthropods, commonly known as mites, are an example which supports Cavendish’s claim, so this seems to be a solid argument which still holds true.

Cavendish engages the reader’s imagination by providing the visual image of an earring to help us picture just how many worlds could exist within a very small surface area in our world. In this way, Cavendish assists the less scientific reader in understanding the invisible, atomic structure of this world. Thus, we see Cavendish balancing many sizes and levels of abstract and concrete worlds, ranging from the tiny atomic level to the expanse of outer space, the latter which she revisits in the poem ‘A World in an Eare-Ring’[xxvii], whose title reflects and continues the imagery of an earring.  

 ‘Several Worlds in Several Circles’

“There may be many Worlds like Circles round,

In after Ages more Worlds may be found.

If we into each Circle can but slip,

By Art of Navigation in a Ship;

This World compar’d to some, may be but small:

No doubt but Nature made degrees of all.

If so, then Drake had never gone so quick

About the Largest Circle in one Ship.

For some may be so big, as none can swim

Had they the life of old Methusalem.

Or had they lives to number with each day,

They would want time to compasse halfe the way.

But if that Drake had liv'd in Venus Star,

His Journey shorter might have been by farre.”[xxviii]

 

In this poem, Cavendish begins by depicting worlds as being as round as circles, giving them a spherical shape and a sense of her expectation that science will keep discovering more worlds in the future.  Starting with the conditional word ‘if’, she explores the possibility of the extent to which navigation skills could help us visit and learn about other worlds. How does Cavendish conceptualise travel to other worlds? Taken literally, she seems to be referring to explorers sailing around the world in a ship. There was still more than fifty percent of the world that European explorers still had never travelled to so this would have been an ambition for many people on the European continent in Cavendish’s era. It is possible that such travel could also be an analogy for discovery in general, given that so far in these poems, Cavendish’s worlds have included the microscopic level as well as the planetary level of the universe. Perhaps Cavendish imagined what space travel would be like by basing it on exploratory ship navigation. Early calculations and plans for making space travel a reality drew on ship navigation. If this was what Cavendish had in mind it would be the right way to begin imagining such a project. She then reiterates that worlds can vary in size and that some may be much larger than we are used to but, as with miniscule worlds, these large worlds also count since everything in nature works in degrees. To give a sense of the enormity of the size of possible worlds that can be imagined abstractly and are perhaps concrete worlds that are yet to be discovered, she refers to Methusalem, more commonly known as Methuselah who, as legend has it, lived to 969 years old. This gives an indication of the scale Cavendish is describing. You cannot even cross this expanse of water in over 969 years!

Cavendish ends on a humorous note, by taking the rise out of the sixteenth century explorer Sir Francis Drake (who lived in the century prior to her c. 1540 – 1596) about how long a journey took him. She jokes he takes so long, it would have been a quicker trip had he lived on planet Venus! Interestingly enough, this is also scientifically accurate because Venus has shorter years than Earth due to its shorter orbit around the sun (225 days in a year as opposed to 365 days). It is a planet closer to the sun than the Earth is to the sun. This not only shortens its years but also gives it the appearance of a bright star, therefore it is often referred to as the Venus star. Alternatively, it is referred to as the morning star or the evening star, which became a classic example in analytic philosophy when debating the topic of sense and reference. A more serious suggestion implied in this joke is that people may be able to travel to space and live on planets. Imagining this as a possible world is again extremely forward thinking of Cavendish, as space travel was mostly considered unrealistic up until it became a reality as recently as the second half of the 20^th century. Even today, commercial space flights for living and working in space remain an ambitious project.   

 

 ‘A World in an Eare-Ring’ (earring)

“AN Eare-ring round may well a Zodiacke bee,

Where in a Sun goeth round, and we not see.

And Planets seven about that Sun may move,

And Hee stand still, as some wise men would prove.

And fixed Stars, like twinkling Diamonds, plac’d

About this Eare-ring, which a World is vast.

That same which doth the Eare-ring hold, the hole,

Is that, which we do call the Pole.

There nipping Frosts may be, and Winter cold,

Yet never on the Ladies Eare take hold.

And Lightnings, Thunder, and great Winds may blow

Within this Eare-ring, yet the Eare not know.

There Seas may ebb, and flow, where Fishes swim,

And Islands be, where Spices grow therein.

There Christall Rocks hang dangling at each Eare,

And Golden Mines as Jewels may they weare.

There Earth-quakes be, which Mountaines vast downe fling,

And yet nere stir the Ladies Eare nor Ring.

There Meadowes bee, and Pastures fresh, and greene ,

And Cattell feed, and yet be never seene:

And Gardens fresh, and Birds which sweetly sing,

Although we heare them not in an Eare-ring.

There Night, and Day, and Heat, and Cold, and so

May Life, and Death, and Young, and Old, still grow.

Thus Youth may spring, and severall Ages dye,

Great Plagues may be, and no Infections nigh.

There Cityes bee, and stately Houses built,

Their inside gaye, and finely may be gilt.

There Churches bee, and Priests to teach therein.

And Steeple too, yet heare the Bells not ring.

From thence may pious teares to Heaven run.

And yet the Eare not know which way they’re gone .

There Markets bee, and things both bought, and sold,

Know not the price, nor how the Markets hold.

There Govenours do rule, and Kings do Reigne,

And Battels fought, where many may be slaine.

And all within the Compasse of this Ring,

And yet not tidings to the Wearer bring.

Within the Ring wise Counsellors may sit,

And yet the Eare not one wise word may get.

There may be dancing all Night at a Ball,

And yet the Eare be not disturb'd at all.

There Rivals Duels fight, where some are slaine;

There Lovers mourne, yet heare them not complaine.

And Death may dig a Lovers Grave, thus were

A Lover dead, in a faire Ladies Eare.

But when the Ring is broke, the World is done,

Then Lovers they into Elysium run.”[xxix]

 

At the beginning of this poem, Cavendish states that the planets move around the sun, a scientifically accurate stance called heliocentrism. Earlier, we saw additional textual evidence for this stance at the end of the poem ‘If Infinite Worlds, Infinite Centers’ where Cavendish locates the sun at the centre, during her bowling analogy. Although heliocentrism is common knowledge today, it was a highly controversial stance and one that had just started to be acknowledged as correct only around ten years before these poems were first published. Despite both heliocentrism and geocentricism (the belief that our solar system revolves around the Earth) being debated in Ancient philosophy, Aristotle’s scientific mistake in advocating geocentricism prevailed and was fervently perpetuated and insisted upon by Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism and its Popes, who deemed heliocentrism heretical, banned books on it (such as Galileo’s despite his accurate scientific observations), conducted Inquisitions and even burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for merely teaching Copernicus on whom Galileo based his observations.

However, perhaps most impressively, in line 3 of this poem, Cavendish states that there are seven planets. Why is this so important and impressive? Because in the 17^th century, the perceived wisdom was that there were only six planets. The seventh planet was only officially recognised as being a planet late in the following century (1783) and attributed to the amateur astronomer William Herschel who collaborated with his sister, the famous astronomer Caroline Lucretia Herschel (1750-1848). Caroline Herschel discovered many comets, won prestigious Gold Medal awards, was a member of prestigious institutions and was the first woman to be a paid and published scientist. She even has a comet named after her (the 35P/Herschel–Rigollet comet)! It is not inconceivable that Cavendish could have spotted Uranus in the sky and figured out it was a planet. Uranus can be visible with the naked eye and was known to scientists before and during Cavendish’s lifetime, but was miscategorised as a star. Initially, even Herschel mistook it for a comet when he observed it in 1781. It was only after much reading and thinking about its circular orbit that astronomers realised it was a planet, rather than a star or a comet. His sister Caroline also read to him so it is not inconceivable that she could have come across Cavendish’s philosophy and this poem and read it to him. In these poems, Cavendish has already written that planets have a circular orbit around the sun and that there are seven such planets, which is before the Herschels or other astronomers provided this description and understanding. This is astounding!

She was an incredible scientist and natural philosopher who was up there with the best, if not the best. Hence, I suggest that it is plausible that this poem makes the first reference to there being at least seven planets in our solar system, making Cavendish potentially the first person to discover this scientific truth. Furthermore, by identifying Uranus as a planet, it led to the discovery of the eighth planet, which is the sum total of the number of planets we recognise today, having recently discounted Pluto in the redefinition of what constitutes a planet. I think these poems demonstrate the philosophical and scientific genius of Cavendish. 

---

[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] Newcastle.

[iii] Newcastle.

[iv] Newcastle.

[v] Newcastle, 29.

[vi] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle, ‘Margaret Cavendish’s Poems and Fancies: A Digital Critical Edition.’, Educational, Margaret Cavendish’s Poems and Fancies: A Digital Critical Edition., May 2019, <http://library2.utm.utoronto.ca/poemsandfancies/>. http://library2.utm.utoronto.ca/poemsandfancies/2017/06/11/of-the-center-of-the-world/

[vii] Newcastle. http://library2.utm.utoronto.ca/poemsandfancies/2017/06/11/of-the-center-of-the-world/

[viii] Newcastle, Poems and Fancies.

[ix] Newcastle.

[x] Newcastle, 29.

[xi] Newcastle, 30.

[xii] Newcastle, 30.

[xiii] Newcastle, 30.

[xiv] Newcastle, 30.

[xv] Newcastle, 30.

[xvi] Newcastle, 30.

[xvii] Newcastle, 30.

[xviii] Masuda Qureshi, ‘Space in the Poetry of Margaret Cavendish’ (Society Conference, International  Margaret Cavendish Society Biennial Conference, Trondheim, 6 June 2019), https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/5c3fb8_58367afe29bf44ac806b2cf650367065.pdf.

[xix] Newcastle, Poems and Fancies, 43–44.

[xx] Newcastle, 43.

[xxi] Newcastle, 43.

[xxii] Newcastle, 43.

[xxiii] William Edward May and John Howard, ‘The Magnetic Compass  The Lodestone and the Compass Card’, in Encyclopaedia Britannica (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc, no date given, website 2020), https://www.britannica.com/technology/navigation-technology/The-magnetic-compass.

[xxiv] Newcastle, Poems and Fancies, 44–45.

[xxv] Newcastle, 45.

[xxvi] Newcastle, 31.

[xxvii] Newcastle, 45.

[xxviii] Newcastle, 46.

[xxix] Newcastle, 45–46.

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.