Chapter 1
Paper Title: Margaret Cavendish: On Flourishing
Abstract
In this paper, I shall explore Margaret Cavendish’s discussions on how to live. In part one, I will address the question of how important it is to consider and talk about what constitutes the best way forward for achieving the good life. In part two of this paper, I shall ask why Cavendish adopts different stances to discuss an issue. I will then draw on these two questions to assess what we can conclude about Cavendish’s views on flourishing.
Paper
Introduction
In this paper, I explore Margaret Cavendish’s philosophical discussions on how to live, which is an aspect of my wider research project on Margaret Cavendish, which I expand on in my forthcoming book, ‘Research Thoughts on…Margaret Lucas Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne – Volume 1’[i]. Within this broad topic, for the purpose of this short paper, I shall restrict my scope to a selection of orations on peace, war, the army and gender in her ‘Orations of Divers Sort, Accommodated to Divers Places (1662) (hereafter simply referred to as ‘Orations’)[ii]. I would like to suggest that her Orations book can be interpreted in much the same way as I interpret her play ‘Bell in Campo’. That is to say, I put forward the suggestion that both can be viewed as Platonic-style philosophical dialogues which demonstrate a (sometimes feminist) thought experiment, thus they are of great philosophical and feminist significance. In this way, perhaps they could both be interpreted with the same methodological approach as they would be had they been a philosophical treatise.
I also aim to demonstrate how the topic of flourishing is the most key and fundamental concept to understanding Cavendish’s Orations. Strong textual evidence in support of this is Cavendish’s own summary at the beginning of the book, in which she even uses the word flourishing herself:
“And misery causing men to be prudent and industrious, by which they come to flourish again, at least their successors, and to show you their industry, I bring you out of the field of war into a new-built city…”[iii]
Part 1: How Important Is It to Consider and Discuss What Constitutes the Best Way Forward for Flourishing and Achieving the Good Life?
In this section, I will break this research question down into two sub-questions, the first question being:
Qi: Why is it important to consider and discuss topics in society?
I suggest we can cross-apply some of the arguments presented in the Scholastical Orations. The closing words[iv] of her ‘Orations’ text (oration 179) claim that study and argumentation should not leave us confused about what to think and believe. Instead, learning from argumentative debate should be used to improve our life. I think an earlier oration expands on this and captures the structure of Cavendish’s orations which argue against each other. It advocates that “arguing and disputing is a great increase of knowledge, for it distinguishes truth from falsehood, clears the understanding, quickens the wit…..”[v]. When broadened out to wider society, Cavendish shows us, through the settings and speeches, the processes taken in addition to debating among groups in society, such as scholarly groups. These range from listening to orations or delivering orations to air your stance in the marketplace, to petitioning the monarch which also involves listening to speeches or orations made by the monarch him or herself[vi]. However, this public system is male dominated and so to hear women’s orations about the social condition of women during peaceful times, we must enter a private setting. This setting is less publicly accessible, hence men and some women do not have experience of seeing or engaging with women’s debates. Cavendish redresses this gender imbalance somewhat by giving the reader a sense of what a female-led Platonic dialogue would look like. As a result, Cavendish presents a pan-societal picture showing how many different sections of society can engage in debate concerning pressing issues of the day.
The second sub-question is:
Qii: What does Cavendish think is the best way forward for achieving the good life and flourishing?
As Cavendish outlines in her opening remarks in her ‘Orations’[vii], she takes her readers on a journey from war times, battlefields and armies through to peaceful times in which society has to rebuild what has been lost during the war. As I mentioned in my introduction, I read Cavendish’s overarching argument as claiming that flourishing starts with prudence and hard work which is directed at improving life and society for yourself and others. Nevertheless, readers hear all sides of the debate from a variety of classes, professions, and ranks of army men, both during war and peace times. Cavendish’s opening claim is that people, especially men, are prone to war-mongering hence avoiding war is almost impossible, so knowing how to rebuild society in war’s aftermath is essential[viii]. She depicts this vividly by bringing to life speeches from army men who are assessing and arguing over not only their personal preferences but also the potential consequences of which course of action their army takes. By analysing these pro and contra war and peace arguments, we learn which stances lead to war and which don’t and the advantages and disadvantages that come with it. I suggest a great deal of these discussions revolve around people’s concept of the good life and human flourishing.
For example[ix], her first orations, in Part 1 of her text, immediately present a debate of the pros and cons of going to war when living in peaceful times. By Part 2, Cavendish is comparing the possible world, in which the country’s army goes to war, with how people thought about it but only futuristically, as depicted in part 1. In Part 3, we see the aftermath of war so we can now already reassess the arguments in part 1 and thus retrospectively think about the consequences of their war-mongering actions on society.
Cavendish includes issues pertaining to women’s flourishing in times of peace and shows how the issue of women’s liberty is more complex to debate productively than one may imagine. At the end of Part X, orations 127-8[x] Cavendish shows two men arguing at cross-purposes about what constitutes women’s liberty and its value. This leads us onto the following part, ‘Female Orations’ Part XI[xi], in which we hear how women themselves debate feminist issues amongst themselves. Their concept of what constitutes flourishing for women is influenced heavily by their concept of gender expectation. This makes it tricky to agree on which liberties are desirable to obtain. The woman in oration 132iv[xii] argues that women should have the freedom to “do the like exercises as men have”, “converse” everywhere that they do, otherwise women “neglect” their capabilities and shall never discover their strengths and talents. Another woman, in oration 135vii[xiii], dismisses this liberty as reducing women’s flourishing and attainment of the good life if it means they are expected to engage in dangerous work.
Gendered language and expectation also comes into the male army’s discussion of human flourishing and the good life. An example of this is the opening oration (1, Part 1) when an anti-war stance is labelled as an effeminate approach to life when downgrading that stance as both weak and undesirable[xiv]. Examples of such gendered language about human flourishing include:
“Thus peace makes men like beasts….Nay, it makes men not only live but die like beasts….”[xv]
During times of peace men’s “natures become effeminate, which
makes their lives vacant, and when they die, they are buried in oblivion: for
fame lives in heroic actions”[xvi]
However, what counts as heroic is disputed with the claim (oration 2, Part 2) that there is nothing heroic or just about creating “enemies” out of people who “have done you no injury or wrong”[xvii]. This orator argues that declaring war when one could continue in peace is undesirable and foolish[xviii].
Weighing up such a variety of concepts of what flourishing consists of and how best to achieve it perhaps leaves us in a better position to form our own judgements of whether to go to war or not.
Part 2: Why Does Cavendish Adopt Different Stances to Discuss an Issue?
I suggest there are three layers (in no particular order of importance) to Cavendish’s monologue / dialogue style used effectively in her speeches / orations.
One layer is the platonic dialogue. Plato wrote dialogues comprising of two or more people who often assess human flourishing and what the good life is without Plato explicitly advocating his preferred stance on the matter[xix]. His aim was to enlarge knowledge and understanding by using philosophical techniques and methods which foster wisdom. These key features, I argue, can be identified in Cavendish’s philosophy, especially her Orations and Bell in Campo. Like Plato, the purpose of writing a dialogue depicting a debate between people is to provide a readable philosophical forum that readers can attend at will, engage in and learn to philosophise and form their own stances, independently from the rhetorical style of others. Plato also made use of “dramatic elements”[xx] so any such features in Cavendish’s philosophy would not automatically disqualify her orations and play from being interpreted as philosophical texts.
I suggest that another similar feature between Cavendish and Plato is the technique[xxi] of using characters as vehicles for depicting the differing stances of a possible readership. I claim there is a striking parallel between Cavendish’s philosophical format and that of Plato’s. It has been said of Plato that his:
“…characters function not only to carry forward particular lines of thought but also to inspire readers to do the same—to join imaginatively in the discussion by constructing arguments and objections of their own.”[xxii]
I claim the same could be applied to Cavendish. Furthermore,
Plato’s dialogues could finish in an open-ended manner with no clear solutions in
much the same way as Cavendish can end her orations or speeches.
Thus, Cavendish’s philosophy fulfils the criteria I have set out here to be classified as philosophical dialogue. Indeed, although her imagined scenarios are timeless, she nevertheless draws on classical themes. This was perhaps because classical literature and culture was common knowledge among her readership and within scholarship. The classical references add to the timeless, wise tone she wishes to set. Obviously, there are important differences too, and the Early Modern period was eager to reject the Ancient and Medieval schools of thought. However, a classical education was (and to some extent still is) part of the backbone of a strong, robust, scholarly education.
Two, I maintain that there is a thought experiment layer to Cavendish’s philosophy. For present purposes, I take ‘thought experiment’ to mean a philosopher who constructs an imagined scenario to use as a tool to analyse situations and topics in a more flexible way than merely from limited experience, which is bound by a personal situation, such as lifestyle, gender, class and so on, which Cavendish attempted to sometimes transcend in her ‘Orations’. As Cavendish states herself, that “most of my orations are general orations, viz. such as may be spoken in any kingdom or government”[xxiii].
The third layer is the various arguments presented in debate that function as an exploration of possible worlds. Here I am thinking more in terms of Kripke’s version of theoretical possible worlds rather than something along the lines of David Lewis and his concrete possible worlds which actually exist. The only way Cavendish’s possible worlds come close to a concrete world is when we notice that one of her imagined possible worlds is very representative of our one, actual world that we live in.
I suggest a critical way in which Cavendish’s imagined
scenarios work well as thought experiments and possible worlds (as opposed to
creative writing) is that there are many features which keep it general and
hypothetical, helping the reader to stay focused on the line of thought and
argument rather than become involved with the characters and plot. For
instance, there are no character names or descriptions in orations; no action
in the plot, only a philosophical assessment of life.
Conclusion:
Drawing on these two main research questions in part 1 (including Qi and Qii) and part 2 of this paper, I think we begin to obtain a re-reading of Cavendish’s ‘Orations’ and ‘Bell in Campo’. In terms of what overarching conclusions can be drawn, I suggest that, by slotting the content of her orations together with philosophical methods and tools, we avoid the pitfall of trying to untangle the various stances and pick out which one may best represent Cavendish’s own views. I maintain that the ability to see and rationally debate all sides of an argument, whether you agree with them or not, is part of the philosophical method Cavendish is encouraging her readers to engage in. Cavendish is effectively arguing with and against herself as she writes, in order to re-create the public debates which society should be holding and giving women access to in order to be a flourishing society where its people/body politic can themselves flourish and achieve the good life. I suspect Cavendish’s own views are most explicit in her introduction so I have re-constructed her overarching claims and argument from that. She possibly appreciated how issues, especially war, are not of a one-sided nature since she had family who both won and lost at war so she was all too familiar with the consequences of supporting either war, peace or a version of either.
[i] Liba Kaucky, Research Thoughts on…Margaret Lucas Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne – Volume 1, 1st ed., vol. 1 (London, United Kingdom: ebook on blogger.com, 2020).
[ii] Margaret Cavendish of Newcastle and Susan James, Political Writings, First published, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
[iii] Newcastle and James, 119.
[iv] Newcastle and James, 292.
[v] Newcastle and James, 290.
[vi] Newcastle and James, Political Writings.
[vii] Newcastle and James, 119–20.
[viii] Newcastle and James, 119.
[ix] Newcastle and James, 111–71.
[x] Newcastle and James, 246–47.
[xi] Newcastle and James, 248–51.
[xii] Newcastle and James, 249.
[xiii] Newcastle and James, 250–51.
[xiv] Newcastle and James, 130–31.
[xv] Newcastle and James, 130.
[xvi] Newcastle and James, 131.
[xvii] Newcastle and James, 131.
[xviii] Newcastle and James, 132.
[xix] Constance C. Meinwald, ‘Plato: Dialogue Form’, in Encyclopædia Britannica, no date given, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Plato/Dialogue-form.
[xx] Meinwald.
[xxi] Meinwald.
[xxii] Meinwald.
[xxiii] Newcastle and James, Political Writings, 118.
orcid.org/0000-0003-1598-0833