There is no doubt that there have been several women writers who have not been awarded a justified position in the so-called “canon” of English literature. There are names such as Margery Kempe, Marie de France, Lady Jane Grey, Mary (Sidney) Herbert, Mary Queen of Scotts, Aemilia Lanyer, Elizabeth Cary, Mary Wroth, Katherine Philips, Margaret Cavendish, and many more who challenge an equivalent share of fame, with the labors of their classical male contemporaries because of their prestigious works.
The prime focus of the paper is to discuss Margaret Cavendish, a writer from the 17th century and presents a short account of the writer's career and a detailed analysis of one of her works. The paper argues as to why she carries an important place among the canon of major English writers. Cavendish has often been criticized for her style of writing and eccentric behavior. However, it’s hard to ignore her body of writing.
About Margaret Cavendish
Margaret Cavendish was born in Colchester, Essex in 1623 and was the youngest child of her wealthy parents, Thomas and Elizabeth Lucas, who were rich but were untitled. She was tutored privately and later went to live with her sister in Oxford (Biography of Margaret Cavendish 2016). The move to Paris was a turning point in Cavendish’s life, as it was here she met her future husband. Although she did not obtain any regular education in the classical languages and other streams such as history, mathematics and philosophy (Margaret Lucas Cavendish 2015). Still, she was an avid reader and was able to assess academic libraries. She was an intellectual, and this was observed as inappropriate for those times as well as for a woman. She was able to hold intellectual discussions with her brother John who was already a well-known scholar. She sought for an independent life and worked as maid of honor at Queen Henrietta Maria’s court. Cavendish accompanied her when she was evacuated to France in 1644, and it was here that she met William Cavendish. She married him in 1645.
The wedding of Margaret and William needs a significant mention here for two reasons. First, it was rare for a publisher to print the work of a woman in the mid-seventeenth-century and that too belonging to philosophical and scientific nature. Secondly, Cavendish was able to interact with such figures as Rene Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, Marin Mersenne, Kenelm Digby and Pierre Gassendi through the “Cavendish Circle.” She was an impressive writer who got her work published without assistance. Her works got published because of her brilliant writing and with the assistance of her well-placed husband (Margaret Lucas Cavendish 2015).
Cavendish died in 1673 and was buried at Westminster Abbey. She produced a number of significant works in philosophy over the course of her short life such as Philosophical Letters (1664), Philosophical and Physical Opinions (1656), Upon Experimental Philosophy (1666), Orations of Divers Sorts, Observations Upon Experimental Philosophy (1666), Called the Blazing World (1666), The Description of a New World and Grounds of Natural Philosophy (1668). The central principle of her philosophy is that everything in the universe is completely materialistic, including human beings and their minds (Margaret Lucas Cavendish 2015).
Visit to the Royal Society When Margaret Cavendish visited the Royal Society in May 1667, she became the first woman to do so (Wilkins 245). She was already notorious among her contemporaries for her ‘scientific’ texts that covered poetry, orations, plays, essays and natural philosophy. Cavendish had had attacked the experimentalists of the Royal Society in one of her writings. Thus, it was no surprise to see a large crowd gather to catch a glimpse of this controversial female author.
Cavendish wrote right during the middle of the upheaval of the seventeenth century. Her contemporary views and writings revolved around the scientific explorations and explanation s well as the philosophy of the divine. It was in 1667 that she finally got the much-wanted credit from her male aristocracies and was given a very rare invitation to the Royal Society meeting (Margaret Lucas Cavendish 2015).
According to Cavendish, every body is markedly divisible, and bodies are ubiquitous as there is no vacuum. The accomplishments of bodies cannot be traced to immaterial agents such as God (Margaret Lucas Cavendish 2015). All bodies at every stage of division are intelligent and perceptive in nature. Cavendish’s standing for unfriendliness towards the Royal Society is based mainly on her negative evaluation of microscopy in her 1666 text Observations upon Experimental Philosophy. He volume of “The Description of a New Blazing World” is a retort to the work of Henry Power and Robert Hooke the two pioneers in English microscopy. The early critics of the author were wrong in claiming that her assesment of microscopes showed her ignorance. In fact, she was one of the initial students of Power’s work in England and had real involvement with the innovative scientific apparatus. Cavendish enjoyed much more opportunities when it came to testing out the newest devices. Her marriage not only brought wealth but also opportunities, when it came to trying out the newest instruments (Wilkins 247). The couple had an remarkable assortment of telescopes and microscopes. It was her acquaintance with microscopes that actually bred the contempt and her first protest towards those early instruments was that they often did not function very well.
Cavendish further argued that it was not possible for the man’s exterior senses to comprehend the complex interior figurative motions of the human or animal body (Wilkins 248). She believed that such devices and their very artificiality made them deeply flawed, regardless of the perfect lighting conditions or the well-cut lenses of the microscopes. The artificial instruments distorted the reality they were designed to reveal. It is essential to understand Cavendish and her motivation here as she is not against the use of scientific apparatus, but is troubled by the undiscriminating enthusiasm for inquiry based on pretense. Such methods could not lead to precise results required for establishing scientific truths. She argued that such knowledge based on artificial experiments will never make him a good Philosopher (Wilkins 250). According to Cavendish, such subjects of investigations existed a kind of categorical limbo between Art and Nature. Art is not against Nature but gets ross in comparison to Nature.
Analysis of “A Woman drest by Age”
Margaret Cavendish’s “A Woman drest by Age,” provides unique and significant insights into the experience of aging, a topic of cultural and medical relevance. This is an important poem that sheds light on the relationship between the art and science of medicine. Cavendish portrays in her poem as to how aging can get accompanied by self-distance.
“A Milk-white Haire-lace wound up all her Haires, And a deafe Coife did cover both her Eares.”
She expresses how the hair of an aging woman winds up in a “Milk-white Haire-lace” and the use of “cover” repetitively points to the self-imposed restriction. The inner self of the woman remains changed although she might be changing externally (Koepke 2010). The use of figurative conceit and self-contained heroic couplets by the Cavendish reflect this rigid constraint and further reinforces this incoherence between interior and exterior. She equates the perception of aging with getting dressed and points it out as a physiological fact. At different phases of life and age, the woman dons different dresses, and roles that she does not quite fit and what she wears and how she behaves is like an act of performance. The agent of aging forces this complete costuming and one finds the use of terms such as “Stockings,” “Crampes had knit” her “Stockings” and her “Palsey Gloves” in the poem to reflect on different styles of dressing. She dresses herself not by free will but by “drest by Age” and to personify Age, Time, and Death (Koepke 2010). The poem points out the lack of very basic level of choice and self-determination. It catalogs the impact of age on every part of the body of a woman and how it changes her psyche, her very mobility, and style of dressing. In the literal ending of the poem, one finds the finality of death in the words, “A Mantle of Diseases laps her round, / And thus shee’s drest, till Death laies her in Ground” (15–16). The couplet associates with the cloaking diseases of aging and asks the reader to evaluate their own perspective of aging and death. It forces one to ponder over the necessitating medical interventions for the aging body and the unrealistic expectations of aging patients. The poem reminds one as to how painful loss of self can accompany aging as well as strips away the strong sense of identity (Koepke 2010).
The poem shows how external observations replace the voice of the woman in a much similar way as the authoritative medical discourse that silences the patient. The objective, scientific approach can delete the subjective, personal extents of embodied experience. When one places the poem in its historical context, it can be seen as Cavendish’s larger argument about science. She makes her position clear throughout her work by questioning overreliance on objective empiricism and challenges generic objectivity of the experience of aging. She emphasizes how aging is gendered and how the mannerism, the psyche and the appearance of a woman change with age. She argues that dissection and microscopy offer a limited insight into living tissue and mind. The poem offers a glimpse of what it would be like to be this person in a scientific utopia.
Margaret Cavendish among the canon of major English writers Many academics and scholars look back and see if there have been any serious writings done by the women in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. The recognition of those women writers and their works calls for a public acknowledgment of their existence. It is true that there has been the halfhearted appreciation of authors like Margaret Cavendish (Salzman 1).
Lady Margaret Cavendish, the contemporary 17th-century writer, was ridiculed for her eccentricities. However, she was outspoken and popularized the ideas of the scientific revolution. As the first recognized woman natural philosopher of England, she was among the first to argue that theology that lay outside the parameters of scientific inquiry. She advocated for the education of women and their involvement in science (Lady Margaret Cavendish 2016). She was looked upon by her contemporaries as being rather eccentric as she was both flirtatious and extravagant. She was noted for her unusual sense of fashion and as speech full of 'oaths and obscenity. She was widely known as 'Mad Madge' and the label of eccentricity survives till today. Cavendish was a prolific author, and her most notable achievement was undoubtedly her foray in the literary world (Biography of Margaret Cavendish 2016).
The natural philosophers during the middle of the 17th century allowed some women to learn about the latest debates. However, there were very few educated women at the time, and the Royal Society of London was mainly composed of men. Margaret enjoyed a personal triumph when she was invited to visit the Royal Society. He had a strong need to recognized by the scientific community. During her visit, she watched a program of experiments staged by the respected scholars such as Robert Boyle and Robert Hooke (Lady Margaret Cavendish 2016).
In her own words and her sense of disenfranchisement from the state, Cavendish writes in one of her Sociable Letters:
“We are not made Citizens of the Commonwealth, we hold no Offices, nor bear we any Authority therein; we are accounted neither Useful in Peace, nor Serviceable in War; and if we be not Citizens in the Commonwealth, I know no reason we should be Subjects to the Commonwealth”
Margaret Cavendish felt marginalized because of her sex, and when she defended the Duke of Newcastle, moreover, she was also defending her own honor and place in the public sphere. She thought that neither she or nor her husband had got the respect they deserved (Sarasohn 807).
Lady Cavendish was unashamed of her lack of education and proud of her writing. She got inspired by the ideas that surfaced during the scientific revolution. Despite being criticized, her works were irresistible, and her writing led to many new ways of thinking. Margaret Cavendish is often described as a woman disillusioned by her lack of education, and her work shows her lack of discipline with a torrent of ideas pouring out in her prose, poetry, and philosophy prose. Those negative judgments critique directed at Cavendish often are a combination of social and aesthetic complaints. However, Cavendish needs no defense to counter those arguments on her stylistic failures and accusations of bad writing. After all, she has made significant contributions to natural philosophy, fiction, and politics. Perhaps a new and more comprehensive account of her literary achievement should be looked into.
Cavendish’s mind is truly of a scientific temper, and she seems to have fallen prey to the early modern rhetorician’s vices of style. Her style may be considered a failure by typical literary and aesthetic value standards and yet the same stylistic traits are central to Cavendish’s tropes of women and work function. Cavendish did not follow any rules and she is liked and disliked bot for it. Her work is usually most interesting, and her so-called bad writing certainly deserves more attention. Her extensive body of work into print is linked to the changing conditions and evolving markets of reading and writing. Her limited and unconventional education can be blamed for her bad writing. George Ballard in his “Memoirs of Several Ladies of Great Britain” sheds light on the canon of worthy women writer, intellectuals and philosophers of Great Britain and make a reassessment of early Modern Women Writing (Salzman 2). Some of those writers are being rediscovered in the twentieth century. The process has encouraged the teachings of early women’s writing and can be seen as a construction of canon of early women’s writing. It is true that women have played a significant role in the manuscript culture and circulation in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. The poetry by women was seen as a representative of female experience rather than as an example of literature. Women writers are associated more with history rather than literature. Margaret Cavendish asserted that she had read no English books, but she did read widely if not deeply. There is much to observe and gain from her lively and perceptive interpretation. Her deeper engagement with the literary culture around shows how much more needs to be done in placing the early modern women writers within their own literary culture. Cavendish was an extraordinary figure who contributed immensely to the emerging literary tradition. She made use of other writers, her own style of writing and created her own literary persona. It is essential to understand her considerable accomplishments and influence in the literacy world.
Although modern medicine has progressed a lot and is still making advances at a fast pace in the 21st century, Cavendish’s concerns seem to echo even today. It draws attention to creating a balance between the art and science of medicine and providing patient-centered care. She imagines a science that incorporates the subjective and creative (Koepke 2010). She studied the works of philosophers and continued to write. In her published work” Philosophical and Physical Opinions’, she reasons that if atoms were animated matter, then they would have free liberty, and would not be able to co-operate in the creation of complex organisms (Lady Margaret Cavendish 2016). She challenged the notions of contemporary natural philosophers and her work “Observations upon Natural Philosophy, she criticizes the shortcomings of the new science and how the atomic motion cannot explain all natural phenomena. She attacked the newly invented microscope and how it doctored nature and led to false observations of the world. Cavendish’s description of her texts as ‘paper bodies’ proposes the investment in these textual offspring and the materiality of the text. She emphasizes the indefinability of the early modern body, even at its most disturbingly evocative (Dolan 454).
Margaret Cavendish should be remembered as an unconventional writer form the 17th century. She is a prolific writer and natural philosopher from the 17th-century English thinkers. Like her, there are several other women writer who has contributed significantly to the literature and philosophy, and yet the canon of major English writers remains dominated by males (Price 2015). There is very little said or written about contributions made by women philosophers. Cavendish holds a significant place among women writers and philosophers of the early modern period. It would be a mistake to overlook the contributions made by these women.
Works Cited
"Biography of Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle upon Tyne (c. 1623-1673." The university of Nottingham. 2016. Web. 12 June. 2016.
Dolan, Frances E. "Scattered Remains and Paper Bodies: Margaret Cavendish and the Siege of Colchester." Postmedieval 4.4 (2013): 452-64. Web.
Koepke, Yvette. "Medicine and the Arts. "A Woman Drest by Age" by Margaret Lucas Cavendish. Commentary." Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 85.8 (2010): 1338. Web.
"Lady Margaret Cavendish." epigenesys. 2016. Web. 12 June. 2016
"Margaret Lucas Cavendish." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2015. Web. 12 June. 2016.
Price, Susan. " Reviving the Female Canon." theatlantic. 2015. Web. 12 June. 2016.
Sarasohn, Lisa T. "Margaret Cavendish, William Newcastle, and Political Marginalization." English Studies 92.7 (2011): 806-17. Web.
Salzman, Paul. "Expanding the Canon of Early Modern Women’s Writing." Cambridge Scholars Publishing 1.1 (2010): 1-275. Print
Wilkins, Emma. “Margaret Cavendish and the Royal Society.” Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 68.3 (2014): 245–260. PMC. Web. 12 June 2016.
