Margaret Cavendish

Women Alchemists: Stories and Reflections on Their Place in History, Psyche, and Science

Margaret Cavendish

The frontispiece that adjoins the title page for The Philosophical and Physical Opinions, written by her Excellency, the Lady Marchionesse of Newcastle (Cavendish, 1655), depicts Margaret Cavendish, an attractive, self-confident young woman, gazing in the direction of her precious library.

At least we can draw that conclusion as there is an inscription on the picture that reads:
Studious She is and all Alone
Most visitants, when She has none,
Her Library on which She looks
It is her Head her Thoughts her Books.
Scorninge dead Ashes without fire
For her owne Flames doe her Inspire. (Cavendish, 1655)

Thus, we meet the marchioness of Newcastle, Lady Margaret Cavendish, who was the first woman to be allowed to visit the Royal Society on May 30, 1667 (Hutton, 2004). Eventually she was given the unkindly sobriquet “Mad Madge” (Stimson, 1948, p. 82), apparently due to her seeming eccentricities, a topic to which I will return shortly.

Margaret Cavendish neé Lucas was born in 1623 as Margaret Lucas. Her parents were Thomas Lucas and Elizabeth Leighton Lucas, who had caused a scandal having their first son out of wedlock. Thomas died when Margaret was only three-years-old.

Margaret describes a happy childhood in her autobiography (Firth, 1886). Her father had left the family in good shape and although they were not overly wealthy, they had enough money to live a comfortable lifestyle.

Mother raised the children using reason rather than physical punishment as a disciplinary method. Perhaps due to Elizabeth’s earlier difficulties with societal mores, she kept the family somewhat isolated and was a stickler for decorum. She made a clear boundary between the children and the servants, being concerned that the children might learn uncouth behavior from them. But the children were expected to treat all people with respect.

Margaret describes her mother’s views on education as somewhat traditional but with her own bias toward cultivating civility. “For my mother cared not so much for our dancing and fiddling, singing and prating of several languages, as that we should be bred virtuously, modestly, civilly, honourably, and on honest principles” (Firth, 1886, p. 280).

Margaret describes herself as one who grew up always thinking about everything, even taking walks of two or three hours to think things through (Firth, 1886). However, she also could focus on her true friends and listen to them. It was strangers who threw her. She observed much and found many folks lacking in civility.

She had an early education that was typical for a girl of her class: reading, writing, singing, dancing, music. She could not learn a foreign language for some reason finding memorizing vocabulary impossible. She loved reading and when she did not understand something, she would ask her brother Lucas to explain. However, being quite shy, she did write obsessively (O’Neill, 2001, p. xii). Despite her shyness, Margaret demonstrated a need to communicate her ideas with the world early on and writing allowed her to do so without having to speak to people.

Making an effort to fit into society, Margaret requested to become a maid of honor to Queen Henrietta Maria in 1643. She had to persuade her mother who agreed but her brothers and sisters were much more reluctant, being aware that she was both inexperienced and shy.

A good quote that illustrates Margaret’s nature follows, “I was so bashful when I was out of my mother’s, brothers’, and sisters’ sight, whose presence used to give me confidence . . . . that when I was gone from them, I was like one that had no foundation to stand, or guide to direct me, which made me afraid, lest I should wander with ignorance out of the ways of honour, so that I knew not how to behave myself. Besides, I had heard that the world was apt to lay aspersions even on the innocent, for which I durst neither look up with my eyes, nor speak, nor be any way sociable, insomuch as I was thought a natural fool. Indeed I had not much wit, yet I was not an idiot” (Firth, 1886, pp. 286-287).

This did not bode well for standing up to the machinations of life at Court. Margaret writes about trying to overcome her bashfulness but it is to no avail. She states that it did not make her blush but “contracts my spirits to a chill paleness” (p. 300). She naively believed that people she deemed wise or learned would not judge her harshly so often tried to imagine that someone she met, who she believed to be foolish, she would imagine them to be wise.

Margaret was a prolific writer, did not always take the time to revise or edit, but was still mocked by her contemporaries. In the preface to her book, Observations, Margaret states that she is slow to anger, not typically jealous, fair, kind, and good natured (Firth, 1886). She could be self-righteous but also very forgiving. She worries overmuch about losing the people she loves. She is timid but would risk her life for her loved ones. However, adventure is not for her. She does seek to be remembered after she dies, I believe as a scholar. Margaret poignantly concludes by apologizing to those who would criticize her for writing a biography, imagining they would say, who cares about her. But she wrote the book for herself, so that “after-ages” (p. 318) would know that she was the daughter of Lucas of St. Johns and as well, the second wife of William Cavendish, not to be mistaken for his first wife or for any succeeding wife. She wants to have a voice. This is who she is.

Margaret Cavendish had a rather polarizing effect on people (Whitaker, 2002). Margaret loved discussing philosophy, science, and literature. She also craved the acceptance of men whom she deemed to be learned and envied their freedom to explore the natural world unfettered by social mores. Thus, many men enjoyed her company and many women resented it.

Margaret was able to talk about the studies that interested her rather than about local gossip. She tended to talk too much when she became nervous and was so concerned that her guests would be comfortable, overdid the amenities. At one time she heard she was being criticized by guests for not being able to talk about her writing. Upon trying to rectify this, she then was criticized for talking about her work too much. Mary Evelyn (wife of diarist John) was especially harsh writing about one of their visits:
My part was not yet to speak, but admire; especially hearing her go on magnifying her own generous actions, stately buildings, noble fortune, her lord’s prodigious losses . . . what did she not mention to his or her own advantage? . . . Never did I see a woman so full of herself, so amazingly vain and ambitious.” ( Whitaker, 2002, p. 292 - 293)

Mary Evelyn was educated but clearly convinced of a woman’s place in society. She disapproved of Margaret, not only discussing science and politics but also writing about issues that she believed were the purview of men.

Mary Evelyn continues to write that although she enjoys reading about many subjects, not withstanding that she is surrounded by science since her husband is in the Royal Society, she is content to leave these fields to men. Keeping in mind that Mary Evelyn once called Margaret a “chimera - a grotesque, terrifying, fire-breathing hybrid monster of ancient myth” (Whitaker, 2002, p. 293) it is easy to imagine that Margaret was the person Mary had in mind when writing her thoughts on proper womanhood writing, “I hope, as she [Margaret Cavendish] is an original, she may never have a copy” (p. 293).

Margaret did seem to be a cause for wonder as some of her outfits were quite bold and/or fantastic. She wore one to visit Charles II that was much talked about but that may have been due as much to its extravagance as to the faux pas she made by having a female attendant carry her train, the prerogative of only the most high ranking woman. “But my serious study could not be much, by reason I took great delight in attiring, fine dressing, and fashions, especially such fashions as I did invent myself, not taking that pleasure in such fashions as was invented by others. Also I did dislike any should follow my fashions, for I always took delight in a singularity, even in accoutrements of habits. But whatsoever I was addicted to, either in fashion of clothes, contemplation of thoughts, actions of life, they were lawful, honest, honourable, and modest” (get ref, p. 312 - 313).

Another famous diarist, Samuel Pepys seemed to be both fascinated and repelled by Margaret. His diary entries describe her clothes in a way that would make modern fashion writers envious.
April 26, 1667: Met my Lady Newcastle going with her coaches an footmen all in velvet; herself (whom I never saw before), as I have heard her often described (for all the town talk is now-a-days of her extravagancies), with her velvet-cap, her hair about her ears; many black patches, because of pimples about her mouth; naked-necked, without any thing about it, and a black just-au-corps. She seemed to me a very comely woman; but I hope to see more of her on May-day.(Braybrooke,1828, pp. 206 - 207)

It is clear that Margaret Cavendish appeared to not only elicit criticism but vituperative rhetoric of the kind that causes a depth psychologist to pause and wonder. Her critics did not just dislike her, they loathed her and left no doubt in their writing as well as their public reactions to her presence.

Margaret did not tread lightly in her discourse. She criticized both Robert Hooke and Robert Boyle in Observation on EP which lends a certain irony to the experiments they planned for her! Whitaker (2002) suggests that Margaret was so overwhelmed by the whole experience that she could not say much more than how much she admired the work. However, it seems that the fellows hoped for more loquaciousness on her part and were disappointed.

MacCarthy (1944) made some very different observations regarding Margaret’s so-called eccentricities. Discussing the double standard applied to women writers of the time, she argues that some were accepted by their circle, especially if they were related to a well-known male writer or had a family member who was part of the higher social strata. Some women were dismissed by calling their morals into question. Others, such as Margaret, were labeled “queer” (p. 21).

Interestingly, Margaret’s critics continued to be fixated on her dress. The Count of Grammount recorded a story in his memoirs that illustrates what people thought of Margaret.
As I was getting out of my chair, I was stopped by the devil of a phantom in masquerade . . . It is worth while to see her dress; for she must have at least sixty ells of gauze and silver tissue about her, not to mention a sort of pyramid upon her head, adorned with a hundred thousand baubles.

“I bet,” said the king, “that it is the Duchess of Newcastle.” (MacCarthy, 1944, p. 81)

Perhaps Margaret’s reputation began back when she made her less than impressive debut at Court. Her unsuccessful tenure as a maid of honor was beset with difficulty. She was miserable for two years. She lacked the power to adapt herself to Court life, and was soon the laughingstock of the women, whom she could not understand, and of the men, whom she avoided. They could make noting of this fantastic maid of honour who was so awkward and so naive (MacCarthy, 1944, p. 87)