Whose Grounds Pave the Path: Cavendish's Grounds of Natural Philosophy
In her 1668 commentary on the nature of nature itself, Grounds of Natural Philosophy, Margaret Cavendish identifies and connects the essential characteristics of the world around her, while responding to the increasingly popular natural scientists in England at the time, such as Robert Boyle and Francis Bacon. After attending many public displays put on by other natural philosophers, Cavendish saw various flaws in their logic. She acknowledges them through her writing, though gender expectations and restrictions keep her from gaining publicity in the space of the “official” scientists. First referencing Descartes’ dualism, she separates the material and the immaterial, the rational and the sensitive, and the regular and irregular. Through distinguishing the differences between manmade material and naturally occurring, unpredictable material, Cavendish comes to the conclusion that both are ever changing and ever intertwined. Perhaps out of true religious enlightenment, or possibly searching for some support from the church, she argues that the human soul, nature itself, and God’s perfect plan cannot be disentangled. Overall, the web that Cavendish constructs through her writing weaves the disorganized irregularity of nature into God’s plan for humans and for the world.
Cavendish highlights the cracks in the science of other philosophers that seem to cheat by assuming nature is the answer to human greed and their own curiosity. Her argument stands out especially in the context of post-revolution London, as religious, political, and philosophical divisions spread through the city alongside a growing colonial economy. This is especially evident when Cavendish essentially calls out the English Royal Society, “Considering that your Conclusion was as improbable, if not as impossible, as the Chymical Philosopher's-Stone, or Elixir; We desire you (being Parts of one and the same Society) not to trouble the whole Society, in the search of that, which, if it was in Nature, will never be found” (310). By bringing in the second person to directly address the esteemed Royal Society and stressing the superiority (although elusive nature) of natural resources over artificial, she successfully raises flags in the minds of readers who might have blindly been awed by some of these scientific conclusions.
It was in this way that Cavendish was able to find her own scientific identity as a woman through writing both her own observations and thoughts on a widely debated topic, as well as her contradictions to certain claims made by an “official” group of male experimenters. Somewhat shockingly, given her high social status and the time period in which she writes, Cavendish explains her belief in religious freedom. She argues, “Human Notions are also Irregular, as much as Regular; which causes a great variety of Religions” (Cavendish 245). Cavendish concludes where religion fits into her paradox of regular human nature and the irregularity of the natural. Part of accepting the mutability in nature involves accepting the variety of the human belief system. This argument especially stands out in comparison to her inspiration from Descartes because it stands out in a time of English colonialism and missionaries defended by the walls of the Anglican church. Although she is likely referring to the Christian God in previous passages, she includes the existence of multiple religions as an effective example of how the spiritual nature of the world as a whole intertwines with human nature, including the human notions of liberty and faith.
However, what is not included are the opinions of those who did not have Cavendish’s privilege of reading, writing, and publishing their thoughts on the matter. Although the majority of common and lower class English people were not literate in philosophy and science, does this mean they did not have their own opinions on the emergence of natural science, its place in the social and religious context, and even local theories about nature itself? This particular, upper class woman's new insights on such a large question overall left me wondering what insights a common woman might have on the nature and ways of the world from her own point of view.
Source: Cavendish, Margaret. Ground of Natural Philosophy Divided into Thirteen Parts. London: Printed by A. Maxwell, 1668. Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A53045.0001.001
Comments
Post a Comment