A Philosophical and Sociable Critique in the Form of Public Letters. Margaret Cavendish and the Seventeenth-Century Intellectual Debates

Although an increasing number of women have started to write and publish their works in the seventeenth century, patriarchal norms did not allow them to do so in all genres. It is now widely accepted that women wrote private and public letters to challenge their male contemporaries and to participate in intellectual debates. This paper aims to analyse Margaret Cavendish’s Philosophical Letters and Sociable Letters as works in which the author engages with both the major philosophical issues of the day and the preconceived notion of women’s inability to use reason. Through her critiques of Hobbes and Descartes, this essay will show how Cavendish was involved in the philosophical and intellectual debates of the time. Secondly, the essay will highlight her condemnation of the female condition, since according to her natural philosophy it is nature itself that allows her to write and confront her male contemporaries.

Bibliography

Primary sources

• 1632. The Lavves resolvtions of womens rights: or, The lavves provision for woemen. A methodicall collection of such statutes and customes, with the cases, opinions, arguments and points of learning in the lavv, as doe properly concerne women. Together with a compendious table, whereby the chiefe matters in this booke contained, may be the more readily found, London, Printed by the assignment of Iohn More, esq. and are to be sold by Iohn Grove.
• 1642. A true copy of the petition of the centlewomen, [sic] and tradesmens-wives in and about the city of London. Delivered, to the Honourable, the knights, citizens, and burgesses, of the House of Commons in Parliament, the 4th. of February, 1641. Together, with the reasons why their sex ought thus to petition, as well as the men; and the manner how both their petition and reasons was delivered. Likewise the answer which the honourable assembly sent to them by Mr. Pym, as they stood at the House-doore. Whereunto is added the prophesie of old Sybilla., London, Printed for Iohn Bull, dwelling in Grubstreet.
• Cavendish, M. 1655. The Philosophical and Physical Opinions written by Her Excellency the Lady Marchionesse of Newcastle, London, Printed for J. Martin and J. Allestrye.
• Cavendish, M. 1664. Philosophical Letters: or, modest Reflections upon some Opinions in Natural Philosophy maintained by several Famous and Learned Authors of this Age, Expressed by way of Letters: By the Thrice Noble, Illustrious, and Excellent Princess, The Lady Marchioness of Newcastle, London.
• Cavendish, M. 2003. Political Writings, ed. by S. James, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Cavendish, M. 2012. Sociable Letters (1664), ed. by J. Fitzmaurice, New York-London, Routledge.
• Cavendish, M. 2024. Bell in Campo (1662), ed. and trans. by M. G. Sestito, «Quaderni di Scienza & Politica», 14, pp. 9-92.
• Cavendish, M. 2024. Orazioni di diverso tipo, adeguate a luoghi diversi. Scritte dalla principesca, nobilissima, illustrissima ed eccellentissima, Lady Marchesa di Newcastle, ed. by P. Rudan, Napoli, Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici Press.
• Descartes, R. 1964-74. Oeuvres, ed. by C. Adam and P. Tannery, Paris Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin (AT).
• Hobbes, T. 2016, Leviathan (2016), London, Routledge.
• Howell, J. 1650. Epistolæ Ho-elianæ familiar letters domestic and forren divided into sundry sections, partly historicall, politicall, philosophicall, vpon emergent occasions, London, W. H. for Humphrey Moseley.
• Osborne, D. 1928. The Letters of Dorothy Osborne to William Temple, ed. by G. C. Moore Smith, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Secondary literature

• Antoine-Mahut, D. 2019. Descartes, Politics, and “True Human Beings”, in S. Nadler et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Descartes and Cartesianism, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 240-254.
• Barnes, D. 2009. Familiar Epistolary Philosophy: Margaret Cavendish’s Philosophical Letters (1664), «Parergon», 26, 2, pp. 39-64.
• Barnes, D. 2013. Epistolary Community in Print, 1580-1664, Farnham, Taylor & Francis Group.
• Bergès, S. 2018. Lucretia and the Impossibility of Female Republicanism in Margaret Cavendish’s Sociable Letters, «Hypatia», 33, 4, pp. 663-680.
• Biagioli, M. 1996. Etiquette, Interdependence, and Sociability in Seventeenth-Century Science, «Critical Inquiry», 22, 2, pp. 193-238.
• Bordo, S. (ed.). 1999. Feminist Interpretations of René Descartes, University Park PA, Penn State University Press.
• Bowden, C. 1993. Women as intermediaries: an example of the use of literacy in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, «History of Education», 22, 3, pp. 215-223.
• Broad, J. 2003. Women Philosophers of the Seventeenth Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Broad, J. and Green, K. 2009. A History of Women’s Political Thought in Europe, 1400-1700, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Cappuccilli, E. 2015. Remarkable Women in a Remarkable Age. Sulla genesi della sfera pubblica inglese, 1642-1752, «Scienza & Politica. Per una storia delle dottrine», 27, pp. 105-134.
• Chamberlain, C. 2020. What Am I? Descartes’s Various Ways of Considering the Self, «Journal of Modern Philosophy», 2, pp. 1-30.
• Clarke, D. 2001. The Politics of Early Modern Women’s Writing, London, Taylor & Francis Group.
• Condren, C. 2009. Public, Private and the Idea of the ‘Public Sphere’ in Early–modern England, in «Intellectual History Review», 19, pp. 15-28.
• Crawford, P. 1992. The Challenges to Patriarchalism: How did the Revolution affect women?, in J. Morrill (ed.), Regicide to Restoration: The Consequences of the English Revolution, London, Collins and Brown, pp. 57-76.
• Dodds, L. 2011. Reading and Writing in Sociable Letters; Or, How Margaret Cavendish Read Her Plutarch, «English Literary Renaissance», 41, 1, pp. 189-218.
• Dunn, K. 1994. Pretexts of authority: the rhetoric of authorship in the Renaissance preface, Stanford, Stanford University Press.
• Daybell, J. 2012. Medieval Women’s Letters, 1350–1500, in L. H. McAvoy, D. Watt (eds.), The History of British Women’s Writing, 700–1500, London, Palgrave Macmillan London, pp. 178-186.
• Farnesi Camellone, M. 2013. Indocili soggetti, Macerata, Quodlibet.
• Gallagher, C. 1988. Embracing the Absolute: The Politics of the Female Subject in Seventeenth-Century England, «Genders», 1, pp. 24-39.
• Galli, C. 2009. Contingenza e necessità nella ragione politica moderna. Roma-Bari, Laterza.
• Habermas, J. 1992. Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Oxford, Wiley.
• Hughes, A. 2012. Gender and the English revolution, Abingdon, Routledge.
• James, S. 1999. The Philosophical Innovations of Margaret Cavendish, «British Journal for the History of Philosophy», 7, 2, pp. 219-244.
• Negri, N. 2007. Political Descartes, Reason, Ideology and the Bourgeois Project, ed. by M. Mandarini and A. Toscano, London, Verso Books.
• Norbrook, D. 2004. Women, the Republic of Letters, and the Public Sphere in the Mid-Seventeenth Century, «Criticism», 46, 2, pp. 223-240.
• Pal, C. 2012. Republic of Women: Rethinking the Republic of Letters in the Seventeenth Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Pateman, C. 1988. The Sexual Contract, Cambridge, Polity.
• Pateman, C. 1989. ‘God Hath Ordained to Man a Helper’: Hobbes, Patriarchy and Conjugal Right, «British Journal of Political Science», 19, 4, pp. 445-463.
• Pellegrin, M.-F. 2019. Cartesianism and Feminism, in S. Nadler et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Descartes and Cartesianism, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 565-579.
• Plastina, S. and De Tommaso, E. M. 2022. Corpo Mente: il dualismo e le filosofe di età moderna, Milano, Società per l’enciclopedia delle donne.
• Rudan, P. 2020. Una distanza civile e politica. Master Hobbes e Margaret Cavendish, in M. L. Lanzillo and R. Laudani (eds.), Figure del potere. Saggi in onore di Carlo Galli, Bologna, Il Mulino, pp. 163-179.
• Rudan, P. 2023. Woman: History and Critique of a Polemical Concept, Leiden, Brill.
• Rudan, P. 2024. L’oratore perfetto è una donna. Margaret Cavendish e la politica di un tempo nuovo, in M. Cavendish, Orazioni di diverso tipo, adeguate a luoghi diversi. Scritte dalla principesca, nobilissima, illustrissima ed eccellentissima, Lady Marchesa di Newcastle, ed. by P. Rudan, Napoli, Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici Press, pp. 9-41.
• Sarasohn, L. T. 2003. Leviathan and the Lady: Cavendish’s Critique of Hobbes in the Philosophical Letters, in L. Cottegnies and N. Weitz, (eds.), Authorial Conquests: Essays on Genre in the Writings of Margaret Cavendish, Vancouver, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, pp. 40-58.
• Semler, L. E. 2012. Margaret Cavendish’s Early Engagement with Descartes and Hobbes: Philosophical Revisitation and Poetic Selection, «Intellectual History Review», 22, 3, pp. 327-353.
• Sestito, M. G. 2024. La singolare politica di Margaret Cavendish nel turbine della storia, in M. Cavendish, Bell in Campo, ed. and trans. by M. G. Sestito, «Quaderni di Scienza & Politica», 14, pp. 9-92.
• Silvani, G. 2004. La necessità di dire io: le lettere e l’autobiografia di Margaret Cavendish, «Torre Di Babele: Rivista Di Letteratura e Linguistica», 2, pp. 13-27.
• Skinner, Q. 2002. Visions of Politics. Volume 3, Hobbes and Civil Science. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Sperrazza, W. 2019. Intimate Correspondence: Negotiating the Materials of Female Friendship in Margaret Cavendish’s Sociable Letters, «Women’s Writings», 29, 4, pp. 456-472.
• Sponsler, C. 1992. Narrating the Social Order: Medieval Clothing Laws, «Clio», 21, 3, pp. 265-283.
• Stanton, K. 2007. ‘An Amazonian Heroickess’: The Military Leadership of Queen Henrietta Maria in Margaret Cavendish’s Bell in Campo (1662), «Early Theatre», 10, 2, pp. 71-86.
• Suzuki, M. 2003. The Ambiguous Royalism of Margaret Cavendish, in Id., Subordinate Subjects: Gender, the Political Nation, and Literary Form in England, 1588-1688, London-New York, Routledge, pp. 182- 202.
• Trubowitz, R. 1992. Female Preachers and Male Wives: Gender and Authority in Civil War England, «Prose Studies», 14, 1991, pp. 112–133.
• Verini, A. 2020. Utopian Friendships in Mary Wroth and Margaret Cavendish, «SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900», 60, 3, pp. 441-461.
• Walters, L. 2014. Margaret Cavendish: Gender, Science and Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Webster, E. 2011. Margaret Cavendish’s Socio-Political Interventions into Descartes’ Philosophy, «English Studies», 92 (7), pp. 711-728.
• Wiesner-Hanks, M. E. 2019. Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Wright, J. H. 2016. Darkness, death, and precarious life in Cavendish’s Sociable Letters and Orations, in B. R. Siegfried and L. T. Sarasohn (eds.), God and Nature in the Thought of Margaret Cavendish, London, Routledge, pp. 43-57.
• Wright, J. H. 2022. Margaret Cavendish’s Sociable Letter #16: Women’s Political Obligation and Independence, in L. Walters and B. R. Siegfried (eds.), Margaret Cavendish: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 219-230.