Fame, virtue, and government : Margaret cavendish on ethics and politics
I. INTRODUCTIONThe prolific Margaret Cavendish (1623-73) has long been known to scholars of English literature. She published some eighteen plays, as well as poems, orations, essays, allegories, letters written to imaginary correspondents, science fiction, and a biography of her husband, William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle. She also wrote five volumes of natural philosophy, criticizing mechanistic atomism and arguing for her own distinctive brand of vital materialism; these works have finally begun to draw the attention of historians of philosophy. Cavendish's political beliefs, particularly the Utopia presented in her Description of a New World, Called the Blazing World1 and her royalism,2 have also recently received scholarly attention. But a sustained analysis of her moral and political philosophy has not yet appeared.3 Indeed, in an article comparing Cavendish's political views with those of her husband, Hilda Smith says that "there seems little hope-or, probably, point-in attempting to define a consistent core of political values" in Cavendish's corpus.41 shall argue otherwise.Cavendish herself sometimes professes no interest in politics; in Philosophical Letters, she declines to comment on Hobbes's political views:Because of the following Reasons. First, that a Woman is not imployed in State Affairs, unless an absolute Queen. Next, That to study the Politics, is but loss of Time, unless a man were sure to be a Favourite to an absolute Prince. Thirdly, that it is but a deceiving Profession, and requires more Craft than Wisdom.5Yet in the essay "The Best Kind of Discourse in Ordinary Conversation," Cavendish says that the most pleasant conversation includes discussionof countries, the nature of soyles, Scituations of Cities, and peoples laws, customs, and superstitions . . . what Countries had most and longest wars and peace; what Conquerours there were, and who they were: what conducts they used in their victories, how they marshalled their forces, and what forces they had: what famous Common-wealths-men there were, their policies in governments, the beginning of States, their fauls, the causes of their risings, and their ruins. . . .6And concerns with politics echo throughout many of Cavendish's works. This is hardly surprising, given the dramatic effects of the contemporary political situation on her own life; civil war broke out when she was nineteen, and after joining the court of Queen Henrietta Maria, Cavendish was forced to flee with the court to France, ultimately spending sixteen years in exile. But Cavendish's remarks on politics are not merely of biographical interest; together, they suggest a certain theory of the appropriate role and form of government.Moreover, Cavendish's political views are closely related to her moral philosophy, which has received almost no study. In a funeral oration honoring an unnamed (and presumably imaginary) philosopher, Cavendish writes:As for moral philosophy, he knew well how to compose commonwealths and to settle and govern them; also he knew well the natures, humours, passions, and appetites amongst mankind, as also to divide and distinguish them, and to order, form and reform them.7Cavendish expresses her own thoughts on the "natures, humours, passions, and appetites" of humans primarily in her books The Worlds Olio and Orations of Divers Sorts, and to a lesser extent in CCXI Sociable Letters. Although these books have not been treated as works of philosophy, they do have much to say about ethics and politics.A word of caution is in order regarding the use of Cavendish's Orations to establish her moral and political theory. This work contains 179 "Orations and Speeches of all Sorts,"8 often presenting both sides of a debate, with no apparent resolution. This does pose a certain difficulty for those who hope to discern Cavendish's own views in the text. Hilda Smith asks, "Is it possible, ... to make distinctions among her views, selecting the genuine ones and ignoring those stated purely for literary or argumentative effect? …