Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle
While reading an excellent sonnet sequence by Maxine Kumin, called Sonnets Uncorseted, at the Poetry Foundation website, I was compelled to google a name referenced by Kumin, Margaret Cavendish, and was taken to a site called Emory Women Writers' Resource. This site contains a series called Atomic Poems in a book Cavendish published in 1653 called Poems, and Fancies.
I was amazed, not so much by the versifying, which is very good, but by the scientific and philosophical insights of this enlightened author in an age when it was considered unfeminine for women to engage in writing, even in thinking deeply about the world! I felt it would be remiss not to offer up a few of Cavendish's poems for perusal by the fine people here at the Sphere. I wonder also if it will strike others, as it struck me, how the very things she is speaking of are being argued about at this very moment on hundreds of bulletin boards across the Internet as well as in the hallowed halls of Academia, where thinkers like Susan Haack, for example (she is one of many), are occasionally held to account for the mere accident of being female. Here are a few samples of Margaret Cavendish's work, from 1653: Quote:
|
Wow, 12 pages for Mr. Lister and not a single word for Margaret Cavendish?
Nothing at all? No thoughts whatsoever? I guess I misplaced this thread. I'll grant, she's no Pope or Dryden, but I think her memory deserves more than to be utterly ignored in this highly trafficked venue which celebrates formal verse. Could it be because the Cavendish poems have no punchlines? |
I missed this the first time, only saw it this morning. Thanks for the bump and the original post. She's obviously a fascinating person, and while I'm no scholar of literature, I'll say that the first thing that occurred to me while reading these was the apparent influence of Lucretius. I know Dryden had a translation around that time (I've read this morning that she claims not to have known any language but English). I've also read that Lucy Hutchinson did one even before he did, but it wasn't published until recently. Do we know whether Cavendish might have been aware of the Hutchinson version?
Sorry for the shallowness of my response, but I figured I'd help get the ball rolling. |
Thanks, Mark. No, your response wasn't shallow at all. And you probably know as much about this author as I do after your reading of her, so I don't know if she knew of the translations you mention.
I wish I hadn't have put my last post up. I get into these moods at certain times, where I feel that some really talented people have gotten the fuzzy end of the lollypop when it comes to posterity. Ms. Cavendish certainly falls into that category. Yes, it certainly looks like Lucretius is there. As well as Newton**. But here is a bit from the Emory site, from the intro to her book: Quote:
It seems to me she must have read something of natural science and/or cosmology, philosophy, etc, or heard it (as the above quote says), and had a remarkable memory. Or, she was blest. **Nope, she didn't get it from Newton. Isaac was all of 10 yrs old when Ms. Cavendish published her book. linky |
Perhaps you're right, William: it's the absence of punch-lines that's held us back. For example, on my first reading the poem that struck me most was the one that concluded:
Quote:
Spending that Life, which Natures God did give Us to adore him, and his wonders with, With fruitlesse, vaine, impossible pursuites... She may have intended something subtle with that "with, / With...", but to me it just seems awkward. (Ditto the enjambment.) Sorry I can't be more enthusiastic. As I say, I'm grateful to have learned about this writer. (Crossposted with you) |
Is this the same Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, who wrote a biography of her husband William. The woman Pepys said was "a mad, conceited, ridiculous woman" and that her husband was "an ass" for allowing her to write it?
|
Hi Gregory,
I agree with you, she's no master poet. My main interest in sharing these was the subject matter she took on, which as far as I know was quite rare in that age for women writers. Rare that is, not non-existent. Indeed, that 'with' looks wrong. I'm thinking maybe it was a printer's error. |
Quote:
|
The wiki page for Margaret Cavendish states that she was quite familiar with scholarly and philosophical works of her period. Not only that, she authored 6 books on natural philosophy.
That flies right in the face of that bit I posted from her introduction. I'm reminded of a video I saw of Jackie Kennedy giving a tour of the White House to some major news-person whose name I can't remember. While she's giving the tour she gives out all kinds of historical and political information. But, when asked about whether it's the government's place to advocate or support the arts, she answers, "Well, that sounds awfully complicated..." and essentially shrugs off the question and quickly switches the subject. The video can be found on YouTube. Certain sources I've read maintain that Jackie O and President Kennedy were both history buffs, and that she was extremely smart and learned. In one interview I saw of her she says, generally, that since her husband was President it was not for her to offer any kind of commentary on political issues. Her political views, she explicitly states, she takes from her husband. Whether that be entirely true doesn't matter so much. I think this was her way of supporting her husband as a world leader, of confirming his trustworthiness and ability. Maybe Cavendish was doing the same thing: playing dumb while simultaneously contradicting herself in her work? |
I downloaded her biography of William and have read parts of it. Apparently he was controversial "and had the "misfortune to have somewhat of the poet in him." I gather that some Royalists thought they could have taken London in 1643 but William refused to join in on the assault. He took off for France the day after Marsten Moor.
I've enjoyed the bits I've read. You might want to find a copy. John |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.