Abstract
This paper discusses the intellectual relationship between Margaret Cavendish (c.1623–1673) and Robert Boyle (1627–1691), arguing that they have more in common than is often thought. At first sight, their opinions in natural philosophy appear somewhat divergent: while he championed mechanical philosophy and pioneered the experimental method, her views are considered both anti-mechanical and anti-experimental. In much of the historiography, Boyle is seen as a cool-headed ‘modern’ whose views paved the way for scientific advance while Cavendish is often presented as a more disorganized thinker who resisted innovations in science. This comparative study of Cavendish and Boyle reveals a more complex relationship, including some intriguing similarities in their approach to scientific writing and publication. While many scholars emphasize Cavendish’s hostility to the Royal Society, this analysis suggests that there was a surprising degree of common ground between her views and those of Boyle, especially in relation to the purpose of natural philosophy and the ways in which reliable scientific knowledge might be established.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
On the ambassadors’ visits, see Birch (1756–7, I, 16, 75).
- 4.
‘Further Observations upon Experimental Philosophy Reflecting withal upon some Principal Subjects in Contemplative Philosophy’ was published within Observations upon Experimental Philosophy, but paginated separately. For the sake of clarity, the two works are listed separately in the bibliography and distinguished as 1666a, b. On early microscopy see Wilson (1995).
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
The Christian Virtuoso shewing that by being addicted to experimental philosophy, a man is rather assisted, than indisposed, to be a good Christian […] London, 1690.
- 8.
On Boyle’s reputation see Hunter (1981, 49, 54).
- 9.
On Peter Killigrew’s marriage, see Whitaker (2003, 13, 32); The Boyle-Killigrew marriage took place in the King’s Chapel at Whitehall when the groom was aged just 15; he left on a European tour with his brother, shortly afterwards. See White (1949, XI, 655–656), Hunter (2009, 21, 41, 58, 314), Whitney (2006, 232).
- 10.
John Killigrew of Arwennack was great-grandfather to both Peter and Elizabeth Killigrew. See Gay (1903); https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/search/peterkilligrew, accessed 7 July, 2018. The Killigrews were an extraordinary family; Thomas Killigrew, the playwright was Elizabeth Killigrew’s brother and Anne Killigrew, the poet, was her niece. Elizabeth herself was, like Cavendish, a maid of honour to the Queen in exile; she became one of Charles II’s mistresses, bearing him a daughter in about 1650. Her husband was raised to the peerage as Viscount Shannon by Charles II at the Restoration in 1660.
- 11.
William Cavendish (1617–84), 3rd Earl of Devonshire was the son of William’s cousin.
- 12.
On Cavendish’s character, see Grant (1957, 41–44), Whitaker (2003, 19, 29, 141–3). On her (sometimes misleading) self-characterizations, see Fitzmaurice (1990, 199–209), Rees (2003, 26, 31, 186). On lack of organization in her writings, see Bowerbank (1984, 395–6, 402), Meyer (1955, 2–3), Smith (2005, 34). On Boyle’s commitment to matters of scientific fact, see Shapin and Schaffer (1985, 22–26). On Boyle as a ‘modern’ see Jones (1982, 162–9). For a reassessment of Boyle’s character, see Hunter (2015, 3–5, 8, 18, 25).
- 13.
Cavendish’s ‘True Relation’ was first published in Natures Pictures Drawn by Fancies Pencil to the Life. London (1656, 368–91).
- 14.
On the accusations of plagiarism which prompted Cavendish to develop and promote this self-image, see ‘AN EPISTLE To justifie the LADY NEWCASTLE, AND Truth against falshood, laying those false, and malicious aspersions of her, that she was not Author of her BOOKS’ in Cavendish (1655b, sig. A1v). For Cavendish’s positive assessment of melancholy, see Cavendish (1655b, 128).
- 15.
This pagination is found in Cavendish (1653a) inserted between A and B.
- 16.
See Fitzmaurice (2009, 21), Bowerbank (1984, 396), Sarasohn (2010, 34). On difficulties faced by women writers, see Crawford (1985, 212), Hackett (1996, 171). In Cavendish’s case, claims of literary humility are somewhat undermined by her self-confessed pursuit of fame—see Cavendish (1653a, A3r); (1655a, A1r).
- 17.
‘Of the Usefulnesse of Naturall Philosophy. The Second Part.’ 1663.
- 18.
This pagination in Cavendish (1653b) is inserted between B and C.
- 19.
- 20.
Of the Usefulnesse of Naturall Philosophy. The Second Part, 1663.
- 21.
New Experiments Physico-Mechanical, Touching The Spring of the Air and its Effects, 1660.
- 22.
Of the Usefulness of Naturall Philosophy. The Second Part. 1663. For an analysis of satirical attacks on the supposed usefulness of natural philosophy see Anstey (2007), 154–158.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
Some Considerations […] 1663.
- 26.
Some Considerations […] 1663.
- 27.
See also Cavendish (1666b, 77).
- 28.
Siegfried and Sarasohn (2014).
- 29.
This pagination is found in Cavendish (1653a) between A and B.
- 30.
I use the term ‘Greshamites’ as a useful shorthand, meaning ‘fellows of the Royal Society’. The term refers to their original meeting place—Gresham College, in the City of London.
- 31.
- 32.
Francis Petrarch, On his own Ignorance and That of Many Others, in Marsh (2003, 239).
- 33.
This pagination is inserted in Cavendish (1655a) between pages 26 and 27.
- 34.
New Experiments Physico-Mechanical, Touching the Spring of the Air and its Effects (1660).
- 35.
Some Considerations Touching the Usefulness of Experimental Naturall Philosophy (1663).
- 36.
On the context of contemporary debates on the question of dominion, see Webster (1975, esp. Chaps. I and V).
- 37.
Some Considerations […], (1663).
- 38.
See Cavendish (1666b, 41).
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
On the importance of observations in medicine, see Cavendish (1655b, 104).
- 44.
On medieval empiricism, see Grant (2002, 142).
- 45.
- 46.
Certain Physiological Essays (1669), first published 1661.
- 47.
On the composition of this text, see Hunter and Davis (2000, liv–lvi).
- 48.
The change in text indicates a new phase of composition and is added as a marginal insertion. “Pyrophilus” was Richard Jones, Boyle’s nephew. See DiMeo (2015, 29).
- 49.
See Birch (1756, 19, 342).
- 50.
Glanvill to Cavendish, 13 Oct 1667, Letters and Poems […], (1676, 124–5).
- 51.
Glanvill to Cavendish (1668), ibid., 99.
References
Anstey, P. (2000). The philosophy of Robert Boyle. London: Routledge.
Anstey, P. (2007). Literary responses to Robert Boyle’s natural philosophy. In J. Cummins & D. Burchell (Eds.), Science, literature and rhetoric in early modern England (pp. 145–162). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Anstey, P. (2014). Philosophy of experiment in early modern England: The case of Bacon, Boyle and Hooke. Early Science and Medicine, 19(2), 103–32.
Birch, T. (1756–7). The History of the Royal Society of London. London: A. Millar.
Birch, T. (1772). The works of the honourable Robert Boyle. London: J. and F. Rivington et al.
Boas, M. (1952). The establishment of the mechanical philosophy. Osiris, 10, 412–541.
Bowerbank, S. (1984). The spider’s delight: Margaret Cavendish and the ‘female’ imagination. English Literary Renaissance, 14(3), 392–408.
Boyle, D. (2015). Margaret Cavendish on perception, self-knowledge and probable opinion. Philosophy Compass, 10(7), 438–450.
Boyle, R. (1994). An account of Philaretus during his minority by Robert Boyle. In M. Hunter (Ed.), Robert Boyle by himself and his friends (pp. 1–22). London: William Pickering.
Boyle, R. (1996). A free inquiry into the vulgarly received notion of nature. In E. B. Davis & M. Hunter (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boyle, R. (1999–2000). The works of Robert Boyle. In M. Hunter, & E. B. Davis (Eds.). London: Pickering & Chatto.
Boyle, R. (1690). The christian virtuoso. […] London.
Casaubon, M. (1976). A letter of Meric Casaubon to Peter du Moulin concerning natural experimental philosophie (1669) and of credulity and incredulity (1668, 1670). Delmar and New York: Scholars’ Facsimiles & Reprints.
Cavendish, M. (1653a). Poems, and fancies. London.
Cavendish, M. (1653b). Philosophicall fancies. London.
Cavendish, M. (1655a). The Worlds Olio. London.
Cavendish, M. (1655b). The philosophical and physical opinions. London.
Cavendish, M. (1656). Natures pictures drawn by fancies pencil to the life. London.
Cavendish, M. (1662). Orations of divers sorts, accommodated to divers places. London.
Cavendish, M. (1663). Philosophical and physical opinions. London.
Cavendish, M. (1666a). Observations upon experimental philosophy. London.
Cavendish, M. (1666b). Further observations upon experimental philosophy. In Observations upon experimental philosophy (1666a).
Cavendish, M. (1668). Grounds of natural philosophy.
Clucas, S. (2003). Variation, irregularity and probabilism: Margaret Cavendish and natural philosophy as rhetoric. In S. Clucas (Ed.), A princely brave woman: Essays on Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle (pp. 199–209). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Clucas, S. (2011). Margaret Cavendish’s materialist critique of Van Helmontian chymistry. Ambix, 58(1), 1–12.
Crawford, P. (1985). Women’s published writings 1600–1700. In M. Prior (Ed.), Women in English society 1500–1800 (pp. 211–282). London: Methuen.
Cummins, J., & Burchell, D. (2007). Ways of knowing: Conversations between science, literature, and rhetoric. In J. Cummins & D. Burchell (Eds.), Science, literature and rhetoric in early modern England (pp. 1–12). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Dear, P. (2007). A philosophical Duchess: Understanding Margaret Cavendish and the royal society. In J. Cummins & D. Burchell (Eds.), Science, literature and rhetoric in early modern England (pp. 125–142). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Detlefsen, K. (2007). Reason and freedom: Margaret Cavendish on the order and disorder of nature. Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie, 89(2), 157–191.
DiMeo, M. (2015). ‘Such a sister became such a brother’: Lady Ranelagh’s influence on Robert Boyle. Intellectual History Review, 25(1), 21–36.
Fisch, H. (1953). The scientist as Priest: A note on Robert Boyle’s natural theology. Isis, 44(3), 252–265.
Fitzmaurice, J. (1990). Fancy and the family: Self-characterizations of Margaret Cavendish. Huntington Library Quarterly, 53, 199–209.
Fitzmaurice, J. (2009). Margaret Cavendish on her own writing: Evidence from revision and handmade correction. In S. Mendelson (Ed.), Ashgate critical essays on women writers in England 1500–1700, Vol. 7 (pp. 21–33). Margaret Cavendish, Farnham: Ashgate.
Garber, D., & Roux, S. (Eds.). (2013). The mechanization of natural philosophy. Springer: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science.
Garber, D. (2013). Remarks on the pre-history of the mechanical philosophy. In D. Garber and S. Roux (Eds.), The mechanization of natural philosophy (pp. 3–26). Springer: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science.
Gay, S. (1903). Old Falmouth: The story of the town from the days of the Killigrews to the earliest part of the nineteenth century. London: Headley Brothers.
Glanvill, J. (1671). Philosophia Pia; or, a discourse of the religious temper, and tendencies of the experimental philosophy, which is profest by the royal society. London.
Glanvill, J. (1676). Essays on several important subjects in philosophy and religion. London.
Grant, D. (1957). Margaret the first. London: Rupert Hart-Davis.
Grant, E. (2002). Medieval natural philosophy: Empiricism without observation. In C. Leijenhorst, et al. (Eds.), The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from antiquity to the seventeenth century (pp. 141–168). Leiden: Brill.
Hackett, Helen. (1996). Courtly writing by women. In H. Wilcox (Ed.), Women and literature in Britain, 1500–1700 (pp. 169–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harrison, P. (2007). “The fashioned image of poetry or the regular instruction of philosophy?”: Truth, utility, and the natural sciences in early modern England. In J. Cummins & D. Burchell (Eds.), Science, literature and rhetoric in early modern England (pp. 15–35). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Henry, J. (1986). Occult qualities and the experimental philosophy: Active principles in pre-Newtonian matter theory. History of Science, 24, 335–381.
Hobbes, T. (1968). Leviathan, or the matter, forme & power of a common-wealth ecclesiasticall and civill (first published, 1651). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hunter, M. (1981). Science and society in restoration England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunter, M. (1989). Establishing the new science: The experience of the early royal society. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.
Hunter, M. (Ed.). (1994a). Robert Boyle by himself and his friends. London: William Pickering.
Hunter, M. (Ed.). (1994b). Robert Boyle reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunter, M. (2009). Boyle: Between God and science. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Hunter, M. (2015). Boyle studies: Aspects of the life and thought of Robert Boyle (1627–91). Farnham: Ashgate.
Hunter, M., & Anstey, P. (Eds.). (2008). The text of Robert Boyle’s ‘designe about natural history’. London: The Robert Boyle Project, Birkbeck.
Hunter, M., & Davis, E. B. (Eds.). (2000). The works of Robert Boyle (Vol. 13, Unpublished Writings, 1645-c.1670). London: Pickering & Chatto.
Hutchison, K. (1982). What happened to occult qualities in the scientific revolution? Isis, 73(267), 233–253.
Hutton, S. (1997). In dialogue with Thomas Hobbes: Margaret Cavendish’s natural philosophy. Women’s Writing, 4(3), 421–432.
Hutton, S. (2011). Before ‘Frankenstein’. In J. A. Hayden (Ed.), The new science and women’s literary discourse (pp. 17–28). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jones, R. (1982). Ancients and moderns: A study of the rise of the scientific movement in seventeenth-century England (first published 1936). New York: Dover Publications.
Keller, E. (1997). Producing petty Gods: Margaret Cavendish’s critique of experimental science. English Literary History, 64(2), 447–471.
Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Letters and poems in honour of the incomparable Princess, Margaret, Dutchess of Newcastle. (1676). London.
Levine, J. (1999). Between the ancients and the moderns: Baroque culture in restoration England. New Haven: Yale University Press.
McGuire, J. (1972). Boyle’s conception of nature. Journal of the History of Ideas, 33(4), 523–542.
Marsh, D. (2003). Francesco Petrarca: Invectives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Meyer, G. (1955). The scientific lady in England, 1650–1760. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mintz, S. (1952). The Duchess of Newcastle’s visit to the royal society. Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 51(2), 168–176.
More, H. (1662). A collection of several philosophical writings of Dr Henry More fellow of Christ’s College in Cambridge. As namely his antidote against atheism, appendix to the said antidote, enthusiasmus triumphatus, letters to Des-Cartes, &c. immortality of the soul, conjectura cabbalistica. London.
Newman, W. (2006). Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the experimental origins of the scientific revolution. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Pepys, S. (1983). The diary of Samuel Pepys, a new and complete transcription edited by Robert Latham and William Matthews, Volume VIII (first published 1974). London: Bell & Hyman Ltd.
Rees, E. (2003). Margaret Cavendish: Gender, genre, exile. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Rogers, J. (1996). The matter of revolution: Science, poetry, and politics in the age of Milton. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Sarasohn, L. T. (2010). The natural philosophy of Margaret Cavendish: Reason and fancy during the scientific revolution. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sargent, R-M. (1995). The diffident naturalist. Robert Boyle and the philosophy of experiment. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Shapiro, B. (1983). Probability and certainty in seventeenth-century England. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Siegfried, B. R., & Sarasohn, L. T. (Eds.). (2014). God and nature in the thought of Margaret Cavendish. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Smith, H. (2005). Margaret Cavendish and the microscope as play. In J. P. Zinsser (Ed.), Men, women, and the birthing of modern science (pp. 34–47). DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
Sprat, T. (1667). The history of the royal society of London. London.
Van Leeuwen, H. (1963). The problem of certainty in English thought 1630–1690. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Vanzo, A., & Anstey, P. (2019). Experiment, speculation and religion in early modern philosophy. New York and London: Routledge.
Webster, C. (1975). The great instauration: Science, medicine and reform 1626–1660. London: Duckworth.
Whitaker, K. (2003). Mad Madge: Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, royalist, writer and romantic (first published 2002). London: Chatto & Windus.
White, G. (1949). The complete Peerage. London: The St Catherine Press.
Whitney, C. (2006). Early responses to renaissance drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkins, E. (2014). Margaret Cavendish and the Royal Society. Notes & Records of the Royal Society of London, 68(3), 245–260.
Wilkins, E. (2016). ‘Exploding…immaterial substances’: Margaret Cavendish’s vitalist-materialist critique of spirits. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 24(5), 858–877.
Wilson, C. (1995). The invisible world: Early modern philosophy and the invention of the microscope. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wilson, C. (2007). Two opponents of material atomism: Cavendish and Leibniz. In P. Phemister & S. Brown (Eds.), Leibniz and the English-speaking world (pp. 35–50). Dordrecht: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wilkins, E. (2020). Margaret Cavendish and Robert Boyle on the Purpose, Method and Writing of Natural Philosophy. In: Ebbersmeyer, S., Paganini, G. (eds) Women, Philosophy and Science. Women in the History of Philosophy and Sciences, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44548-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44548-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-44547-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-44548-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)