Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth‐century England

2005; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 41; Issue: 1-2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/0030923042000335475

1477-674X

Ruth Watts,

Historical and Literary Studies

Abstract The seventeenth century in England, bounded by the scientific stimulus of Francis Bacon at the beginning and Isaac Newton at the end, seemingly saw a huge leap from the Aristotelian dialectic of the past to a reconstruction of knowledge based on inductive methods, empirical investigation and cooperative research. In mid‐century, Puritan reformers inspired both by the scientific thinking of Bacon and by the educational reforms of Comenius, hoped that educational reform at both school and university level would follow political and religious changes. In 1661, after the restoration of the monarchy, the founding of the Royal Society suggested that acceptance of experimental and practical science at the highest level had been achieved and that this would impinge on education. None of these assumptions can be accepted at face value. Indeed, the whole intellectual and educational history of the seventeenth century is far more complex than often portrayed. Various scientific and philosophical world‐views and different methods of scientific investigation jostled for supremacy and major leaps forward in scientific knowledge were often a combination of some of these. The physical sciences still came under the umbrella of ‘natural philosophy’. Nevertheless, this period is seen as the beginnings of a scientific revolution that has profoundly affected, even generated the modern world. Generally such developments have been both hailed and derided as masculinist. Earlier historians usually neither saw nor looked for women's place in scientific development: more recently, feminist historians have both tried to correct the picture and sought to explain the exclusion of women from most of it. Some have seen Western science itself in this period constructing notions of masculinity and femininity that would prevent women participating in the scientific ventures which represent modernity. This article will investigate the position of women within the scientific and educational developments of seventeenth‐century England. The development of Baconian science and its effects on Puritan reformers, especially Samuel Hartlib, John Dury and other like‐minded scholars, will be examined. It will be shown that their ideals, like those of Jan Comenius whom they admired and worked with, had positive implications for female education. Although, however, some females were affected by the educational reforming impulses of the Hartlib circle, in the changeable political and intellectual world of seventeenth‐century England, very little lasting reform was achieved. Generally women were not well educated in this period. They were excluded from formal educational institutions such as the grammar school and the university although these were not necessarily where scientific and educational reform took place. The advent of printing in the sixteenth century and the growth of scientific lectures in the seventeenth enabled upper and some middle‐ranking women to take part in some of the intellectual ferment of the day and women naturally had a place in science through their culinary and medical roles. Contemporary research has uncovered some of the scientific work done by women and stimulated significant discussion on what can be counted as ‘science’. In England, female relatives of those who espoused scientific and educational reform were themselves involved in such initiatives. On the other hand, they were shut out from membership of the Royal Society for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge, established in 1662, or any other formal institution. Some women were affected by Cartesianism and other scientific theories including those on both natural magic and more occult philosophies. This was a century, however, when unorthodox thinking could meet with frightful consequences and eminent thinkers across the continent fell foul of religious and political authorities. The period was shamed by the highest number of witchcraft trials ever in Central and Western Europe, including England, chiefly against women, albeit mainly the old and the poor. In the second half of the century, longings for stability and peace were more likely to consolidate patriarchical and conservative mores than give way to radical social ideas. Nevertheless, as this study will show, a number of women, chiefly of aristocratic lineage or at least educated above the norm, were able even to publish their scientific ideas. Two of the women mentioned here did so through translation: Lucy Hutchinson, translating Lucretius, and Aphra Benn, translating Bernard le Bouvier de Fontenelle. Hutchinson particularly revealed her own thinking through the notes she added to her edition. Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, chose to pour out the scientific and philosophical ideas she gathered through reading and conversation, in a torrent of unedited publications. Anne, Viscountess Conway, in more measured tones and timing, drew from her private form of higher education to publish The Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern Philosophy, which influenced leading philosophers of her day, including Liebniz. Both she and Margaret Cavendish were sufficiently confident to critique Descartes, although Anne Conway's thinking was based on a sounder education. Bathsua Makin was able from her own excellent education and her contacts with the Hartlib circle at home and Anna Maria van Schurmann and others abroad to promulgate an education for girls that would enable them to learn and use a range of sciences and mathematics in an extended female role. Even so, these women were a privileged few and promoted scientific and educational ideas from a vantage point of their own fortunate educational and/or social position. For none of them was this uncomplicated, while for other women, even ones within intellectual circles such as that of Mary Evelyn, their scientific impulses were restrained by gendered notions. Thus it is shown that in both the opportunities offered by new scientific and educational ideas and in their exclusion from the mainstream the position of women was in line with conflicting modern principles that underlay a contested terrain in science for the centuries to come. In addition, this brief exploration of these gendered contradictions of the scientific revolution in England shows the benefits of understanding the large areas of learning which are outside or juxtaposed to formal education, the networks that facilitate leaning and the contemporary context of gendered and scientific beliefs pervading different forms of knowledge. Notes Spedding, James, Robert Leslie Ellis and Douglas Denon Heath, eds. Francis Bacon, The Works of …, IV. London, 1858. Ibid.: 478 and 466–493; Webster, Charles, ed. Samuel Hartlib and the Advancement of Learning. Cambridge, 1970: 2–72; The Great Instauration: Science, Medicine and Reform 1626–60. London, 1975: passim; Jacob, Margaret C. The Cultural Meaning of the Scientific Revolution. New York, 1988: 20, 31–35, 74–76 and 85–91. Webster, Samuel Hartlib: 69–71; Hunter, Michael. Science and the Shape of Orthodoxy: Intellectual Change in late Seventeenth Century Britain. Cambridge, 1995: 102–119. Jordanova, Ludmilla. Defining Features: Scientific and Medical Portraits 1660–2000. London, 2000: 60; Easlea, Brian. Witch Hunting, Magic and the New Philosophy. An Introduction to the Debates of the Scientific Revolution 1450–1750. Brighton, 1980: vii and 214; Hutton, Sarah. “The riddle of the sphinx: Francis Bacon and the emblems of science.” In Women, Science and Medicine 1500–1700: Mothers and Sisters of the Royal Society, edited by Lynette Hunter and Sarah Hutton. Stroud, 1997: 7–28; Schiebinger, Londa. The Mind has no Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science. London, 1989: 137. Webster, Samuel Hartlib: 139–140 and 144–165; Čapkova, Dagmar. “The educational plans of J.A. Comenius in 1646: from a diary sent to English colleagues.” History of Education VII/2 (1978): 95–103. Phillips, Patricia. The Scientific Lady. A Social History of Woman's Scientific Interests 1520–1918. London, 1990: 30–33. Schiebinger, The Mind has no Sex?: 170–172; Jacob, The Cultural Meaning: 55–61. Ibid.: 10–55 and 62–63. Conway, Anne. The Principles of most Ancient and Modern Philosophy, translated and edited by Allison P. Coudert and Taylor Course. Cambridge, 1996: xvi–xvii. Easlea, Witch Hunting: 124; Hill, Christopher. Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution. Oxford, 1965. Ehrenreich, Barbara, and Deidre English. Witches, Midwives and Nurses: a History of Women Healers. New York, 1973: 9–20, passim. Robb‐Smith, A.H.T. “Medical Education at Oxford and Cambridge prior to 1850.” In The Evolution of Medical Education in Britain, edited by F.N.L. Poynter. London, 1966: 19–39. Easlea, Witch Hunting: 133–134, 158–162, 170–171, 180–181 and 242–250, passim; Hunter, Science and Orthodoxy: 14–15 and 113–114; Merchant, Carolyn. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. London, 1982: 99–148. Lawson, John, and Harold Silver. A Social History of England. London, 1973: 121–122; Mendelson, Sara, and Patricia Crawford. Women in Early Modern England 1550–1720. Oxford, 1998: 321–324; Phillips, The Scientific Lady: 77–90; Tebeaux, Elizabeth. “Women and Technical Writing, 1475–1700. Technology, literacy, and development of a genre.” In Hunter and Hutton, Women, Science and Medicine: 29–61. Jardine, Lisa. Ingenious Pursuits: Building the Scientific Revolution. London, 1999: 6–9; Meyer, Gerald Dennis. The Scientific Lady in England 1650–1760: An Account of Her Rise, with Emphasis of the Major Roles of the Telescope and Microscope. California: vii–viii; Easlea, Witch Hunting: 215–216. Hunter and Hutton, Women, Science and Medicine: xi–xix, 1–5, passim; Pelling, Margaret. “Thoroughly resented? Older women and the medical role in early modern London:” 63–88; Hunter, Lynette. “Women and domestic medicine: lady experimenters 1570–1620:” 89–107; Id., “Sisters of the Royal Society: the circle of Katherine Jones, Lady Ranelagh:” 178–187; Tebeaux, “Women and Technical Writing”: 29–61. Mendelson and Crawford, Women: 314–320; Wilson, Adrian. The Making of Man–Midwifery: Childbirth in England, 1660–1770. Cambridge, 1995: 1 and 25–57; Hurd‐Mead, Kate Campbell. A History of Women in Medicine from the Earliest Time to the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century. Haddam, CT, 1938: 386–406; Schiebinger, The Mind has no Sex?: 105–112; Hunter, “Lady Ranelagh:” 188–194. Schiebinger, The Mind has no Sex?: 102–103. Phillips, The Scientific Lady: 122–124; Potter, Elizabeth. Gender and Boyle's Law of Gases. Bloomington/Indianapolis, 2001: ix–xiii and 3–4. Cavendish, Margaret. A True Relation of My Birth, Breeding and Life. 1656 [Hypatia website]: 1–3, 7–8, 11–13; edited by Kate Lilley),The Description of a New World called the Blazing World and Other Writings. London, 1992: x–xi and 218. Cavendish, Margaret. “Divers orations” (1622). In Smith, Hilda L. “ ‘Though it be the part of every good wife’. Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle.” In Women and History: Voices of Early Modern England, edited by Valerie Frith. Toronto, 1995: 134–138; Cavendish, True Relation: 6, 9 and 15; Id., Blazing World and “Assaulted and Pursued Chastity.” In Lilley, The Description of a New World: 96 and 162; Id., “Philosophical and Physical Opinions.” In First Feminists: British Women Writers 1578–1799, edited by Moira Ferguson. Bloomington, IN, 1985: 85–86. Cavendish, Blazing World: 136–162, 171–174, 181–183 and 203–214; Id., “Assaulted and Pursued Chastity”: 54–70; Id., “The Contract.” In Lilley, The Description of a New World: 8–18 and 38–42. Meyer, The Scientific Lady in England: 10–11; Hutton, Sarah. “Anne Conway, Margaret Cavendish and seventeenth century scientific thought.” In Hunter and Hutton, Women, Science and Medicine: 218–232; Phillips, The Scientific Lady: 64–65. Hope Nicolson Majorie, ed. Conway Letters: The Correspondence of Anne, Viscountess Conway, Henry More and their Friends, 1642–1684. London, 1930: 452–456, passim; Hutton, “Ann Conway, Margaret Cavendish”: 227–231; Schiebinger, The Mind has no Sex?: 174–175. Hutton, “Ann Conway, Margaret Cavendish:” 218–219 and 231–232; Conway, Principles, passim. Bernal, M. Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilisation, vol. 1: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785–1985. New Brunswick, NJ, 1987: 23–25 and 162–165. Bernal disputes Casaubon's arguments; Jacob, The Cultural Meaning: 26–28; Merchant, Death of Nature: 69–111; Easlea, Witch‐Hunting: 106–107; C. Webster, ed. The Intellectual Revolution of the Seventeenth Century. London, 1974: 19. Barbour, Reid. “Lucy Hutchinson, atomism and the atheistic dog.” In Hunter and Hutton, Women, Science and Medicine: 122–137. Ibid.: 125. Nicolson, Conway Letters: 39–50, 313–317 and 453–456, passim. Ferguson, First Feminists, p. 128; Webster, Samuel Hartlib: 14–16; Phillips, The Scientific Lady: 33–35. Makin, Bathsua. “An Essay to Revive the Ancient Education of Gentlewomen.” In Ferguson, First Feminists: 129–135. Ibid.: 136–142; Phillips, The Scientific Lady: 36–41; Schiebinger, The Mind has no Sex?: 68–74. Ibid.: 41–44. Ferguson, First Feminists: 143–150; Meyer, The Scientific Lady in England: 16–21; Phillips, The Scientific Lady: 77–90. Harris, Frances. “Living in the Neighbourhood of science: Mary Evelyn, Margaret Cavendish and the Greshamites.” In Hunter and Hutton, Women, Science and Medicine: 198–214. Gordon, C., ed. Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other Writings, 1972–1977. Brighton, 1980: 102.