Ellenzweig_Love of God and Radical Enlightment

8/3/2019 Ellenzweig_Love of God and Radical Enlightment

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ellenzweiglove-of-god-and-radical-enlightment 1/20

The Love of God and the Radical Enlightenment: Mary Astell's Brush with SpinozaAuthor(s): Sarah EllenzweigSource: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Jul., 2003), pp. 379-397Published by: University of Pennsylvania PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654232

Accessed: 30/03/2010 19:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654232?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654232?origin=JSTOR-pdf



T h e L o v e o f G o d a n d t h e

R a d i c a l Enlightenment:

M a r y A s t e l l ' s B r u s h w i t h S p i n o z a

SarahEllenzweig

And since the FrenchTongue s understoodby most Ladies,methinks

theymaymuchbetter mproveit by the studyof Philosophy(as I hear

the FrenchLadies do) Des Cartes,Malebranchand others, than by

readingidle Novels andRomances. 'Tis strangewe shou'd be so for-

wardto imitatetheirFashions and Fopperies,and have no regardto

what is really imitable in them! And why shall it not be thoughtas

genteelto understand renchPhilosophy,asto be accoutrednaFrench

Mode?

-Mary Astell, A SeriousProposal to theLadies, 1694

MaryAstell's place inEnlightenmenthoughthaslong posed a conundrum

to modemreaders.High-Church,Tory,andPlatonist,Astell supporteda theol-

ogy, politics, andphilosophythatEnlightenmentn Englandfor the most part

soughtto abandon.Yet hersingular raditionalisms notAstell's mostenduring

legacy.Celebratedas a critic of women's exclusion fromeducationandsubjec-tion in marriage,Astell has frequentlybeen heraldedas England's"firstfemi-

nist."' While the coinage "Toryfeminist,"when appliedto Astell and other

earlymodem women writers ike her,has attempted o elucidatethis complex

Thanks o theAhmanson-GettyPostdoctoralFellowship at the UCLA Center or 17thand

18th-CenturyStudies,the ClarkMemorialLibrary,and to JasonFrank,Kinch Hoekstra,Jeff

Lomonaco,ElizabethWingrove,and JackZammito.' See, for example,BridgetHill (ed.), TheFirst EnglishFeminist:ReflectionsUponMar-

riage and OtherWritingsby MaryAstell (New York,1986).

379

Copyright003byJournal f theHistory f Ideas, nc.



SarahEllenzweig

mix of traditionaland progressivetendencies, the term's explanatorypowerremains argelylimited to questionsof sexualpolitics.2

E. DerekTaylorargues n a recentessay in thisjournalthatAstell "isonlynow beginningto receive herrightfulinheritanceas a theological and philo-

sophicalthinker."Taylor,PatriciaSpringborg,andSarahHuttonhave all writ-ten illuminatingessays on Astell's theologicalandphilosophicalwritings,ex-

pandingAstell's significance as a thinkerbeyond the confines of early femi-

nism andmarkinganew direction nAstell scholarship.3ThoughTaylorrightlyobserves that past criticism's concern to situate Astell as a feminist reveals

moreaboutpresentdaypreoccupationshan tdoesaboutAstell, it is alsoreadily

apparenthatcontemporaries iewed Astell's sexualpolitics, however filtered

through he principlesof patriarchalistheory,as subversive.Indeed,herRe-

flections upon Marriage (1700) broughton chargesthatshe intendedto "stir

up Sedition,""undermine he MasculineEmpire,"and"blow the TrumpetofRebellion to the Moiety of Mankind."4n this sense, the contemporary ecep-tion of Astell is not too distantfromourown.

This parallelismdoes not hold for Astell's philosophicalandtheologicalviews. ForTaylor,Springborg,andHutton,as well as for Astell's biographer,RuthPerry,Astell is unquestionablya religious conservative,herhigh-flying

Anglicanismin conflict with the latitudinarianmoderationof the consummate

Whig of theperiod,John Locke.ThoughAstell's relianceon Cartesian eason

hasbeenwidely acknowledged,she is also understoodas a philosophicalcon-

servative,positing an idealist Platonism as againstLocke's skepticalempiri-cism.5However,contemporariesaw Astell otherwise.Indeed, f we readAstell

and the intellectualmilieu of which she was apart n historicalcontext,attend-

ing moreclosely to the receptionof andresponseto both Astell's writingsand

those of her influences, a ratherunexpected picturecomes into view. By the

end of the seventeenthcenturykey aspectsof bothphilosophicalandreligioustraditionhad been rediscovered as dangerouslyreminiscentof the twin bug-

2 See Hilda L. Smith,Reasons Disciples (Urbana,Ill., 1982); Joan K. Kinnaird,"MaryAstell and the ConservativeContribution o EnglishFeminism,"Journalof BritishStudies,19

(1979), 53-75; RuthPerry,"MaryAstell andthe FeministCritiqueof Possessive Individualism,"

Eighteenth-Centurytudies,23 (1990), 444-57;andCatherineGallagher,"Embracinghe Abso-

lute:The Politics of the Female Subjectin Seventeenth-Century ngland,"Genders,1 (1988),24-39.

3 E. DerekTaylor,"MaryAstell's IronicAssault on JohnLocke'sTheoryof ThinkingMat-

ter,"JHI, 62 (2001), 505; PatriciaSpringborg,"Astell,Masham,and Locke:Religion andPoli-

tics,"WomenWriters nd theEarlyModernBritishPolitical Tradition, d. HildaL. Smith(Cam-

bridge, 1998), 105-25; SarahHutton,"DamarisCudworth,LadyMasham:Between Platonism

andEnlightenment,"BritishJournalfor theHistoryof Philosophy, 1 (1993), 29-54.4MaryAstell, ReflectionsuponMarriage,Political Writings,d. PatriciaSpringborg Cam-

bridge, 1996), 8.5See RuthPerry,"RadicalDoubt andthe Liberationof Women,"Eighteenth-Centurytud-

ies, 18 (1985), 472-93.

380



MaryAstell and theRadicalEnlightenment

bears of the Civil War and Interregnum: nthusiasm(the sectarian claim to

unmediateddivineinspiration) nd itsmoreblasphemous ogical extreme,pan-theism (thetheorythatGod and the universecompose one entity).6 Precisely

becauseof hertraditionalism,Astell foundherselfensnared n a moreradical

Enlightenmentegacy than has previouslybeen acknowledged.The broadbasis for such a claim is thatthrough he writingsof her fellow

countryman ndHigh-ChurchTory,JohnNorris(1657-1711), Astell becamea

discipleof the FrenchPlatonistandneo-CartesianNicolas Malebranche1638-

1715). Thoughhimself a Catholicpriestanda monarchist,Malebranche'swrit-

ings were nonethelessbanned n Franceand includedon the "Index" n Rome

for theological iconoclasm.7 In Englandhis Recherchede la verite(1674-75)likewisebecame infamousforthreerelateddoctrineswith what wereperceivedto be implicitlypantheistic mplications. At the core of Malebranche's ystem

was a comprehensivetheoryof causationknown as "occasionalism,"or the

doctrine hatnaturalphenomenaand materialbodies, causallyinefficaciousin

themselves,merelyprovidethe occasionsforGod,the truecausalpowerin the

universe,to executehis will. OnlyGodcanact,Malebranche onfidentlypro-claimed. Not only do thebody and the materialworldlackproductivepower,but thehumanmind,too, in Malebranche's iew, lacksindependentperceptive

efficacy. Unable to form its own ideas of objects,the mind"sees all things in

God,"who contains the propertiesor archetypesof all createdbeings within

himself.Bothoccasionalismand thevision of all thingsin Godentailedarather

ascetic social ethics: because God is the efficient cause of all events andthe

one sourceof ourknowledge,Malebrancheaught,he is also theonly sourceof

our good and thereforeexclusively deserving of our love. Any love for the

creature hussignifieda misunderstandingf the soul's properobject.Wemaybelieve thatsecondaryoccasions-such as the laws of nature, he promptingsof oursenses, or our love for anotherhumanbeing-are the sourcesof experi-

ence, our ideas, and ourpleasure;but this is to mistake the preeminenceand

sufficiencyof God's will in every occurrence, argeandsmall.

By deferring o God's absolutesovereigntyandemphasizingman's neces-

sary dependenceon his laws, Malebranchentendedhis principlesto shoreupChristianorthodoxy."Throughhe mind'sclearvision,"he asserted n Search,

"we discoverthatwe are unitedto Godin a closerand more essentialway than

we areto ourbodies,thatwithoutGod we arenothing,thatwithoutHimwe can

knownothing,donothing,will nothing,andsensenothing, hatHe is ourall, or

6 See J. G. A. Pocock, "Clergyand Commerce:The ConservativeEnlightenment n En-

gland,"L 'EtadeiLumi:studistorici sul settecentoeuropeoin onoredi Franco Venturi,d. L.G.

Crocker Naples, 1985), II, 552; BarbarismandReligion (2 vols.; New York,1999), I, 69; and

"SuperstitionndEnthusiasmnGibbon'sHistoryof Religion,"Eighteenth-Centuryife,8 (1982),85.

7 JonathanI. Israel,Radical Enlightenment Oxford, 2001), 41; Charles J. McCracken,MalebrancheandBritishPhilosophy (Oxford, 1983), 115.

381



SarahEllenzweig

thatwith Him we makea whole-if it may be so expressed-of which we are

an infinitely small part."8While such sentimentspoke stirringlyto Astell's

deep religiosity, critics in France and later in England complained that

Malebranchewas atbest anenthusiast,atworst,a pantheist.Inpositinga nec-

essaryunion between God andman in ouractions andknowledge,andin deny-

ing all powerandactivityto natureand createdbeings, Malebranchewas seen

to veerperilouslytowardsthis latterandmoreincendiary heologicalerror.

TheEnglishwere familiarwith the seditiousthreatof pantheism rom the

Civil War sects. In 1648 GerardWinstanley, he leaderof the Levellers,had

promoted he idea that God is "ineveryplace andeverycreature," belief that

he linked to democraticpolitics.9As William Warburtonater taught in his

Divine Legation(1738), the heresydated back to the Greeks,the inventorsof

the impious and"malignant" otion thatGod is all things.But unhappilyfor

modemPlatonists, he equationof Godandnaturehad beenmorerecentlyand

infamouslyrevived by Benedictusde Spinoza. "[C]atch[ing] his epidemical

contagionof human reason from antiquity,"n one fell swoop, Spinozahad

abolishedthe dualism of conventionalChristian hought,as well as thejustifi-cationsfor social, political, andreligious hierarchy hat wentwith it.10To con-

temporaries, he assertion that God and his universe are one substancesup-

posed God to be no differentfromhis creation,and therefore o be matteras

well as mind,an assumption hatfinally seemed tantamount o atheism.

This essay will trace the influence of Malebrancheon Astell's thought,

from her firstdiscussions of his principleswith JohnNorris in 1693-94 to herfinal defense of occasionalism and thevision of all thingsin Godin her"mag-numopus"The ChristianReligion (1705). My aimwill be to describethe sur-

prisingway in whichAstell found herself in unexpectedproximity o Spinoza,a figurecondemnedby contemporaries s the most abominableheretic of the

seventeenthcentury.Though recognizing the importanceof Malebranche o

Astell's thoughtis not new, what it meant forAstell to embracehis tenetshas

remained ess thanclear. Partof this difficultystemsfromtherelativeneglectof Malebranche n the historyof philosophy, particularlyn the English con-

text."1ndeed,thatAstell would eschew her native empiricism n favorof the

near-mysticalmetaphysicsof aFrenchCatholicpriesthas, if anything,seemed

8Nicolas Malebranche,TheSearchAfterTruth, ds. andtr.ThomasM. Lennon and Paul J.

Olscamp (Cambridge,1997), Book V, 366.

9Winstanley,The Law of Freedom[1648], qtd. in StuartBrown,"'Theological Politics'

and theReceptionof Spinozain theEarlyEnglishEnlightenment," tudiaSpinozana,9 (1994),182.

10Warburton,TheDivineLegation ofMosesDemonstrated 1738) (2 vols.; London,1837),

I, 517; I, 506; andsee Margaret acob,TheRadicalEnlightenmentLondon, 1981), 22, 48-53,80, 224.

1 But see McCracken,Malebranche.

382



MaryAstell and the RadicalEnlightenment

partandparcelof herpersistent raditionalism.Presentistbiaseshave also con-

tributed o thisview. The Astell we knowbest and notcoincidentallyavailable

in current editions is the least theological and therebythe most accessible

Astell-the proto-feministauthorof A SeriousProposal to the Ladies (1694)

andReflectionsuponMarriage.It is this latterAstell, moreover,who appearsmostassimilable-admittedly with nota little distortion-to a widely "liberal"

set of political commitments.If I amcorrect n this assessment,the historyof

Astell criticism s not withoutits ironies,for it will be my argument hatin her

own lifetime, at least, Astell was seen as most subversivewhere she has been

least discussed,in herwritingson religionandphilosophy. Howeverillogicalit might appear o us, Astell's unequivocal supportof customaryauthoritiesn

churchand state did notpreventhercontemporariesromidentifyingand con-

demningwhat they saw to be the dangerousramificationsof her theocentric

philosophy.

Astell, Norris,and Malebranche

In 1693JohnNorrisreceiveda letter romMaryAstell aboutoccasionalism

andits relationship o the love of God. By the 1690s Norrishadlong been an

avidfollowerof Malebranche, isnumerouspublications lmostsingle-handedly

disseminating Malebranche's ideas in England.12Seemingly unaware of

Malebranche's conoclastic status in France,Astell wrote to Norris that she

read"every hingyouWritewithgreatPleasureandno lessAdvantage.""3heir

exchange continuedthroughthe following year, and by July of 1694 Norris

persuadedAstell to printtheircommunications,urgingthe cause of religion

againstAstell's initial diffidence. The correspondencewas publishedin 1695

underthe title LettersConcerning he Love of God.

Astell's initialexposureto Malebranchewas throughNorris'swritings,as

is evident from her complaintthat she "wish[ed] [she] could readthat inge-nious Author in his own language,or thathe spake [hers]."'4 At the startof

theircorrespondenceAstell appeared o acceptthe Malebranchean rinciples

as expoundedby Norrisin his Practical Discourses uponSeveral Divine Sub-

jects (1691), that Godis the efficient cause of all sensationand the only legiti-mate objectof our love.15Yet she was unpersuadedby Norris'sreasoningon

therelationship etweenthe two theories.Inthe letters hat ollowNorrisstrived

to educateAstell in therigorsof the Malebrancheanystem,andby the startof

letterV, his efforts appear o have been successful. Astell thanks Norris "for

12McCracken,Malebranche,156-79.

13To Mr.Norris, LetterI, in JohnNorris,LettersConcerningthe Love of God (London,

1695), 3.14 To Mr.Norris,LetterVII, Letters,149.15Taylor, op. cit., 507-8.

383



SarahEllenzweig

those necessaryanduseful Rules you have alreadyprescribed,"andrequeststhathe supplyherwitha "Systemof Principlesas I mayrelieon ... to initiatea

rawDisciple in the Studyof Philosophy."16 n letterIX Astell takes the final

stepof linkingthe divine love thesis with Malebranche'sheoryof occasional

causes and the vision of all thingsin God:

And does not God comprehendall possible Good, is he not the veryFountainandsole Authorof it?Is he notGoodnessit self, thatcommu-

nicative Goodness which gave Being to all things, in whom all things

are,andconsequentlywhatsoever s good in them mustin a moreemi-

nentMannersubsistin him?

If all things exist in God andGod is the authorof all good, Astell asserts,the

creaturesat most can be used "as an Occasion ... andwith thatIndifferencythat is due to it."'7

Yet despite this seemingly happy conclusion, in August 1694, when the

publicationof Letters oomednear,Astell wrotea finalletter o Norris nwhich

she disclaimed occasionalism,protestingthat the principlethat "God is the

only efficient Cause of all ourSensation .. rendersa greatPartof God'sWork-

manshipvain anduseless,"and"doesnotwell comportwith [God's]Majesty."An appendix,comprisingAstell's last letter andNorris'sreply,was addedto

Letters at the final hour.This apostasy has been of interest to Astell critics

concerned o situateheraccurately nthecontextof seventeenth-century hilo-

sophicalandtheological debate.As Taylorhas demonstrated,ts significanceis complicatedby Astell's return o occasionalismin her ChristianReligion of

1705.18

WhydidAstell suddenlyrenounceoccasionalismbefore thepublicationof

LettersConcerning he Loveof God in 1695? Taylorsubmits hatAstell found

occasionalism"impractical,"ndpointsout that nplaceof Malebranche'sdic-

tum thatonly God canact,Astellputsforward hepossibility, nspiredby HenryMore's conceptionof a "plastick"or "preceptive sic] Partof the Soul,"that

thereis "a sensible Congruitybetween those Powersof the Soul that are em-

ployed in Sensation,andthose Objectswhich occasion it." In this formulation

materialbodies intheirownnatureshavean"Efficiency owards heproducingof those Sensationswhich we feel at theirPresence."While Astell remained

perfectly willing to demote the power of bodies andobjectsto secondarysta-

tus, arguing hatthey are"Instruments" holly dependenton God's"superior

Nature," henow upheldthemoreorthodoxview thatGod's creationacts as an

effect,rather hana directmanifestation,of his will. Itappears hatthe extrem-

16To Mr.Norris,LetterIV,Letters,77, 76; ToMr.Norris,LetterV, Letters,101.17ToMr.Norris,LetterIX, Letters,179-80.18 To Mr.Norris,"Appendix,"Letters,277-78; Taylor,op. cit., 511-12.

384




ismof Malebranche's octrinehadbegunto makeAstell uncomfortable.Adopt-

ing a more conventional stance on God's relationship o his creation,Astell

wrote to Norristhat "itseems moreagreeableto the Majestyof God, andthat

Orderhe has established n the World,to say that he producesour Sensations

mediatelyby his ServantNature,thanto affirmthat he does it immediatelybyhis own AlmightyPower."'9

Malebranchehad insisted in TheSearchAfterTruth hat the only way to

appreciate rulyGod'sdivinitywas to admitthatonly he enjoyedthepowerto

act. It was precisely this magnificationof the deity at the expense of the sen-

soryworldthat had attractedAstell to Malebranche's ystem in the firstplace.Whereas the predominantphilosophy and theology of her time struckher as

basely sensualistand impiously secular,Malebrancheand Norris had seemed

to understand hat "thisWorld s a mere shew, a shadow,an emptiness!"Our

"Pretenderso Wit"might"discredit verythingthat s not theObjectof Sense,"but"in[the]rightestimateSpiritsaretheonly Realities,andnothingdoes trulyandproperlyoccasion good or evil to us but as it respectsour Minds."20Why,

then,would Astell suddenlyally herselfwith a sensation-based heorythat she

hadpreviouslycensuredas profanelymaterialist?

Astellhad asserted n herfinal letter o Norris hat"verymanyobjectagainstthis Proposition [i.e. the notion that God is the efficient cause of all sensa-

tion]."21 nFranceLeibniz hadcomplained hatin makingGod the only cause

in theuniverse,andtherebydeprivingnatureof all efficacy,occasionalismwas

tantamount o Spinozism. If the creatureshad no ontological independencefromGod,theycouldnotrightlybe saidto be different romhim:To "refuseall

force and all powerto things" s "tochangethemfromthe substances hey are

into modes. Thatis what Spinozadoes; he thinksthatonly God is a substance

andthatall otherthingsareonly modifications."22Moreover,one of the earli-

est English linkingsof Malebranchewith Spinoza,RichardBurthogge'sEssay

uponReason appeared n April of 1694 and thus could plausibly have been

readbyAstell beforeherletterofAugust 14of thatyear. Burthoggeessentiallysaw no differencebetweenMalebrancheandSpinoza,complaining hat"their

Ambitious Researchesin thathigher way have [not] edified the World ... to

any great Degree."Both thinkers, n his view, madeGod "all Substance"and

therefore"theUniverse ... as well as Mind."Similarlyto Leibniz,Burthogge

suggestedthata false notion of God's infinityled Spinozaand"others"o the

misguided conception "that[God] is the Ingredient,ImmanentCause of all

Things,"an idea which "shocks" the "distinctionand singularity"of God's

19Taylor,op. cit., 512; to Mr.Norris,"Appendix,"Letters,280, 279, 284, 281.20 To Mr.Norris,LetterIII,Letters,45.21

ToMr.Norris,"Appendix,"Letters,277-78.22 Leibniz to Arauld, 4/14 January1688, G.W Leibniz:Philosophical Texts, r.Richard

FrancksandR.S. Woolhouse(New York,1998), 135-36.

385



SarahEllenzweig

Being.23The CambridgePlatonists,Astell's earliestphilosophical nfluences,

had beenthe firstEnglishcriticsof Spinoza,so Astell wouldhave beenacutelyawareof the hazardof anyassociation,howevertangential, o thatopprobrious

figure.24When Astell objected,moredelicatelyto be sure,thatoccasionalism

"doesnot well comportwith [God's]Majesty," t is very possible thatshe hadsuch scruplesin mind.

As it turnedout, 1694 was a big yearfor Malebranchen England. InJulyandAugusttwo rivaleditionsof The SearchafterTruthwerepublishedwithin

weeks of one another.Thefirstwas translatedby RichardSaultandprintedbyJohn Dunton and SamuelManship,both of whom were close confederatesof

Norris. Thesecondtranslation,by ThomasTaylor,appearedn Oxford n mid-

August,just the time of Astell's final letterto Norris.The TermCataloguesof

publishedbooks for theyearmention hatanabridgement f anotorious wenty-

year correspondencebetweenMalebrancheand his fellow Cartesian,Antoine

Amauld,hadbeen intended ortheTaylor ranslation.Malebranche ndAmauld

hadpartedcompanyon the Cartesian heoryof perception. WhereasAmauld

followed Descartes's notion that ideas are innatepropertiesof an essentiallyactive mind lacked Malebranchearguedvia Augustine and Plato that ideas

exist in Godalone. ForMalebranche he humanmind lackedthepowerto pro-duceperceptions.Ouronly access to ideas is throughoursoul's intimateunion

to God, in whom ideas dwell in theirarchetypal orm.By claiming thatGod

contains the ideas or archetypesof all createdthings within himself, Male-

branche'svision of all thingsin God,according oArnauld,could notavoidthe

implication hat God himself was corporealandtherebyno differentfrom the

thingsof the universe.25

Althoughthecorrespondencewas eventuallyexcluded due to theunwieldynatureof the documentsand thepressure o releasetheprimary ext,theeditors

promiseda new volume featuring he philosophers'conflict in October.Since

Norrishadparticipatedneditingandrevisingthe Sault ranslation, ndDunton,his colleague,was engagedin a disputewith the Londonprinterof the Taylor

translation,Astell no doubtknew all the details of theplans for each edition.26

23 RichardBurthogge,AnEssay uponReason (London, 1694), 109, 116, 118.

24SeeRosalieColie, "Spinoza nEngland,1665-1730,"ProceedingsoftheAmericanPhilo-

sophical Society, 107 (1963), 183-93; SarahHutton,"Reasonand Revelationin the CambridgePlatonistsand theirReceptionof Spinoza,"SpinozaInDer FriihzeitSeinerReligiosen Wirkung,eds.HerausgegebenVonKarlfriedGrunder ndWilhelmSchmidt-BiggemannHeidelberg,1984),181-200.

25 OnAmauld's critiqueof Malebrancheon ideas, see Steven M. Nadler,Arnauldand the

CartesianPhilosophyof Ideas (Manchester,1989), 5-6, 79-100; McCracken,Malebranche,57-

58, 68-74; andAlan Kors,Atheism n France, 1650-1729 (Princeton, 1990), 359-60, 364.

26 See EdwardArber ed.), The TermCatalogues,1668-1709 (3 vols.; London,1903-6), II,504, 516, 534, 556-67, and StephenParks,John Dunton and the English Book Trade(New

York,1976), 60.

386




Thephilosopherwhose tenets shehadextolledinherforthcomingLetterswould

soon be linkedin the eyes of hercountrymenwith a host of heresies. By Au-

gust of 1694 Astell had several good reasonsto recoil from the taint of what

now appeared o be an unholyassociation.

Spectersof Heresy

The expectededitionof the Amauld-Malebranche ebatenevermaterial-

ized, but the second volume of the Sault translation,publishedin 1695, in-

cluded a brief sketch by Michel Le Vassorof the controversy.In 1695 and

1696, moreover,two books appearedwhich would have suggested to Astell

thatdespitethe disclaimer n the "Appendix"o Letters,she was notyet in the

clear. The first was Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity(1695), which

chargedthe neoplatonists along with the deists with underminingreligion.27JohnToland,whose manuscriptof ChristianityNot Mysterious(1696) served

as one of the occasions forLocke's attackon deism,was himself a disciple of

Spinoza.28ThoughTolandat one extremehad deemphasized he mysteriesof

Christianityby urging a wholly naturalreligion, the neoplatonists' mysticaltendenciesat the other seemed to contemporarieso promisea similarly rreli-

gious outcome.29As Locke complained,

Where the handis used to the Plough,and the Spade,the head is sel-

dom elevatedto sublimeNotions, or exercised in mysteriousreason-

ings. 'Tis well if Menof thatrank(to say nothingof theotherSex) can

comprehendplainpropositions,and a shortreasoningaboutthingsfa-

miliar to theirMinds, andnearlyallied to theirdaily experience.Go

beyondthis, andyou amaze the greatestpartof Mankind.30

Locke'simplicationhere is thatoverlysublimereligiousnotions,far fromshor-

ing up Christianpiety, in fact contribute o the skepticismand freethinking

27 See Springborg ed.), "Introduction," SeriousProposal to the Ladies, Parts I and II

(London,1997), xxix; andD. W.Dockrill,"TheHeritageof PatristicPlatonism n Seventeenth-

CenturyEnglishPhilosophicalTheology,"ed. Rogers, Cambridge,69.

28AlthoughToland'sChristianityNotMysteriouswas publisheda yearafterLocke'sRea-

sonableness, it has been shown that Locke had a copy of Toland'smanuscriptwhen he was

writinghis own (see Jacob,Newtonians,214-15).29 SeeIsrael,RadicalEnlightenment,09-14; andseeDockrill,"Heritage,"ndD. P.Walker,

TheAncientTheology(Ithaca,1972).30Locke, TheReasonablenessof Christianity, d. John C. Higgins-Biddle(Oxford,1999),

169-70, andAstell, ChristianReligion (1705) (London, 1717), 338-39; also SamuelParker,A

Free and Impartial Censureof the Platonick Philosophie (Oxford, 16672), 59-60; MatthieuSouverain,Platonism Unveiled(London, 1700), 26; and RichardBaxter,TheReasons of the

ChristianReligion (London, 1667), 575.

387



SarahEllenzweig

morecommonlyassociatedwith deism. Tomakereligion excessively abstract

andcomplicated, n otherwords, in the long rundiminishes the likelihoodof

belief.31

Thispointwas madeexplicitby DamarisMasham n a responsetoAstell's

letters with Norris,publishedanonymously n 1696 as A Discourse Concern-

ing theLove of God. IdentifyingAstell as "a young Writer,whose Judgment

may, perhaps,be thoughtByassed by the Affectation of Novelty," Masham

asserts that "the Suppositionof our seeing all things in God ... tends to the

shakingandunsettlingthe knownGroundsof TruePiety":

And those seem morethana little to indangerChristianity .. who laythe greatstress of theirproofuponthe Hypothesisof seeing all thingsinGod ... AndIdoubtnot,but f itweregenerallyreceiv'd andPreach'd

by ourDivines, that this Opinionof Seeing all things in God was theBasis uponwhich Christianitywas built, Scepticismwould be so far

fromfinding therebya Cure,that it would spread t self much farther

amongstus than it has yet done.32

Astell, who suspectedLocke's authorshipof Masham'sDiscourse, must have

been spooked by these accusations,objecting later in ChristianReligion to

"theywho are so severe upon their Neighbours for being wanting (even in

PrivateLetterswrit without a design of being Publish'd)in thatexactness of

Expressionwhich oughtto be foundin PhilosophicalDisquisitions."33Astell's SeriousProposal to theLadies,PartII,published n 1697,appears

to favor a less controversialphilosophicalmethod. BothTaylorandSpringborg

argue hattrueto her finalpositionin the"Appendix" f Letters,Astell retreats

fromMalebranche'sheoryof perception nthis laterwork.Taylorsubmits hat

Astell attempts o achievea "middlingcourse"between thevision of thingsin

God and Lockean empiricismbetween 1695 and 1705, and Springborg hat

Astell favors the more orthodox Cartesianismof Amauld.34There is indeed

evidenceof the influence of both LockeandAmauldin SeriousProposal,Part

II. Taylor points out thatalthoughAstell remained critical of Locke's theorythat all knowledge derives from sensation, she now allowed, in contrast to

Malebranche, hat the senses enjoy an autonomouspower to perceive. What

thesensesperceive maybe "dim andfallacious,"as "we're moreproperlysaid

31 See Warburton,Divine Legation, I, 531; Souverain,Platonism, 26-27; Robert South,

ChristianityMysteriousand the Wisdom f GodinMaking t So (1694), SermonsPreacheduponSeveralOccasions(11 vols.; London,1704-44), III,214-15.

32DamarisMasham,A Discourse Concerning he Loveof God(London,1696), 78, 77, 71.

33 Astell, The ChristianReligion, as Profess'd by a Daughter of the Churchof England(London, 17172),312; and see RuthPerry,TheCelebratedMaryAstell (Chicago, 1986), 88.

34 Taylor,"MaryAstell's,"513; Springborg,"Introduction,"erious, xvii-xviii, xxiii-xxvi.

388




to be Conscious of thanto Know suchthingsas we perceiveby Sensation,"but

theynonethelessproduce deasindependently f God. At othermoments,how-

ever,as Springborgobserves,Astell seems to endorse the Cartesian heoryof

clear and distinct ideas as adducedin Amauld's The Art of Thinking 1662).

Acknowledgingherindebtedness oAmauld's "Rules"and"Methodof Think-

ing,"Astell celebrated he "NaturalLogic"thatsends individualsno "further

thanyourOwnMindsto learn t." To attainright deas, in this instanceatleast,we turnnot to God,norto experience,butrather o "ourown Breasts": "And

that ourIdeamaybe Right,we have no more to do butto look attentively nto

our own Minds, ... [and]therewe shall finda Clear andLively Representationof whatwe seek for."35

Yet thereare also signs in SeriousProposal, Part II of Astell's continued

supportof the vision of all things in God and its corollarythatourminds are

intimatelyunited otheCreator.naddition otheabovegestures owardsLockeandgeneralCartesianmethod,Astellproclaimed suspiciouslyMale-branchean

"Dependenceon God, for whatwe Know as well as forwhat we Are,"assert-

ing that"properly peakingall Truth s Antient,as being fromEternity n the

Divine Ideas."Clearlywith Malebranchen mind,Astell complained hat"the

followers of Trutharedespis'dandlook'daskewon, as FantastickSpeculatists,unsociableThinkers,whopretendo see farther han heirNeighbours, orectifie

whatCustom has establish'd,and are so Unmannerlyas to ThinkandTalkout

of the Commonway."36 SeriousProposal,Part II is thusnot so much a com-

promise between Malebrancheand Locke or a rejectionof Malebranche nfavorof Arauld's stricterCartesianismas it is a somewhatincoherentamal-

gamof all of the above.Lockeanand Cartesianprinciplesseemrandomly nter-

spersedwithMalebranchean nes, as if thepresenceof theformermightsoften

the impactof the latter.

Indeed,whenAstell does turnexplicitlyto the vision of all thingsin God,the tone of condescensionthatTaylorsees as directedagainstMalebranchism,moreappropriatelyargetsLocke andhis allies.37 orinherview Malebranche's

criticswoefully misunderstoodhecentral oundationof the vision of all thingsin God: far from a heterodox instance of hubris, self-aggrandizement, or

irreligion, ts centralthrustwas to insist uponourdependenceon God for ev-

erythingwe know.The vision of all things in God, in otherwords,was a sure

remedy againstthe deist conceit about which Locke had warned in Reason-

ableness. Rather han"MyDiscovery,My Hypothesis,the StrengthandClear-

ness of My Reasonings,"seeing thingsin Godexposes only God and ournec-

essarysubjection o him:38

35 Astell, Serious,Part II, 103, 117, 118.

36Astell, Serious,Part II, 116, 92, 108-9.37See Taylor,"MaryAstell's,"513.38

Astell, Serious,Part II, 107.

389



SarahEllenzweig

Tho' we are NaturallyDark and Ignorant,Yet in his Light we may

hope to see Light.... For in him areall the Treasuresof Wisdomand

Knowledge which he Liberally dispences [sic] to all who Humbly,

Honestly andHeartilyask 'em of him. To close this Head: Whatever

the Notion that we see all things in God, may be as to the Truthof it,'tis certainlyverycommendable or its Piety,in that t mosteffectually

humbles he mostdangerous ortof Pride, hebeingProudof ourKnowl-

edge, andyet does not slacken our EndeavoursafterKnowledge but

ratherExcites them.39

Astell's emphasison piety here is central,as it was the accusationof impietythatmostdoggedMalebranche's ystem. Especiallygalling,moreover,was her

convictionthat t was Locke'sepistemologythatgeneratedanimpiouspridein

the self for its own sake. Yet in seekingto absolveherself fromthe imputationof one formof impiety-the hubristic"beingProudof ourKnowledge"-Astell

unwittinglylays herselfopen to another.Thoughthe retreat nto God marked

theapotheosisof Christianvirtue forAstell, it was alwaysthe cruxof theprob-lem with Malebranchism ccording o contemporaries.

Defining Orthodoxy

From 1694 to 1697 Astell felt compelledto distanceherself from a set of

principleswhich had become associated with irreligion n Englandas well as

in France.40Her turnaway from Malebranchismduringthese yearswas very

likely a tactical ratherthan an intellectualmove, aimed at screeningherself

from the chargesof heresy directedagainsther philosophicalinfluences.Byher ChristianReligion of 1705, however,Astell appeared o feel freer to sup-

port these same controversial deas. Certainlyher tone implies a newfound

confidencein her convictions: "WhetherLocke]be the samePersonwho writ

ADiscourse concerningthe Loveof God,"she remarks,"orwho is theAuthor,

is not my Business to enquire... I foundnothingin it to make me change my

judgmentaboutthe point in question."41 o what can we attribute his shift?

Taylor argues rightly that "by 1700, Locke's sense-basedepistemology had

emergedas thelaunchingpadfor materialistarguments f all stripesand colors

thatthreatened o subsume the very notionof 'spirit' (andultimatelyof God)

39Astell, Serious,Part II, 116-17.40 See JamesLowde,A Discourse Concerningthe Natureof Man (London, 1694);Moral

Essays (London, 1699); John Sergeant,The Method to Science (1696); Solid PhilosophyAs-

serted (London, 1697);Non Ultra: Or,A Letter to a Learned Cartesian(London, 1698);Rail-

lery Defeated byCalmReason(London,1699). See also ThomasBaker,ReflectionsuponLearn-

ing (London,1699); Souverain,Platonism;JohnKeill, An Examinationof Dr.Burnet'sTheoryoftheEarth London, 698).

41Astell, Christian,308-9, italicsmine.

390




altogether."42nhis view Astell's return o a moreforthright upportof Norris

andMalebranchen herChristianReligionstems at least inpart rom a conser-

vative and idealist disdain for such radical and Epicurean eanings. But the

politics of this disputeare more complicated,not least because Locke served

primarilyas a spokesmanfor theological orthodoxy n the period.Astell's re-

jectionof Locke andreturn o Malebranchemustbe seen within the contextnot

only of Locke's associationswithpoliticalandtheologicalradicalism,but even

more importantly, f Malebranche'sassociationswith these same tendencies,

associationswhich Locke hadhimself helpedto expose.Locke had taken notes on Amauld's criticismsof Malebranchen his Jour-

nal in 1684-85, and in March of 1693, the same year that Astell and Norris

begantheircorrespondencen the meritsofMalebranche's ystem,Locke wrote

to his friend William Molyneux about adding a new chapterto the revised

editionof his Essay in which he would "shewthe weakness of [Malebranche's

hypothesis]very clearly."Molyneuxresponded avorably o Locke'sproposal,

notingthat "As there areEnthusiasmes n Divinity,so thereare in Philosophy;and as one proceeds from not Consulting,or misapprehending he Book of

God; so the other from not readingand Consideringthe Book of Nature."43

ThoughLocke never did add the projectedchapter o the Essay, in 1692 and

1693 he wrote commentariesonboth Malebranche ndNorristhatcharge hem

in more andless explicit terms with farworse heterodoxiesthanenthusiasm.

Thoughboth commentarieswere publishedposthumously,Locke circu-

latedthe manuscriptof his responseto Malebrancheamongseveral friendsin

the 1690s.44Overthe courseof his careerLockewas chargedwitha wide arrayof religious andpolitical heterodoxies,rangingfrom deism andSo-cinianism,to materialism,republicanism,and even Spinozism. To the extent that the

Malebranche hesis representedan implicit challenge to Locke's empiricistaccountof theoriginof ideasintheEssay,Locke was interested o disprove he

former,particularly o those who had questionedthe theological implicationsof his own philosophy.45Very likely in defense of his commitmentto ortho-

doxy,Locke sent theHigh-ChurchdivineRobertSoutha copy of his Examina-

tionof Pere Malebranche Opinionof SeeingAll Things n God,which South

thenpraisedin a letterof 1699 as a "Clear& Excellent Confutationof a very

42Taylor,"MaryAstell's,"514.

43SeeCharlotte ohnston,"Locke'sExaminationf Malebranche ndNorris," HI, 19(1958),556n. Locke to William Molyneux, 28 March1693, The Correspondenceof John Locke,ed.

E.S. De Beer (8 vols., Oxford,1976-89), IV, 665; WilliamMolyneuxto Locke, 18April 1693,

IV,668.

44See PeterKing,Posthumous Works fMr JohnLocke(London, 1706); P. Des Maiseaux,

A Collectionof Several Pieces ofMr.JohnLocke,neverbeforepublished(London,1720); andJohnston,"Locke'sExamination," 53.

45See JohnW.Yolton,Locke and the Wayof Ideas (Bristol, 1996), 115-66.

391



SarahEllenzweig

Senseless Hypothesis."South goes on to make explicit a chargethat Locke

only hints at in his critique:

The Drift, and Tendency of the Philosophy here Confuted by You ... is

to makethe Universegod andgod the Universe;allbeit the Assertionbe too Black to be ouned in Terminis:But where Principlesareonce

laid,the Abettorsof themKnowwell enough,That heirConsequenceswill Workoutthemselves, thoughVulgar,shortsightedmindsmaynot

be awareof them.46

Locke's Examinationof Malebranche circled aroundthe allegation of

Spinozismwith trepidation,most likely becausehe had "apersonalKindness

for the Author"and wishedto avoid"controversy."47 f thevision of all things

in God,Locke writestentatively,"[t]hisseems to me to come verynearsaying,not only thatthere is varietyin God ... but that material hings areGod, or a

partof him; which,thoughI do not thinkto be whatour authordesigns,yet thus

I fearhe must be forcedto talk,who thinks he knows God's understandingo

much better hanhis own."48Lockeworries heproblemof pantheism hrough-out theExamination, eturning gainandagainto thedifficultyof positingthat

"an nfinitesimplebeing, in whom there is no variety,shouldrepresenta finite

thing.""Tomakethingsthusvisible in [God],"Locke continuallyconcludes,"is to make the materialworld a partof him."As it did to Arnauld, he diffi-

culty proves "insurmountable"o Locke and "mustalways cumberthis doc-

trine,which supposesthatthe perfectionsof God are the representativeso us

of whateverwe perceiveof the creature."49

WithNorris,forwhom Lockeharbored ittle good will, Lockeprovedless

delicate.Discussing againin his RemarksuponSomeofMr.Norris s Books the

notionthatthe simple essence of God containsthe whole varietyof creatures,he somewhat impatientlyobserves, "If it be said, this means, God can, and

knows he canproduce [the creatures];what doththis say morethanevery one

says?If it dothsay more ... what is this betterthan whatthose say,who make

God to be nothingbut the universe;thoughit be coveredunderunintelligible

expressionsof simplicityandvariety,atthe sametime,intheessence of God?"50

Locke comes close hereto suggestingthatNorrisis a covertSpinozist,disguis-

ing his pantheismunder"doublespeak"thatmasqueradesas propertheism.

WhereasMalebranchemightarriveatpantheismunintentionally,Norris is less

46 Dr.Robert Southto Locke, 6 December1699, Correspondence,VI, 753.47 Locke to WilliamMolyneux,26 April 1695, Correspondence,V, 352-53; also Locke to

WilliamMolyneux,28 March1693, ibid., IV,665.48

Locke,AnExaminationof P Malebranche Opinionof SeeingAll Thingsin God, TheWorks f JohnLocke(10 vols., London,1963), IX, 222.

49Locke,Examination,242; ibid.,254.50

Locke,RemarksuponSomeof Mr.Norriss Books, Works,X, 252-53.

392




trustworthy.EventuallyLockeabandonedall euphemism.One of themoreun-

settling mplicationsof Spinoza'ssystemwas the denial of man's freewill, and

in Locke'sview, boththe vision of things in God and the theoryof occasional

causes were egregiousexamplesof determinism.Thenotion that man's"mind

is only the mirror hatreceives the ideas thatGod exhibits to it,"thathe "can-not move his armor his tongue ... only upon occasion,"deprivedhim of all

powersof self-determination. This s thehypothesisthatclearsdoubt,"Locke

finallydeclares,"andbringsus atlast to thereligionof HobbesandSpinosa,by

resolvingall, eventhethoughtsandwill of men,intoanirresistable atal neces-

sity."51

Threedaysbefore his death n 1704 Locke advised PeterKingnot to pub-lish his Examinationof Malebranche,explaining that "it is an opinion that

spreadsnot and is like to die of itself or at least to do no greatharm."52 s

CharlesMcCrackenargues,Malebranchismwas onthewanein Englandby the

early 1700s. No new translationsof the philosopherappearedafter 1700, and

no new defenses of his doctrinesappearedafter 1704.53Therewas, however,animportant xception.OneWilliamCarroll,anadmirerof bothMalebranche

andNorris,wasjustbeginningto appearonthescene,andLocke was his primemark.What is more,in a series of sermonsandtractspublishedbetween 1705

and 1711 Carrollaccuses Lockeand his followers of "establishingandspread-

ing Spinoza's Hypothesisin a Disguise."In a stunningreversalof the Englishtrend o associatePlatonismandCartesianismwith Spinozism,Carrollpraises

Norris and Malebranche for avoiding what in his renderingwas Locke's

Spinozisticmaterialism.54

Carroll,however,did not appearout of nowhere.As earlyas 1690 Norris

had himself insinuatedthatLocke's sensationalistpsychology impiously re-

quired"that he Ideaof Godcomes in by the Senses" and thusthat"the Mate-

rialWorld .. resemble[s]God." Muchto Locke'sdismay,Toland'sChristian-

ityNot Mysterioushadbased its deism on a radicalreadingof Locke'sEssay,

particularlyLocke's discussion of reason's role injudging revelation.DespiteLocke's censure of deism andaffirmationof revealedreligion in his Reason-

ablenessof Christianity,Toland'sprincipleswere nonethelessseenby manyas

the logical conclusion of Lockeanepistemology.55The linkbetween theEssay

51Locke,Remarks,255.

52MauriceCranston,JohnLocke:A Biography(New York,1957), 478; also McCracken,Malebranche,17.

53McCracken,Malebranche,15-18.54WilliamCarroll,ADissertationuponthe TenthChapterof theFourthBookofMr.Locke s

Essay,ConcerningHumanUnderstandingLondon,1706),275,264,284-89. See StuartBrown,"Lockeas Secret'Spinozist':ThePerspectiveof WilliamCarroll," ds. BungeandKlever,Dis-

guised and Overt,213-34; " 'Theological Politics,'" 192-97; andYolton,Locke, 70, 144-46.55 JohnNorris, CursoryReflectionsupon a Book Call'd, An Essay ConcerningHuman

Understanding, d. GilbertD. McEwen,AugustanReprintSociety,no. 93 (LosAngeles, 1961),29; Margaret acob,TheNewtonians and theEnglishRevolution(Sussex, 1976), 215-16.

393



SarahEllenzweig

and hedoctrineof onesubstancewas latermadeexplicitbyEdwardStillingfleet,

Bishopof Worcester,n his famousdebatewithLockeonthinkingmatter 1696-

98). According to Stillingfleet, Locke's suggestion that we could not know

whetheror not mattermight think was implicitly supportiveof the Spinozist

principlethatmatterandmind composedone single substance:"if... it mustbe asserted, hata Power of thinking s within the EssentialPropertiesof Mat-

ter ... so thinkingwill be such a Mode of Matter,as Spinozahathmadeit: and

I am certainyou do not think,he hathpromoted hegreatEndsof Religion and

Morality."56Since thepublicationof Toland'sbook in 1696 chargesof theologicalhet-

erodoxy againstLocke had been mounting.These charges appeared o reach

yet new heights,however,in theyearsbetween thepublicationofAstell's Seri-

ous Proposal,PartII (1697) andherChristianReligion(1705).57By the time

Astell's ChristianReligion appeared n 1705 the chargeof heresy,for the mo-mentat least, seems to have changedtargets.Takinghis cue fromStillingfleet,and from the increasedsympathyfor the conservativeAnglican position en-

couragedby QueenAnne's reign (1702-14), Carrollappearsalmost single-

handedlyto have divertedattentionaway from Malebrancheand his English

disciples by turningthe accusationof Spinozism (somewhat illogically and

without great success) against several prominentWhig intellectuals. Such a

climate left Astell at libertyto supporta doctrinewhich to her continued to

represent he culminationof Christianpiety. Her awareness of the chargeof

Spinozism againstMalebranchen 1705 is evidentfromthe following defense

of occasionalismin ChristianReligion:

If meditationanda just disquisitionof Truthhas carry'dyou beyondthe prejudicesof sense, you are convinc'd that God is the TrueEffi-

cient Cause of all our Good, or all ourpleasing Sensations,and that

withoutany reflection on the Purityof his Nature.You look thro' the

Creature to the Creatoras the Author of all your Delight .... And where

is the hurtof all this,thatour Modem Divines andPhilosophers hou'd

make such an out-cry againstit, as if the Loving God in this manner

were destructiveof all Religion, and even of Morality,andwou'd do

all those strange hingsthe Learnedarepleas'd to chargeit with!58

Thatoccasionalism threatened"thepurityof [God's]Nature"was, as we re-

call, a key featureof the chargethatMalebranche's ystem equatedGod and

56 See SarahHutton,"EdwardStillingfleetandSpinoza,"Disguised and Overt,eds. BungeandKlever,262-66; EdwardStillingfleet,TheBishopof Worcester Answer to Mr.Lockes Let-

ter (London,1697), 78-79.57 Neal Wood,ThePolitics of Lockes Philosophy (Berkeley,1983), 53-54.58 Astell, Christian,318-20, italics mine.

394




nature.Since Lockehadbeen accusedof teachingthis error roma very differ-

entperspective-his purportedmaterialism Astell was now safe to advocate

a position she had previously felt pressured o denouncefor theological rea-

sons.59

Perhapsin responseto Carroll'sattackon Locke in his Remarkson Mr.Clarke's Sermons (1705), Peter King published Locke's Examination of

Malebranche,againstLocke's dying wishes, in his 1706 edition of Locke's

Works.In a sense theWhigs and the High-ChurchTorieswere in a battleover

the definitionof orthodoxy,andAstell tookadvantageof awindowin theearly

eighteenthcentury n which Spinozismseems to have linkeditself to the per-ceived materialismof Whigthinkers ike Locke. Overthe long haul,however,

it was not Carroll'sperspective hatprevailed. When Platonists ike More and

Cudworth tressedthe essentially spiritualnatureof the universeagainstwhat

was seento be Spinoza'smaterialism, hey,likeMalebranchehimself, failedto

appreciate hatthe problemof one substancewas the worse danger.The dis-

tinction between what they attackedandwhat they promotedwas simply too

difficult to maintain.JohnPocock haspersuasivelyargued hat n England his

dilemmawas rectifiedthroughafairly thorough-going ejectionof allPlatonist

philosophy.60tis interesting o note forourpurposes hatJ.H. Muirhead red-

its Malebranche orthe decline of Platonism n England n the eighteenthcen-

tury:"if, in the centurythat followed, the seed [of Platonism]replantedand

copiously wateredby the Cambridgewriters failed to show above ground...,

this was owing partly to the mixture with it of elements from a form of

MalebrancheanmysticismtowhichEnglishsoil was essentiallyuncongenial."61As Margaret acob has established,Newtoniannaturalphilosophy,as dis-

seminatedby the Boyle lectures of Bentley, Clark,and Derham,armed with

Lockeanepistemology, performed hejob of preservingChristianorthodoxymoresuccessfully.Bothseemed to achieve usttherightbalancebetween God's

presencein and distance from his creation. Spiritual orceswere,to be sure,at

work in nature,butthey were not inherent n it. In 1714 Le Vassorexpressedthe spiritof the age in a letter to Quesnel,observingthat "the learnedmen of

England ... are no longer drawn to Cartesianism,nor to the speculationsof

FatherMalebranche.... Now they combine here the discoveries of a famous

59Anotherpiece to the puzzle of Astell's return o Malebranchisms thatdespiteCarroll's

accusationsagainstLocke in the early 1700s, the threatof Spinozismin Englandwas seen to

have diminishedby the turnof the eighteenthcentury(Colie, "Spinoza n England,"183, 206-

10;Brown," 'TheologicalPolitics,' " 196).60See Pocock, "ConservativeEnlightenmentandDemocraticRevolutions:The American

andFrench Cases in BritishPerspective,"Governmentand Opposition,24 (1989), 86-87, 91,and"Clergy,"551, 553.

61 J. H. Muirhead,ThePlatonic Tradition n Anglo-SaxonPhilosophy(New York,1931),

qtd. in McCracken,Malebranche,16.

395



SarahEllenzweig

mathematicianof this country,named Sir Isaac Newton, and the views of a

certainMr. Locke."62

Theology and Astell's Feminism

It has been my argumentn theprecedingpages thatAstell's closest prox-

imityto radical hinking,howeverunintentional,s to be foundnot in her femi-

nism but rather n her theology and herphilosophy.Such a claim, in conclu-

sion, requiressome qualification,for it is perhapsmore accurateto say that

when readthrough he lens of hertheology andphilosophy,Astell's feminism

sharesthe same links to a radicalEnlightenment radition.It seems safe to

assumethatAstell hadno conscious allegianceto theologicalheterodoxy.We

do know,however,thatdespiteher conservativecommitment o thepreserva-

tionof"order," hewaspassionately nterestednundercuttingraditionalexual

hierarchy.Astell's feminismthus marksthe one place where she might have

takenadvantageof the radicalimplicationsof a set of theories she otherwise

endorsedfor expressly pious purposes.Takefor example, the equivocal positioning of ReflectionsuponMar-

riage, which at once incisively exposes the subjectionwomen experiencein

domestic life, and exhorts women to obey their husbandseven when tyranni-cal. If we look more closely, we see a fundamentalambiguityas to what this

obedienceactuallyentails:

[A]11we Have and all we Are is so intirely from God and does so

absolutely dependon Him, thatevery sortandevery degreeof Arro-

gatingto our selves anymannerof way,withregard o Him,is inpreju-dice of His Right ... He then is the Proud Person, who forgetting the

Giverof all Goodthings, looks on himself as Proprietor f thatwhich

he has only receiv'd, and for which he must strictlyaccount;or who

Uses and Boasts of it, as if it were absolutelyhis own. He who thinks

he hasGifts whichhehasnot;... fancieshimselftobe Somethingwhen

indeedhe is Nothing.63

Ideally,Astell's feminismworks somethinglike this: if those in power (hus-bands andmonarchs)remember heir own subjectedstatus,therebyrenderingthemselvesvessels throughwhich God's dominioncan express itself, payingobedience to the familial and the civil magistrate s no differentfrom one's

ownprivatedevotionto God. InAstell's words"youlook thro'the Creature o

the Creatoras the Authorof all your Delight."64

62 See Jacob,Radical Enlightenment,32, 81, 84-85, 87-92; Le Vassor, in McCracken,Malebranche,5-16.

63Astell,Christian,112, 115.64

Astell, Christian,319-20.

396




This lesson, furthermore,ollows logically from Malebranche's adicallytheocentricdoctrines: hatwe see and know all things in God, thatGod is the

efficient cause of all events, andthat God is the only deservingobjectof our

love. Inthe "Appendix"o LettersAstell hadargued hateven if the creatures

"did n some SenseproduceourPleasureorPain," heyactedwithout ndepen-dent will and "not ... voluntarilybutmechanically":"allthe Powertheyhave

of affectingus proceeds intirelyfromtheWill andgood Pleasureof a superior

Nature,whose Instrumentshey are,and withoutwhose Blessing andConcur-

rencethey couldnot act, therefore hey arenot properObjectsof our Love or

Fear."Norris'sreply,however,correctedAstell's notion thatGod actedby wayof instruments."[E]veninstruments," e writes, "belongto the Orderof effi-

cientCauses,thoughtheyareless principalones, and'tis most certain hat God

has no need of any,since his Will is efficacious of it self."65

ThoughAstell's andNorris'sdebatein Lettersconcernsthe senses' abilityto producesensations,Astell appears o have appliedNorris's final lesson to

the questionof earthly authoritymore generallyin her laterwritings.Indeed,

according o theclosest readingofMalebranche'sprinciples,arenotgovernors

just anotherone of Malebranche'soccasional causes? Such would seem to be

the conclusionof Astell's ModerationTrulyStated(1704):

the King of Kings ... being infinite in Knowledge and Power, at once

sees All-things,andprovidesforthemby themeerefficacy of his own

Will, and neitherstandsin need of Information o make his Laws and

directhis Orders,norof Instrumentso execute them.Inwhichrespectall HumanGovernmentmustneedsfall infinitelyshortof theDivine.66

Once earthlyrulers become not even instruments,but occasional causes for

God's efficient decree,Astell circles backto Spinoza's heresy.She posits not

only whatsoundsverymuchlike a determineduniverse-one in which human

beings have little freewill-but also a world in which a strangesortof human

equality(in theabstract,at least)results from the totalnecessityof all thingsin

God.

Rice University.

65 To Mr.Norris,"Appendix,"Letters, 284-85; Mr.Norris'sAnswer,"Appendix,"Letters,306-7.

66 Astell, ModerationTrulyStated(London, 1704), 28.

397

Documents

Ellenzweig_Love of God and Radical Enlightment