Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

The Scientific Revolution, Women and Recipe Books

Published onFeb 09, 2023
The Scientific Revolution, Women and Recipe Books
·

Research Question: How did the scientific revolution affect the lives of early modern women in europe? In what ways did women participate in this revolution and how is their participation seen in recipe books?


In early modern Europe, one of the biggest societal transformations was the scientific revolution. This revolution, which occurred during the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe, expanded the scientific thought of individuals. The scientific revolution occurred in the upper classes who had greater access to education and intellectual spaces of discussion. According to the historian, Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, the scientific revolution was a “group of changes in the way learned individuals approached, conceptualized, and studied the natural world”.[1] ​The definition of the revolution emphasizes the great impact it had on individuals conception of the world and their ability to reason with the unknown. However, despite the advances in science, women in this period were still marginalized by the strong patriarchal control over intellectual and professional spaces outside of the domestic sphere. Moreover, much of the documentation of their knowledge of science to be exclusively seen in recipe books. Through an examination of these books, which expanded during this period to also contain medicinal recipes, experimentation in the home allowed women to draw their own scientific conclusion though cooking. The experiments women conducted in the domestic sphere do not receive the respect they deserve in the canon of history likely because they were not performed in traditional scientific spaces which were male dominated (like laboratories).

The historian, Wendy Wall, describes the ignorance previous historians held towards the scientific knowledge of women in domesticity during the scientific revolution. [2] ​Wall emphasizes that the work women did in the home was in fact scientific and experimental when she states, “The tasks of making cordial waters, omelets, and preserved fruits required a foray, these critics demonstrate, into botanical, herbal, medicinal, anatomical, and chemical knowledges” (211). [3] Wall elaborates on this point by stating, “Domestic work also involved techniques, equipment, and objects of study that overlapped with those neared in the more recognizable experimentation conducted by members of the Royal Society”. [4] ​Wall highlights distinct connections between the experiments done by women in the home and men in scientific spaces. Wall's chapter proves that women’s scientific explorations were not credited due to the belief that their work’s only significance was to the home (and not to broader scientific exploration). This can be tied directly to the patriarchal control over the field of science which is prevalent today.

In Nina Rattner Gelbart's essay, “Adjusting the Lense: Locating Early Modern Women of Science” she discusses the role of women in the scientific revolution and the challenges modern historians face in their efforts to uncover the scientific awareness of early modern women.[5] Rattner Gelbart draws connections between the patriarchal oppression of women and the limited sources on their role in the revolution. Towards the beginning of her essay Rattner Gelbart emphasizes that the role of women in science was often limited to the domestic sphere, and therefore it is important to concentrate on domestic spaces they practiced in. Rattner Gelbart states, “Much science was done by women in different venues, not in the public universities and academies to which they were denied access, but in domestic spaces--kitchens and dining tables".[6] ​This statement highlights that it is important for historians to look towards kitchens and other places in the domestic sphere in order to uncover scientific discoveries by women. Rettnar Gelbart’s lens of analysis is similar to Wall's because she stresses that women were active in science, but their discoveries were not accounted for by the patriarchal, sexist society of Early Modern Europe.

However, even though, as Rettnar Gelbart and Wall note in their respective texts, most scientific experiments by women were done in the kitchen, there were some women who practiced outside of the domestic sphere. One of the most notable female scientists of the early modern period who operated outside the home was Margaret Cavendish. Margaret Cavendish was from a wealthy family and as a result of this status, “she obtained a certain degree of access to the leading intellects of her day.”[7] ​As recently as 1952, historians have used sexist terms to describe her work and often overlooked her accomplishments in the scientific revolution. In the article, "The Legacy of Margaret Cavendish," the author, Eric Lewis states, “Lady Cavendish’s scientific exploits fare little better at the hands of later historians. If her scientific methodology is not suspect or considered severely hampered by circumstance, it is written off as outside her interest.”​[8] However, in spite of the negative attitudes towards Cavendish’s work by sexist historians in the mid-20th century her scientific research was profound for the early modern period.

Margaret Cavendish's book entitled, "Observations on Natural Philosophy", detailed her scientific research. In her book, from 1666, Cavendish explores the relationship between her society and the natural world.[9] ​This text was profound for the time because her conclusions were not drawn solely from a religious understanding of the natural world, and instead included ample scientific knowledge. Additionally, Cavendish’s works were also largely unprecedented as it was highly unusual for a woman’s intellectual work to be published or to have access to education in order to acquire the skills needed to produce a book like Cavendish’s. Although Cavendish does not dedicate a large portion of her book to the discussion of women, she does note that women should have the option to participate in experiments (like men do). She states “who knows but women might be more happy in finding it [scientific and philosophical answers] out, than men; and then would men have reason to employ their time in more profitable studies, than in useless experiments.”​[10] However even though Cavendish advocates for women to have the right to engage in intellectual and scientific discussion, she does so in a very careful way as she suggests women should be active participants in order to give men more time to participate in “profitable studies”.[11] This highlights that Cavendish writes to an audience that is likely male dominated and attempts to appeal to them through this statement.

Largely due to the patriarchal control over the negative perception of female scientists, which Cavendish argues against discreetly in her text, it is no surprise that many of the primary sources that highlight women’s knowledge of science are limited to recipe books. Significantly, the limited number of women, like Lady Cavendish, who published their scientific theories, were members of the upper class, and some were relatives of famous male scientists. Therefore, recipe books give the contemporary historian an insight into the little discussed scientific knowledge of early modern women. Therefore, even though recipe books were common during the early modern period it is important to note that they were still exclusive to the upper and middling classes and lower class women did not have access to creating or reading them (due to their illiteracy).

It is important to note that recipe books were not confined to food and instead, often included medicines which were popularized during the scientific revolution and the early modern period in Europe. In the text, “La Chymie for Women: Engaging Chemistry’s Bodies” by Sandie Feinstien, the author stresses the importance of medicinal recipes in early modern England. Specifically Feinstien highlights that women’s medicinal recipes were founded on principles of scientific knowledge, but often overlooked due to their female scholarship.[12] When Feinstien argues that, “the texts representing their achievements also become suspect in ways reminiscent of those the male physicians of the period used to denigrate female authors and would-be-healers”.[13] Feintsien stresses that women’s work in chemistry and medicine was overlooked due to the association of their work with the domestic sphere. She states that, their knowledge and texts “circumscribed by the kitchen with its domestic associations, may contribute to limiting the authority and impact of women as practitioners, whether alchemists, chemists or healers”.[14] This statement reiterates an argument reminiscent of Wall’s that, in spite of the impressive work women did in the kitchen (as recorded in their recipe books) their accomplishments were often overlooked as their scientific vocabulary was limited to domesticity.

However, through an examination of early modern recipe books, that the accomplishments of women as scientists in the kitchen should not be overlooked, and instead should be celebrated by contemporary historians. One example of an early modern recipe book which contains scientific knowledge is Elizabeth Strachey’s book, which is now kept in the National Library of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. Her book, written in 1693, includes different recipes for medicines or treatments to aid people when they fall ill or are in pain.[15] Unfortunately, we do not have any information on who Strachey was and only know her name and the date of the book from a small signature on the cover.

One example, on page five of the text, in Stachey’s book, involves the mixing of different ingredients to make an ointment to heal a cut. In this section of her book, she includes a recipe for a “cut or scald”. Strachey instructs, “Take garlick and houselick of each a like quantaty. Stamp them both together and apply it paister wise: and it will ease miraculously." [16] This recipe, from Elizabeth Strachey’s book, proves that women in early modern Europe experimented with herbs like garlic as healing ailments for cuts. Although this may seem like a primitive medicinal recipe for the modern historian, it is likely that this recipe was developed through a process of experimentation (seeing what mixture of herbs/ingredients worked to heal pain). The statement she makes at the end of the recipe “it will ease miraculously” indicates that this recipe will heal the pain immediately for the subject. [17] Therefore, the use of science in the creation of medicinal recipes was not only revolutionary, but could also provide immediate relief to the patient (proving that the scientific recipe worked)!

Although Stratchey’s book is an example of one of the many recipe books which include medicinal treatments for humans, there are other recipe texts that include both medicinal treatments and recipes for the preservation of food. However, these books do not reference their recipes as products of science and instead, denote them in the same way a recipe for a biscuit cake would be included in a book. An example of a book which uses scientific knowledge from the domestic sphere in its recipes is, “A Book of Fruits and Flowers”. This text was written by an anonymous author in England in 1653.[18] However, one can assume that a woman wrote the text, or contributed to it, as the recipes resemble those found in early modern recipe books created by women. In this text, the recipes focus on the preservation of goods such as meat or flowers as well as recipes to treat ailments (like canker sores). Along with the recipes, the book also includes illustrations which allow the reader to visualize what different ingredients look like. However, taken out of context, this published book of domestic recipes somewhat resembles a scientific textbook as it is organized in a formalized way with detailed instructions and illustrations. Unlike Starchey’s recipe book, this text is published and therefore was designed for a larger audience. The text’s combination of medicinal care and the preservation of goods emphasize that these two categories of recipes show that food and medicinal care were both viewed as aspects of the women’s domestic sphere in early modern Europe. This is significant due to the direct correlation between these two topics and science/experimentation.

An example of a recipe focused on preservation from the text is a recipe for the preservation of roses. In this recipe, the author states, “take red ​Rose​ buds, clip of all the white, bruised, and withered from them, then weigh them out, and taking to every pound of ​Roses​ three pound of Sugar,​ stamp the ​Roses​ by themselves very small, putting a little juice of ​Lemmons​ or ​Rose​ water to them as they wax dry”.[19] These few lines illustrate the use of sugar and lemon juice to preserve roses, a technique which allows for a chemical reaction that preserves the roses. However, the recipe doesn't note that the preservation of roses are due to a chemical reaction. Instead it states the ingredients as though they have no scientific value. This highlights that many of the recipes written by women were not viewed as scientific or chemical experiments even though they in fact, were. This is likely due to the use of these recipes by other women in the domestic sphere instead of by male scientists in a laboratory.

Recipe books and secondary sources on women’s contributions to the scientific revolution demonstrates the larger role of women in the development of science. The scientific revolution had great impacts on the lives of early modern women as their work in the kitchen used aspects of chemistry, and medicinal science. The work of women in the domestic sphere allowed for the growth of scientific, medical and chemical experimentation as seen in texts like “A Book of Fruits and Flowers”.

However, through an examination of recipe books, it is clear that historians did not account for the advancements women contributed to the field of science. This is likely due to the patriarchal control over the scientific field in early modern Europe and in the canon of history. However, through modern historical texts, like Wall’s it shows that in spite of societal barriers, women in early modern Europe were able to conduct their own experiments in the domestic sphere and ultimately contribute to the experimental and scientific studies of the time.

Sources:

“A Book of Fruits & Flovvers. Shewing the Nature and Use of Them, Either for Meat or Medicine. As Also: To Preserve, Conserve, Candy, and in Wedges, or Dry Them. To Make Powders, Civet Bagges, All Sort of Sugar-Works, Turn’d Works in Sugar, Hollow or Frutages; and to Pickell Them. And for Meat. To Make Pyes, Biscat, Maid Dishes, Marchpanes, Leeches, and Snow, Craknels, Caudels, Cakes, Broths, Fritter-Stuffe, Puddings, Tarts, Syrupes, and Sallets. For Medicines. To Make All Sorts of Poultisses, and Serecloaths for Any Member Swell’d or Inflamed, Ointments, Waters for All Wounds, and Cancers, Salves for Aches, to Take the Ague out of Any Place Burning or Scalding; for the Stopping of Suddain Bleeding, Curing the Piles, Ulcers, Ruptures, Coughs, Consumptions, and Killing of Warts, to Dissolve the Stone, Killing the Ring-Worme, Emroids, and Dropsie, Paine in the Ears and Teeth, Deafnesse. - ProQuest.” Accessed November 22, 2020. https://www-proquest-com.go.libproxy.wakehealth.edu/docview/2240958693/9986607 3?accountid=14868​.

“A Book of Receipts of All Sorts.” Accessed November 22, 2020. https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/bookviewer?PID=nlm:nlmuid-101202660-bk#page/2/mode/2up​.

Allen, Katherine. “Hobby and Craft: Distilling Household Medicine in Eighteenth-Century England.” ​Early Modern Women​ 11, no. 1 (2016): 90–114.

Cavendish, Margaret. ​Observations upon Experimental Philosophy, Abridged: With Related Texts​. Hackett Publishing, 2016.

Feinstein, Sandy. “‘La Chymie’ for Women: Engaging Chemistry’s Bodies.” ​Early Modern Women​ 4 (2009): 223–34.

Gelbart, Nina Rattner. “Adjusting the Lens: Locating Early Modern Women of Science.” Early Modern Women​ 11, no. 1 (2016): 116–27.

Lewis, Eric. “The Legacy of Margaret Cavendish.” ​Perspectives on Science​ 9, no. 3(September 2001): 341–65.​ ​https://doi.org/10.1162/10636140160176189​.

Mazzotti, Massimo. “Newton for Ladies: Gentility, Gender and Radical Culture.” ​The British Journal for the History of Science​ 37, no. 2 (2004): 119–46.

Wall, Wendy. ​Recipes for Thought: Knowledge and Taste in the Early Modern English Kitchen​. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016., 2016.

Image of Margaret Cavendish

The British Library. “Margaret Cavendish.” The British Library. Accessed December 4, 2020. https://www.bl.uk/people/margaret-cavendish.

Image of Fruits and Flowers Text

“A Book of Fruits & Flovvers. Shewing the Nature and Use of Them, Either for Meat or Medicine. As Also: To Preserve, Conserve, Candy, and in Wedges, or Dry Them. To Make Powders, Civet Bagges, All Sort of Sugar-Works, Turn’d Works in Sugar, Hollow or Frutages; and to Pickell Them. And for Meat. To Make Pyes, Biscat, Maid Dishes, Marchpanes, Leeches, and Snow, Craknels, Caudels, Cakes, Broths, Fritter-Stuffe, Puddings, Tarts, Syrupes, and Sallets. For Medicines. To Make All Sorts of Poultisses, and Serecloaths for Any Member Swell’d or Inflamed, Ointments, Waters for All Wounds, and Cancers, Salves for Aches, to Take the Ague out of Any Place Burning or Scalding; for the Stopping of Suddain Bleeding, Curing the Piles, Ulcers, Ruptures, Coughs, Consumptions, and Killing of Warts, to Dissolve the Stone, Killing the Ring-Worme, Emroids, and Dropsie, Paine in the Ears and Teeth, Deafnesse. - ProQuest.” Accessed November 22, 2020. https://www-proquest-com.go.libproxy.wakehealth.edu/docview/2240958693/99866073?accountid=14868.

Bibliography for Sources in Paper:

“A Book of Fruits & Flovvers. Shewing the Nature and Use of Them, Either for Meat or Medicine. As Also: To Preserve, Conserve, Candy, and in Wedges, or Dry Them. To Make Powders, Civet Bagges, All Sort of Sugar-Works, Turn’d Works in Sugar, Hollow or Frutages; and to Pickell Them. And for Meat. To Make Pyes, Biscat, Maid Dishes, Marchpanes, Leeches, and Snow, Craknels, Caudels, Cakes, Broths, Fritter-Stuffe, Puddings, Tarts, Syrupes, and Sallets. For Medicines. To Make All Sorts of Poultisses, and Serecloaths for Any Member Swell’d or Inflamed, Ointments, Waters for All Wounds, and Cancers, Salves for Aches, to Take the Ague out of Any Place Burning or Scalding; for the Stopping of Suddain Bleeding, Curing the Piles, Ulcers, Ruptures, Coughs, Consumptions, and Killing of Warts, to Dissolve the Stone, Killing the Ring-Worme, Emroids, and Dropsie, Paine in the Ears and Teeth, Deafnesse. - ProQuest.” Accessed November 22, 2020. https://www-proquest-com.go.libproxy.wakehealth.edu/docview/2240958693/99866073?accountid=14868.

“A Book of Receipts of All Sorts.” Accessed November 22, 2020. https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/bookviewer?PID=nlm:nlmuid-101202660-bk#page/2/mode/2up.

Allen, Katherine. “Hobby and Craft: Distilling Household Medicine in Eighteenth-Century England.” Early Modern Women 11, no. 1 (2016): 90–114.

Cavendish, Margaret. Observations upon Experimental Philosophy, Abridged: With Related Texts. Hackett Publishing, 2016.

Feinstein, Sandy. “‘La Chymie’ for Women: Engaging Chemistry’s Bodies.” Early Modern Women 4 (2009): 223–34.

Gelbart, Nina Rattner. “Adjusting the Lens: Locating Early Modern Women of Science.” Early Modern Women 11, no. 1 (2016): 116–27.

Lewis, Eric. “The Legacy of Margaret Cavendish.” Perspectives on Science 9, no. 3 (September 2001): 341–65. https://doi.org/10.1162/10636140160176189.

Mazzotti, Massimo. “Newton for Ladies: Gentility, Gender and Radical Culture.” The British Journal for the History of Science 37, no. 2 (2004): 119–46.

Wall, Wendy. Recipes for Thought: Knowledge and Taste in the Early Modern English Kitchen. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016.

Comments
0
comment
No comments here
Why not start the discussion?