quest for life: imagination and science in mary shelley's frankenstein

Univerzitet u Beogradu

Filološki fakultet – Katedra za anglistiku

QUEST FOR LIFE: IMAGINATION AND SCIENCE IN MARY SHELLEY’S

FRANKENSTEIN

Diplomski master rad

Mentor: Dr Zoran Paunović

Student: Marija Gičić Puslojić

Broj indeksa: 001261M

Beograd, 16. 09. 2009.

APSTRAKT

Napisan gotovo pre dva veka, roman Meri Šeli “Frankenštajn, ili, Moderni Prometej” oslanja se na jednu veoma provokativnu temu koja pripada svakom vremenu – pokušaj čoveka, najpre naučnika, da se igra Boga u pokušaju da veštačkim putem stvori Život. Ovaj rad proučava nekoliko aspekata ovog pojma, počev od Meri Šeli i njene ličnosti koja se nazire kroz roman (uticaj njenih roditelja Vilijema Godvina i Meri Volstonkraft, njenog supruga Persija Biša Šelija i romantičarskog kružooka, sopstvenog burnog života u pogledu detinjstva i majčinstva); uticaja perioda koji je iznedrio industrijsku revoluciju i dao maha naučnom eksperimentisanju, sa posebnim osvrtom na delovanje nekoliko naučnika čiji su eksperimenti na leševima odavali utisak postignute reanimacije mrtvih tela; mita o Prometeju kao drevne metafore o uzurpiranju Božijeg mesta i definisanju “iskre Života”; nekoliko književnih primera na temu veštačkog stvaranja (golem, homunkulus, robot); kompleksnosti odnosa između tvorca i stvorenog; i konačno, uticaja “Izgubljenog Raja” Džona Miltona i “Rime o starom mornaru” Semjuela Tejlora Kolridža, dva jedinstvena dela koja izranjaju iz “Frankenštajna”, oba prožeta idejama greha i iskupljenja.

Ključne reči: Stvaranje, iskra Života, igranje Boga, reanimacija, Dipel, Frankenštajn

zamak, Prometej, golem, homunkulus, greh, iskupljenje, čudovište, čudovišnost.

Marija Gičić Puslojić: “The Quest for Life: Imagination and Science in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein”

ABSTRACT

Written nearly two centuries ago, Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus touches on a very thought-provoking theme of any time and age – the notions of men, specifically scientists, playing God in their attempts to artificially create Life. This thesis examines several aspects of this notion, ranging from Mary Shelley’s personal investment in the story (influence of her parents William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft, her husband Percy Bysshe Shelley and the Romantic circle, her turbulent life in regards to both childhood and motherhood); the offerings of the age that gave birth to the Industrial revolution and a rise in scientific experimentation, with special attention to several scientists whose experiments with cadavers gave the impression of reanimating corpses; the Promethean myth as an ancient metaphore regarding the notion of usurping God’s place and defining of the “spark of Life”; several other literary examples of artificial creation (golem, homunculus, robot); the intricate relation between creator and created; and ultimately the influence of John Milton’s Paradise Lost and Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, two unique works that give a special undertone to Shelley’s novel, both infused with concepts of sin and redemption.

Key words: Creation, spark of Life, playing God, reanimation, Dippel, Castle

Frankenstein, Prometheus, golem, homunculus, sin, redemption, monster, monstrosity.


CONTENTS

§ Introduction.....................................................................................................................1

§ Mary Shelley’s Personal Investment.............................................................................4

§ Spark of Life and the Implications of Death within the Quest for Life...................11

§ Frankenstein ‘Creation Myth’, or, The Real Mad Scientist.....................................15Luigi Galvani................................................................................................................16Giovanni Aldini............................................................................................................18Andrew Ure..................................................................................................................18Johann Konrad Dippel................................................................................................19Castle Frankenstein.....................................................................................................21

§ The Urge for Creation..................................................................................................22Golem............................................................................................................................23Homunculus..................................................................................................................24Robots and Transhumanism.......................................................................................26

§ The Method of Creation: from Alchemy to Galvanism and Natural Philosophy...28

§ The Creation of a Monstrosity.....................................................................................30

§ Conclusion: Sin, Redemption and Farewell...............................................................34

§ List of References..........................................................................................................38


§ Introduction

“It was the secrets of heaven and earth that I desired to learn”

- Mary Shelley, Frankenstein (1831)1

Nearly two centuries of criticism of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein have viewed and examined the novel through an abundance and variety of angles – from a macabre Gothic novel, through a feministic reading of Frankenstein’s attempt to invade on the female function of giving birth, to a warning against new scientific developments spurred by the fear of Industrial revolution and its effects. What I would like to propose in this thesis is a slightly more subtle perspective, one that remains seemingly concealed but nonetheless transpiring from the pores of the text – an assertion that Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein has a rightful claim on the title of a “vindication of ways of God to man”2, not in any degree lessened by its “predecessor”, John Milton’s Paradise Lost (1667), the lines of which are inscribed as the epigraph to Frankenstein. The full execution of the tragedy that stems from the ambitions of Victor Frankenstein – his own desolation and demise, the loss of his loved ones, his Being’s (I shall refer to him as Being rather than monster or creature, as did Percy Bysshe Shelley in his review of Frankenstein) misery and solitude, the murders the Being commits in agony and the vengeance he takes – all are a repercussion of human attempts to imitate God. Impelled by his “creative” aspiration to take upon himself the role of the Creator and to generate Life, Victor Frankenstein commits the fiercest of crimes against God and against all God’s Creation. But in Frankenstein, there is no actual “character” of God, like in Paradise Lost, there is no vengeful Being to punish the sinner, like in the myth of Prometheus; instead, Frankenstein’s imprudent act contains the very punishment in itself. Many critics have noted that Frankenstein’s true tragedy is not a consequence of his act of playing God but of his inability to feel affection for the wretched Being his act of playing God has given life to. But these two offenses are essentially one and the same. In His might, God has created man “in His own image, in the image of God created he him”3 and as He looked upon His Creation, “behold, it was very good.”4 This thought is aptly conveyed in S. T. Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner (1797-1798), another significant undertone to Shelley’s novel: “For the dear God, who loveth us, / He made and loveth all.”5 But Victor Frankenstein fails to feel love for the “vile monster” of his creation – he fails, precisely because of his inaptitude in the role of the Maker, because his act of creation is a poor simulacra of God’s Creation, a

1 Shelley, Mary: Frankenstein; Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library, 1994; From the printed version: Shelley, Mary: Frankenstein; Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley; London, 1831; with the 1818 Preface; p. 242 Words used by Alexander Pope in his Essay on Man (1733-34) as an analogy to Milton’s need to “justifie the wayes of God to men” as expressed in Paradise Lost (1667)3 Bible, King James; Genesis, from The Holy Bible, King James version; Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library; at: http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvGene.html; 1:274 Ibid., 1:315 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor: The Rime of the Ancient Mariner; revised version, including addition of his marginal glosses, published in 1817; Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library, 1994; at: http://etext.virginia.edu/stc/Coleridge/poems/Rime_Ancient_Mariner.html; VII:613-614

1

mere play-pretend, although naive in its essence. While Shelley never invokes God onto her pages, save for exclamations and lamentations, He is ever-present through the negative comparison of what the Work of God is not. This “absence” of God is perhaps driven by Milton’s counterproductive urge to “justifie” God by denoting Him into the poem’s character – an attempt which had given rise to numerous misinterpretations, including that of the Romantics who rendered Milton’s God inferior to his Satan and generally interpreted Paradise Lost as a celebration of Satan, the poem’s “true romantic hero”.

Victor Frankenstein’s self-destructive aspiration to “unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation”6 is a theme that has been present in literature for centuries: the peril inherent in the pursuit of God-like knowledge. It was a fruit from the Tree of Knowledge that tempted the Biblical Adam to his Fall, with the serpent telling Eve “that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”7 Frankenstein also voices this when speaking to Walton: “You seek for knowledge and wisdom, as I once did; and I ardently hope that the gratification of your wishes may not be a serpent to sting you, as mine has been.”8 Literature has provided us with ample evidence as to what happens when one pushes this temptation to know too far, the answers offered in the form of a Faustian snare, leading to an inevitable personal demise. The pursuit of forbidden knowledge has appeared in many different forms, yet one particular enigma stands out as the most enthralling one: the quest for discovering the true source of life, the elusive “spark”, reserved for the Divine and obscured before the eyes of mortal men. This chimera has dictated both scientific and spiritual research for centuries. While scientists sought by means of outer instrumentation, spiritual scientists have set their wits on probing the inner consciousness.

Perhaps the most horrid outcome of the attempt to play God would be the seeming success of such an endeavor. There is more to Creation then simply the mere act of it, as Victor Frankenstein will discover the very moment his Being opens his eyes: “I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.”9

Victor’s motivations for pursuing the secret of life reveal a fusion of the noble: “I might in process of time … renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption.”10 and the selfish: “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs.”11 He thus reveals his hubris through a presumptuous breach into realms designed not to be trod by humans, and in this futile but nonetheless tragically human attempt to hold and steer the reins of Life and Death lies the cause of his “Fall”.

The fact that what initially was a “little ghost story” of Frankenstein has seen over ninety dramatizations onstage and over thirty movies directly influenced or inspired by the novel, stands to assert that its theme carries with it a potency that has endured the 6 Shelley, op.cit., p. 347 Bible, op. cit., 3:58 Shelley, op. cit., p. 159 Ibid., p. 4310 Ibid., p. 4011 Ibid.

2


“sifting” dictated by the passing of time and has preserved the weight of its cautionary message if not even enhanced it. For the modern Frankenstein reader the reality of man-made abominations is ever more within reach, as the ideas of cloning and genetic mutation increasingly tend to infest the Natural Order of things. Additionally, cloning (and the development of the human looking androids) inherently carries another danger, since clones are physically no Frankenstein’s “monsters” that could scarcely avoid detection and alarming reaction; these “monsters” have the unique capability of being seemingly blended into the world and thus equipping man with yet another dangerous illusion: that he has in fact succeeded in creating a being “in his own image” and has hence equaled himself with the ultimate Creator. As is implied in Frankenstein, the human mind is susceptible to drawing a conditioned parallel between ugliness and evil. Although there are generally no difficulties when connecting something beautiful to something evil (mostly due to the awareness that evil can be disguised, preferably by a beautiful and alluring quality), it is much more challenging to imagine, or at the very least accept, that goodness can be shrouded by ugliness as well. Since the modern day “monsters” are no physically challenged “abortions” of nature, they are naturally less likely to be considered evil. But, as all creations made outside of God, they too are most profoundly crippled – they are creatures with no soul. This raises another question – was Victor Frankenstein’s Being also deprived of a soul? Aside from being quite humanlike in his inner thinking and outer expression, which can deceivingly appear to be a quality of a soul-possessing creature, he makes a reference to his “soul” only once (there are altogether three references to his soul, as opposed to over thirty references to the soul of Victor and roughly ten to the soul of man in general). He says: “my soul glowed with love and humanity; but am I not alone, miserably alone?”12 Later Victor makes a remark to Walton that the Being’s soul is “as hellish as his form”.13 When we turn to the Oxford Dictionary14 in search of the word soul we come across two (relevant) levels of meaning: first, that a soul is “the spiritual element of a person, regarded as immortal”, and second, that a soul is “a person’s moral or emotional nature”. In view of context used to describe the Being’s soul – it being hellish, or glowing with love and humanity, it becomes clear that the latter connotation of the word is applied. The immortal soul given by God could not be hellish; nor could the Being’s soul, even if he had one, ever possess true humanity. The main testimony to the Being’s actual lack of soul – in its principal meaning – rests in Victor’s account: “… I might, with unfailing aim, put an end to the existence of the monstrous image which I had endued with the mockery of a soul still more monstrous.”15

So, finally the resolution is given – it is the “mockery of a soul” and, whether “mockery” is here used as denoting “travesty” or “impudent imitation”, it is clear that the force of wielding the true Spark of Life remains out of reach for Victor Frankenstein, and that the sustenance he endues his Being with is certainly no true soul, according to the Creation of God. Thereby the novel issues yet again the warning against overstepping boundaries; against pursuing even the presumably noblest of goals should they drive one into the search for secrets not meant to be revealed and consequently into struggles against the human spirit, the spirit that itself is created, made in the image of its Maker. Human

12 Ibid., p. 8413 Ibid., p. 18814 Compact Oxford English Dictionary; online database; at: http://www.askoxford.com/?view=uk15 Shelley, op. cit., p. 163

3

creative activity should perhaps best be bounded to those gifts of creation indeed endowed upon us: the life-preserving reproductive ability and the creative imagination of an artist.

[William Blake “And God created Adam”, 1975]

§ Mary Shelley’s Personal Investment

The daughter of two paramount radical thinkers of the 1790s – the renowned philosopher, novelist, and journalist William Godwin, author of An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793) and celebrated feminist philosopher, educator, and writer Mary Wollstonecraft, author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) – Mary Shelley (born Godwin) was born on 30 August 1797 in London. Eleven days after her birth, her mother died of puerperal fever, leaving Godwin to care for the “pretty little Mary” and Fanny Imlay, Wollstonecraft’s daughter to Gilbert Imlay, to whom Godwin soon gave his name. Stricken by utter grief at the loss of his wife Godwin devised a loving tribute to her, published in January 1798: Memoirs of the Author of a Vindication of the Rights of Woman, providing the reader with specific details of her life, including her love affairs and two suicide attempts. He writes: “This light was lent to me for a very short period,

4


and is now extinguished for ever!”16 The public’s reaction was vociferous and not at all in the direction Godwin had hoped for. By reason of attempting suicide Wollstonecraft was proclaimed as lacking religious conviction and her infatuations were rendered as promiscuous, which led to her name being listed in the index to the Anti-Jacobin Review of 1798 under “Prostitution”.17 However, when Mary was but four years old Godwin married Mary Jane Clairmont, the self-proclaimed “widow Clairmont”, who in reality was Mary Jane Vial, a spinster, mother to two children, Charles and Jane (who would later become Claire Clairmont). The new Mrs. Godwin did everything in her power to alienate Mary from her father, clearly preferring her own children to Mary and Fanny.

[Mary Shelley 1797-1851] [William Godwin 1756-1836] [Mary Wollstonecraft 1759-1797]

Though Mary received little formal education, she was home tutored by her father in a broad range of subjects and has enjoyed access to the many intellectuals who visited him, only few of whom were Samuel Taylor Coleridge, William Wordsworth, William Hazlitt and Charles Lamb. After Godwin’s marriage to Mary Jane Clairmont, Mary retreated to books, the written legacy of her parents, and into her father’s extensive library. This influence is vivid in Frankenstein, as Godwin admired Erasmus Darwin, shared his ideas, and even wrote a lengthy study Lives of Necromancers in 1834. Godwin never believed that a man is born evil, but that he is thus corrupted through circumstances usually enforced by those wielding political power. Moreover, Godwin never denied Mary the full scope of education, an idea not very popular amongst his contemporaries. During her growing up, the suitability of scientific or even literary education for girls was highly questioned. Even John Milton, whose Paradise Lost bore much influence on Mary, particularly in writing Frankenstein, refused to have his daughters learn enough Latin in order to understand it; he had them learn it only in a portion sufficient for them to read him Latin texts (especially as his eye-sight had failed him), which they did, daily, without ever understanding a word. He found it inappropriate for women to attain any

16 Cited in Karbiener, Karen: Introduction and Notes to Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”; Barnes and Noble Classics, NY, 2003; p. xxv17 Mentioned in Ty, Eleanor: “Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley” [biographical essay]; Dictionary of Literary Biography 116: British Romantic Novelists, 1789-1832; Ed. Bradford Mudge; Detroit: Bruccoli Clark Layman; 1992, 311-325; at: http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/shelleybio.html

5

intellectual knowledge, as he maintained that knowledge pertained to learned men alone. Luckily, Godwin was free of such deliberations, and it is William Godwin to whom Frankenstein is dedicated.

Mary first met Percy Bysshe Shelley (and his wife, Harriet Westbrook Shelley) in November 1812, and would not encounter him again until 1814. “When Mary next met the tall, frail-looking, elegant Percy, on 5 May 1814, she viewed him as a generous young idealist and as a budding genius. He, in turn, had become dissatisfied with his wife and was affected by Mary’s beauty, her intellectual interests, and, above all, by her identity as the ‘daughter of William and Mary’.”18 Mary and Percy began meeting each other secretly at Mary Wollstonecraft’s grave in St. Pancras Churchyard, which Mary previously frequented and where she would read her mother’s work, and where on 26 June she and Percy would declare their love for each other. Although liberal in his teachings, Godwin was strongly opposed to this relationship and Mary at first tried to obey her father’s wishes, but after Percy’s attempted suicide she fled with him to France in 1814, accompanied by her step-sister Jane Clairmont, but leaving Percy’s pregnant wife Harriet behind. The record of their journeys was published as a History of a Six Weeks’ Tour through a part of France, Switzerland, Germany, and Holland, with Letters descriptive of a Sail round the Lake of Geneva, and of the Glaciers of Chamouni in 1817. Mary and Percy spent eight years together, intertwined with love and both financial and emotional turmoil. Mary gave birth to four children, only one of whom lived to adulthood. In 1822 Mary miscarried during her fifth pregnancy and nearly lost her life. Eleanor Ty gives record of “numerous critics—among them Ellen Moers, Sandra Gilbert, and Susan Gubar—[who] have pointed out the link between the themes of creation, birth, and death in Frankenstein and Mary Shelley’s real-life preoccupation with pregnancy, labor, maternity, and death … Her anxieties about motherhood and the inability to give life may have led her to write the tale of the aspiring scientist who succeeds in creating a being by unnatural methods.”19 In addition, the Being she portrays is a “motherless child”, which somewhat resonates her own motherless childhood. Karbiener proposes that Frankenstein can be read as “Mary’s attempt to fulfill the intellectual inheritance from Wollstonecraft”20 Perhaps tormented by the notion she was responsible for her mother’s death, we find an echo for her remorseful and shattered state in the words and nightmarish dreams of Victor Frankenstein: “I thought that I held the corpse of my dead mother in my arms; a shroud enveloped her form, and I saw the grave-worms crawling in the folds of the flannel.”21 Mary had undoubtedly woven plenty of her own life fabric into her novel, as she did in many of her other works. Her own persona is vividly present in several characters: firstly, there is the passive listener Margaret Walton Saville whose initials share that of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley; then, there is Victor, who longed to create life out of death, something Mary must have secretly imagined – a revival of her mother and child (at the time of writing Frankenstein Mary had already lost one child), Victor, who invoked analogies between the labors of the writer and the creator, thus reflecting Mary’s own insecurities both regarding her ability to write and to give birth without fatal consequences; and ultimately, and most profoundly so, Mary emerges in the

18 Ty, op. cit., html text19 Ibid.20 Karbiener, op. cit., p. xxv21 Shelley, op. cit., p. 44

6


form of Frankenstein’s Being: the lonely motherless outcast, the guilt-ridden Being, deprived of the affections so greatly desired. However, in the character of Victor, another influence surfaces – that of Percy Bysshe Shelley. Passionate, creative, aspiring, egoistic, lacking commitment to anything but their work, these two great minds are rather analogous. Percy too, like Victor, was predominantly unaware of his shortcomings as a devoted husband.

Mary’s attachment to Percy led her through an array of melodramatic occurrences: she had to struggle with his joy at the birth of his son (1814) by Harriet Shelley, his still legitimate wife; endure the denunciation by her father; suffer the ménage à trios with her step-sister Jane (who had in the course of five years changed her name three times, from Jane to Clara to Clare and finally to Claire) Clairmont, whose affections Shelley did not exactly shun; and in general submit to Percy’s concept of “free love”, which he applied primarily to himself but expected it from Mary alike. Mary herself did too believe in the concept of “free love” (a concept prophesied by her mother), but only in theory; in practice, she loved Shelley alone, and this remained so even after his death. During 1814 the couple was at times separated since Percy had to flee from his creditors, and their distraught letters reveal the pain at these separations. 1816 brought more death, with the suicides of Fanny Godwin and Harriet Shelley.

That same year Claire Clairmont shifted her attention from Percy and on to Lord Gordon Byron, persuading Mary and Percy to follow her (she was then already pregnant with Byron’s child) to Switzerland in pursuit of him. In May 1816 the Shelleys (at that time Mary first referred to herself as Mrs. Shelley) move into Maison Chapuis in Geneva and soon after Byron, accompanied by his physician Dr. John W. Polidori, rents the next-door Villa Diodati. Both Mary and Percy immediately become close friends with Byron. It is well known that the idea for Frankenstein emerged precisely there, at Byron’s Villa Diodati, as is explained by Mary Shelley herself both in the Preface to the 1818 edition (anonymously) and later, in the Introduction to the 1831 edition, where she was more explicit with details. She then gives the account: “We will each write a ghost story, said Lord Byron; and his proposition was acceded to. There were four of us. The noble author began a tale, a fragment of which he printed at the end of his poem of Mazeppa. Shelley … commenced one founded on the experiences of his early life. Poor Polidori had some terrible idea about a skull-headed lady, who was so punished for peeping through a key-hole … I busied myself to think of a story, -- a story to rival those which had excited us to this task.”22 Mary confessed that at first she had struggled with her story; finally, one night, after a discussion concerning galvanism and Erasmus Darwin, Mary’s imagination “gifted” her successive images “far beyond the usual bounds of reverie”. She saw “the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together … Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavor to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world.”23 Next morning, after the poets went off sailing, she started work on what was to become Chapter 5 of Frankenstein. Encouraged by Percy, Mary developed the little ghost story into a novel, which she finished in May of 1817 at Marlow and published anonymously in March 1818 in three

22 Ibid., p. viii23 Ibid., p. ix

7

volumes by Lackington’s publishing house24 that somewhat specialized in sensational materials.25

In his essay Frankenstein and Mary Shelley’s Wet Ungenial Summer (2006), Bill Phillips emphasizes a less known fact, that the “cold and rainy” weather was in fact “the result of an Indonesian volcano, which affected the atmosphere of the northern hemisphere for three years, leading to crop failure, riots and starvation.”26 In his book The Song of the Earth, (2000), the English ecocritic, Jonathan Bate, asserts that Byron’s poem Darkness and Keats’s ode To Autumn were inspired by this Indonesian volcano. Darkness was also written at the Villa Diodati in the summer of 1816 when it “rained in Switzerland on 130 out of the 183 days from April to September.”27 The verses in Darkness were no mere metaphor as the poem opens:

I HAD a dream, which was not all a dream, The bright sun was extinguish’d, and the stars Did wander darkling in the eternal space, Rayless, and pathless; and the icy earthSwung blind and blackening in the moonless airMorn came and went—and came, and brought no day28

Phillips thus claims that rather than representing the horrors of the Industrial Revolution, Victor Frankenstein’s monster symbolizes the capacity of nature to instigate environmental crises of biblical proportions.29

When in 1822 Mary nearly bled to death whilst miscarrying, it was Percy who saved her life. After another unsuccessful pregnancy, Mary became even more withdrawn – something that had already tormented the couple – and their relationship suffered. She was aware of Percy’s dissatisfactions as well (and his interest in other women, most notably Jane Williams, during 1821) but, as Ty notices, had hoped time would heal the breach between them. This was not to happen as Percy dies a month after her miscarriage, on 8 July 1822, less than a month before his 30th birthday. He had drowned in the Bay of Spezia, caught in a sudden storm while sailing back from Livorno to Lerici in his boat Don Juan30. He drowned along with Edward Williams, husband of Jane Williams with whom he had been having an affair. Interestingly, Shelley claimed to have met his Doppelgänger, foreboding his own death31.

24 Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones25 Some titles are: Francis Barrett, The Magus; or Celestial Intelligences (1801); Thomas Heywood, The Life, Prophecies, and Predictions of Merlin Interpreted (1813); Joseph Taylor Apparitions; or, the Mystery of Ghosts, Hobgoblins, and Haunted House (1814).26 Phillips, Bill: Frankenstein and Mary Shelley’s Wet Ungenial Summer; Universidad de Barcelona; 28.2 (December 2006): 59–68; at: www.atlantisjournal.org/Papers/28_2/BPhillips.pdf; p. 5927 Cited in Philips, op. cit., p. 6128 Byron, George Gordon: Works; London: John Murray, 1832; also at: http://www.poetry-archive.com/b/prometheus.html29 Philips, op. cit., p. 5930 The name Don Juan was a compliment to Byron.31 On 15 August, Mary Shelley wrote a letter to Maria Gisborne in which she relayed Percy’s claims to her that he had met his own Doppelgänger. A week after Mary’s miscarriage, in the early hours of 23 June, Percy had had a nightmare about the house collapsing in a flood, and “... talking it over the next morning he told me that he had had many visions lately — he had seen the figure of himself which met him as he

8


[The Funeral of Shelley by Louis Edouard Fournier (1889); pictured in the centre are, from left: Trelawny, Hunt and Byron. Shelley's heart was snatched from the funeral pyre by Edward Trelawny (mutual friend of the Shelleys and Byron); Mary Shelley kept it for the rest of her life, and it was interred next to her grave at St. Peter's

Church in Bournemouth. Shelley’s ashes were interred in the Protestant Cemetery in Rome under an ancient pyramid in the city walls. His grave bears the Latin inscription, Cor Cordium (“Heart of Hearts”), and, in reference to his death at sea, a few lines of “Ariel’s Song” from Shakespeare’s The Tempest: “Nothing of him that doth fade / But doth suffer a sea-change / Into something rich and strange.”]

This was by far Mary’s greatest loss. Percy’s untimely death left Mary in a state of psychological havoc, with feelings of “fierce remorse” and guilt. In the manner of her father, Mary decided to write Percy’s biography and publish a definitive collection of his poems. However, this endeavor was impeded by Sir Timothy, Percy’s disproving father, who disdained any public mention of his revolutionary and atheistic son. Later she created an idealized portrait of him in her 1826 novel, The Last Man, where Percy is instilled into the figure of Adrian, Earl of Windsor, a Romantic idealist, full of courage and self-sacrificing beliefs. Death entered Mary’s life once again, as their mutual friend Byron soon after died in Greece, on 19 April 182432. A journal entry on 14 May 1824 reveals her forlorn condition: “The last man! Yes I may well describe that solitary being’s feelings, feeling myself as the last relic of a beloved race, my companions extinct before me—“. The next day she lamented: “At the age of twenty six I am in the condition of an aged person--all my old friends are gone ... & my heart fails when I think by how few ties I hold to the world....”33 Mary never remarried after Percy’s death, as she wrote to Edward John Trelawny on 14 June 1831, in answer to his half-serious proposal: “Mary Shelley shall be written on my tomb.”34 She made her peace with Godwin whom she continued to support emotionally and financially until his death in 1836.

walked on the terrace & said to him — “How long do you mean to be content”; quote taken from Wikipedia, entry Doppelgänger; at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelgänger#Percy_Bysshe_Shelley32 Offering his support to the representatives of the movement for Greek independence from the Ottoman Empire Byron had devised an attack on the Turkish-held fortress of Lepanto, at the mouth of the Gulf of Corinth and took part of the rebel army under his own command. Unfortunately, before they had a chance to sail out, he fell ill, and the usual remedy of bleeding weakened him further. After making a partial recovery, in early April he caught a violent cold which therapeutic bleeding, insisted on by his doctors, had only aggravated. It is suspected this treatment, carried out with unsterilized medical instrumentation, may have caused him to develop sepsis. He developed a violent fever, and died on 19 April.33 Cited in Ty, op. cit., html text34 Ibid.

9

In 1848 she began to suffer the first symptoms of brain tumor, although the disease was not diagnosed until December 1850. She struggled with the numbness in her right leg and impaired speech, which soon progressed into a state of almost complete paralysis, and she died in London on 1 February 1851, aged 54. The inscription on her tomb reveals the greatest influences in her life, and it reads: “Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Daughter of Wilm & Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin, and Widow of the late Percy Shelley”.

[1853 engraving by George J. Stodart, after a monument of Mary and Percy Shelley by Henry Weekes]

10


§ Spark of Life and the Implications of Death within the Quest for Life

“Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through

and pour a torrent of light into our dark world.”

- Mary Shelley, Frankenstein (1831)35

[Theodor Von Holst, Frontispiece to Frankenstein 1831]

If the great Circle of Life is defined by two cruxes standing at opposite ends – the point of Birth (Life) and the point of Death – what is perceived are two paths, one from Birth to Death (the path we know) and one from Death to Rebirth (the path we anticipate). The anticipated path is further expressed in two ways (there are two ways to arrive at the truth): by means of imagination and by means of science. The Death-to-Rebirth path is unknown to us – we are in the dark – hence, Prometheus steals the fire in order to cast light upon the unknown (the new Life), as does Victor.

Shedding light upon the unknown is a pursuit embedded into the very core of each human being, and perhaps what Mary Shelley does by means of imagination can be equivalent to Victor’s endeavors in the field of scientific research. They both attempt to reach out into the depths of human soul and existence. In this effort to attain the Secret of Life, science and imagination often meet, even overlap, but ultimately, all our attempts are futile, as only the Creator can extend His vision unto the unifying poles of human existence.

The Romantics perceived imagination as reaching beyond the senses, able to intuitively grasp the absolute, but for Victor Frankenstein such intuitive knowledge was insufficient. “So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankenstein -- more, far more, will I achieve; treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation.”36

He then sets on to explore the physical boundaries of that which makes us human, the very boundaries between Life and Death.

In nature, Life is created out of Life; in the case of Victor’s Being, we find Life created from a sum of dead bodily parts, and so perceived his creation resembles the distortion of Death rather than the shaping of Life. “…I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, 35 Shelley, op. cit., p. 4036 Ibid., p. 34

11

that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips.”37 This is a reminder that any deviation from the Creation by God can only result in and cause more deviation.

When examining the notion of the Spark it is almost inevitable to identify it with Fire. The spark of Life i.e. the Fire of Life is in many respects present in the novel, invoking the myth of the fire-snatching Prometheus in its full title “Frankenstein, or, the Modern Prometheus”; it is embedded in the methods Victor applies in his creation, namely electricity (the physical spark) and alchemy (the alchemist’s flaming furnace being the very core of all alchemical pursuits, including the purging of the alchemist’s soul), and ultimately the Spark of Creation Victor so fervently yearns to uncover.

It was not uncommon in philosophical thought to speak of fire as the origin of all things. Heraclitus identifies the Logos with fire; so the enigmatic saying in his fragment 64, “Thunderbolt steers all things”, makes sense if one interprets thunderbolt to be fire38. Simplicius explains the mechanism by which fire becomes all things: “Heraclitus ... made fire the archê, and out of fire they produce existing things by thickening and thinning, and resolve them into fire again, on the assumption that fire is the one, underlying physis”.39

Even the Being sees the natural end to his life in fire: “I shall ascend my funeral pile triumphantly and exult in the agony of the torturing flames.”40

However, Victor’s quest ends not in fire but in the unforgiving northern ice, paralleled through the aspirations of another “overreacher”, the arctic voyager Captain Robert Walton, reminding us thereby that Death is essentially cold. The “icy climes” of the polar region, bathed in the “perpetual splendor” of eternal sunshine, echo of Hyperborea, a mythical land in the far north, home to Boreas, the North Wind. Hyperborea (beyond the Boreas) was perfect, with the sun shining twenty-four hours a day.

Never the Muse is absentfrom their ways: lyres clash and flutes cryand everywhere maiden choruses whirling.Neither disease nor bitter old age is mixedin their sacred blood; far from labor and battle they live.

- Pindar, Tenth Pythian Ode (498BC)41

Reaching such sacred lands is never easy; Pindar cautioned:

Never on land or by sea will you findthe marvelous road to the feast of the Hyperborea.42

37 Ibid., p. 4338 From Heraclitus, at: http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Heraclitus.htm; quoted: Clement of Alexandria: Stromateis: Bks.1-3 (Fathers of the Church); The Catholic University of America Press, 15 Dec 1992, V, 10, 6; From Heraclitus, at: http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Heraclitus.htm39 From Heraclitus, at: http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Heraclitus.htm; quoted: Simplicius: On Aristotle's Physics 5, (The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle); Ithaca, New York; Cornell University Press, 1997, 23.23, DK, A5; 40 Shelley, op. cit., p. 20241 Lattimore, Richmond, trans.: The Odes of Pindar; University of Chicago Press, 1947; at: http://www.archive.org/stream/odesofpindar035276mbp/odesofpindar035276mbp_djvu.txt42 Ibid.

12


It is precisely in this bitter arctic surrounding of biting winds and impassable ice that the Being answers the question of the moral limits of science. Both Walton and Victor find that in order to achieve their dream (conquering the Arctic in Walton’s and conquering Life itself in Victor’s case) they must engage in combat with Nature, or in Victor’s case, in a contest against God – a duel man is simply not meant to win. The consequences of such a foolish attempt to violate Nature (Life or God) are perilous, and ultimately disastrous. As the path to the perfect Hyperborea can never be unveiled “neither on land nor by sea”, so is the path to the absolute truth equally unattainable. There are regions impassable to science and men, paths that lay hidden, where the Divine Light reveals to us but a spark.

§ The Prometheus Parallel

And Man in portions can foreseeHis own funereal destiny;His wretchedness, and his resistance,And his sad unallied existence:To which his Spirit may opposeItself--and equal to all woes,And a firm will, and a deep sense,Which even in torture can descryIts own concenter'd recompense,Triumphant where it dares defy,And making Death a Victory.

- Lord Byron, Prometheus (1816)43

[Prometheus Bound, Jacob Jordaens, c. 1640]

There are two different myths regarding Prometheus, namely the widely known myth of Prometheus the fire snatcher, and a later addition – the story of Prometheus plasticator who was to said to have created and animated mankind out of clay. It is usually the myth of Prometheus plasticator that is connected to Frankenstein although the myth itself was fairly unknown at the time and is more likely that the interest in it has arisen only after the publication of Frankenstein.

According to the original myth of Prometheus44, he and his brother Epimetheus were asked by Zeus to create the animals and mankind. After his brother had given all the gifts away and left none for man, Prometheus decided to trick Zeus into taking the lesser animals as sacrifices and leaving the best to men. To punish man, Zeus took away fire. So Prometheus stole fire from Hephaestus’ forge in Olympus to return it to man. As

43 Byron, op. cit.44 The Prometheus myth first appeared in the late 8th-century BC Greek epic poet Hesiod's Theogony (lines 507-616).

13

punishment, Zeus chained Prometheus to a rock in the Caucasus and left an eagle to torment him forever. Every day, Prometheus was to be visited by the eagle that ate from his liver. During the night, however, his liver would grow back to its original state. As an additional punishment for stealing fire, Zeus created Pandora, the first woman and root of all evil to be released on Earth. The implication regarding the myth of Pandora is the knowledge that when attempting to reveal to men what is (by God) not meant to be revealed, the ultimate result is the unleashing of evil into the world.

Some two dozen other Greek and Roman authors would retell and further embellish the Prometheus myth into the 4th century AD. The most significant detail added to the myth found in, e.g., Sappho, Plato, Aesop and Ovid – was the central role of Prometheus in the creation of the human race. According to these sources, Prometheus fashioned humans out of clay.

According to Fortson45 and Williamson46 he derivation of Prometheus’ name from the Greek pro (before) + manthano (learn), thus equating it with “fore thought”, is actually a folk etymology. In truth, the name comes from the PIE47 word that produces the Vedic pra math, which in fact means “to steal.” This verb produces pramathyu-s, “thief”, whence Prometheus. The Vedic myth of fire’s theft by Mataricvan is an analog to the account found in Greek myth.48

This is also something that Aesop said in a fable that may date as early as the classical period: “The clay which Prometheus used when he fashioned man was not mixed with water but with tears. Therefore, one should not try to dispense entirely with tears, since they are inevitable.” 49

Eventually, these two myths were fused together: the fire that Prometheus had stolen is the fire of life with which he animated his clay models. It is most likely that Shelly knowingly used this fusion when comparing her hero to the reprimanded Titan. Additionally, it can be noted that it is essentially irrelevant whether we compare Victor to the Prometheus who stole from God the fire – the spark of creation, or the Prometheus who stole from God the authority of creating living beings; in the first case it is the means, and in the latter, it is the very deed, but the implication, and hence, the consequence, is unchanged.

The symbolic attached to the myth of Prometheus bore much relevance for the Romantics. Byron was particularly attached to the play Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus, and Percy B. Shelley would soon write his own Prometheus Unbound (1820). It is interesting to note that the term “modern Prometheus” was actually coined by Immanuel Kant, referring to Benjamin Franklin and his then recent experiments, specifically flying his kite in a thunderstorm to demonstrate that lightning carries an electrical charge. Joseph Priestley believed that the kite experiment of 1752 was “the greatest, perhaps, in

45 From Wikipedia; quote: Fortson, Benjamin: Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction; Blackwell Publishing, 2004, p. 27.46 From Wikipedia; quote: Williamson, George S.: The Longing for Myth in Germany: Religion and Aesthetic Culture from Romanticism to Nietzsche; Chicago, 2004, pp. 214-15.47 The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the unattested, reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans. 48 From Wikipedia, entry: Prometheus; at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus49 Aesop: Fables Aesop; Trans. Laura Gibbs (from Themistius, Orations 32; Greek fable c6th B.C.); Oxford University Press, 2002; Fable 516, p. 238

14


the whole compass of philosophy since the time of Sir Isaac Newton”.50 In 1751, prior to the kite experiment, Franklin described to Collinson how he almost electrocuted himself while conducting experiments on turkeys.51

However, Prometheus carried a dualistic symbolism. On one hand, due to the “creating” aspect, Prometheus epitomized the creating artist in the 18 th century. But, as Wolf52 points out, there was also a deeper imagery, one that implied an almost “devilish” undertone. Prometheus, who brought fire to man, has thereby seduced the human race to the vice of eating meat (fire brought cooking which brought hunting and killing). Support for this claim may be reflected in Chapter 17 of the novel, where the “monster” speaks to his creator: “My food is not that of man; I do not destroy the lamb and the kid to glut my appetite; acorns and berries afford me sufficient nourishment.”53 Prometheus’ gift to man compared with the two great utopian promises of the 18th century: the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution, containing both great promise and potentially unknown horrors.

Victor Frankenstein can indeed be seen as the modern Prometheus. Instead of being the created, Victor strives to take God’s place and become the Creator. This striving is also supported by the parallel drawn between his name and the apparent allusion to Milton’s Paradise Lost, where God is also called “the victor”. Moreover, Milton’s Satan likewise strives to be more powerful than God and is tormented by the fact he is a creation rather than creator. Victor unleashes forbidden knowledge upon humanity, and pays the price of a tormented existence. While Prometheus is tormented by the eagle sent by Zeus, Victor is tormented by the very Being he has created, suffering the ultimate punishment: death of those he had loved.

§ Frankenstein ‘Creation Myth’, or, The Real Mad Scientist

“Not thus, after all, would life be given.”

- Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein54

Mary Shelley herself took a keen interest in the science of her day, engaging with contemporary debates about the aims and rewards of scientific research; she also touches on Darwin’s evolution theory, Arctic travel and search for the magnet, “the wondrous power which attracts the needle and may regulate a thousand celestial observations”55

Additionally, she reports in her Journals that she was reading Introduction to Davy’s

50 Benjamin Franklin in London, The Royal Society, www.royalsociety.org51 Ibid., html text52 Wolf, Leonard: Introduction and Notes to Mary Shelley: Annotated Frankenstein; Clarkson N. Potter, Inc, NY, 1977, p. 2053 Shelley, op. cit., p. 12854 Ibid., p. x55 Ibid., p. 4

15

Chemistry during October and November 181656. According to Marilyn Butler57, William Lawrence, a professor at the Royal College of Surgeons in London, a leading theorist on anatomy and physiology, and a friend of the couple, “probably ensured that both Shelleys wrote more accurately and less speculatively on scientific matters than they otherwise might”. In a similar vein Anne K. Mellor claims that: “The works of three of the most famous scientists of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century – Humphry Davy, Erasmus Darwin, and Luigi Galvani – together with the teachings of two of their most ardent disciples, Adam Walker and Percy Shelley, were crucial to Mary Shelley’s understanding of science and the scientific enterprise.” 58

In the Introduction to the 1831 edition, Shelley describes the particular conversation which gave her the idea for the story. First, there was mention of an experiment thought to have been conducted by Erasmus Darwin59 – “who preserved a piece of vermicelli in a glass case, till by some extraordinary means it began to move with voluntary motion.”60

From this, they speculated that “perhaps a corpse would be re-animated; galvanism had given token of such things: perhaps the component parts of a creature might be manufactured, brought together, and endued with vital warmth.”61 In the Preface to the 1818 edition, Shelley (anonymously) says: “The event on which this fiction is founded has been supposed, by Dr. Darwin, and some of the physiological writers of Germany, as not of impossible occurrence.”62

We know then that the 18th century was prolific in more than just fictional horror. Mark Stinson, the author of the article “The Real Dr Frankenstein” duly inquires into who were these mysterious galvanists who had “given token of such things”.63 The answers could perhaps be found in the work of Luigi Galvani, his nephew Giovanni Aldini, Andrew Ure and most notably Johann Konrad Dippel, due to his connection to Castle Frankenstein.

Luigi Galvani

Luigi Galvani (1737-98) conducted experiments at the University of Bologna during the 1780s and 1790s, and his claim was to have demonstrated the existence of a nervous fluid akin to artificial and natural electricity.64 The most widely known were a series of 56 Shelley, Mary: The Journals of Mary Shelley 1814-1844, Vol. I: 1814-1822 & Vol. II: 1822-1844; Eds. Paula R. Feldman and Diana Scott-Kilvert; Oxford: Oxford UP; 1987; Vol. I, pp. 142-4457 Cited in Phillips, op. cit., p. 6458 Ibid.59Erasmus Darwin (1731–1802), was an English physician, natural philosopher, physiologist, abolitionist, inventor, poet and co-founder of The Lunar Society of Birmingham, an informal association of gentleman natural philosophers, entrepreneurs, and engineers which contributed greatly to the industrial revolution in England. Presumably the members were amused to refer to each other as Lunatics. 60 Shelley, op. cit., p. x61 Ibid.62 Ibid., p. 163 Stinson, Mark: The Real Dr Frankenstein; Parapsychology Plus, American Paranormal Investigations, Sacramento CA; May 28, 2007; at: http://www.ap-investigations.com/Parapsychology_DrFrankenstein.html64 Elliott, Paul: “More Subtle than the Electric Aura”: Georgian Medical Electricity, the Spirit of Animation and the Development of Erasmus Darwin's Psychophysiology; Medical History Journal; April 2008; 52(2):

16


four experiments conducted on frogs, or more precisely detached frog legs, that he had caused to convulse in a lifelike manner by means of applying conductors to them. He discovered that different metals stimulated different levels of convulsion and, as a result of these and other experiments, propounded a theory of animal electricity.65 He distinguished this kind of electricity from “artificial electricity” generated by friction (static electricity) and from “natural electricity” such as lightning. He thought of “animal electricity” as a fluid secreted by the brain, and proposed that flow of this fluid through the nerves activated the muscles.66

It is after Galvani that galvanism got its name and ironically, people still speak of being galvanized into action.

[Luigi Galvani’s Laboratory, De Viribus electricitatus c.1791] [18th century portrait of Luigi Galvani]

Giovanni Aldini

195–220; at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2329858; ch. V65 Ibid.66 Stinson, op.cit.. html text

17

Giovanni Aldini (1762-1834) was the nephew of Luigi Galvani. His uncle essentially discovered the concept of galvanism and Aldini took his experiments even further. He was among the first to treat mentally ill patients with shocks to the brain, reporting complete electrical cures for a number of mental illnesses. In 1803, during a visit to London, Aldini conducted galvanic experimental demonstrations with oxen heads which induced widely reported fantastic convulsions. Natural philosophers and tutors produced similar effects using animals at public lectures around Britain.67 Aldini’s most famous experiment was performed in 1803, on the body of a hanged man named George Forster. The body of the murderer George Forster was pulled from the gallows of Newgate Prison in London and taken to the Royal College of Surgeons, as anatomical dissection had formed part of Forster’s death sentence. Before a large medical and general audience, Aldini took a pair of conducting rods linked to a powerful battery, and touched the rods to various parts of the body in turn. The Newgate Calendar, a monthly bulletin of executions, produced by the keeper of Newgate Prison in London, gives the following description of the events that took place: “M. Aldini, who is the nephew of the discoverer of this most interesting science, showed the eminent and superior powers of galvanism to be far beyond any other stimulant in nature. On the first application of the process to the face, the jaws of the deceased criminal began to quiver, and the adjoining muscles were horribly contorted, and one eye was actually opened. In the subsequent part of the process the right hand was raised and clenched, and the legs and thighs were set in motion. Mr Pass, the beadle of the Surgeons’ Company, who was officially present during this experiment, was so alarmed that he died of fright soon after his return home. Some of the uninformed bystanders thought that the wretched man was on the eve of being restored to life.”68

Andrew Ure

In 1818, Andrew Ure (1778-1857) followed Aldini in conducting galvanic experiments upon the body of an executed murderer at Glasgow, inducing wild contortions and facial expressions, some of which drove members of the audience from the room.69 Although Ure’s well-known experiment came several months after the publication of Frankenstein, it is in spirit quite akin to it. Ure conducted experiments upon the corpse of Matthew Clydesdale at the Glasgow University Anatomy theatre on November 4, 1818. When he was brought to trial on the 3rd of October, Clydesdale was found guilty and sentenced to be hung and (like Foster) anatomized - that is, after execution his body was to be handed over to the anatomists for their use. Ure claimed that by stimulating the phrenic nerve, life could be restored in cases where death occurred by suffocation, drowning or hanging. “The Anatomy theatre was crowded … anatomists performing their dark operations on a corpse, in full view of the public. The anatomists were Dr. Andrew Ure, senior lecturer at the then recently founded Anderson’s Institution

67 Elliott, op.cit., ch. VI68 Newgate Calendar: George Foster, Executed at Newgate, 18th of January, 1803, for the Murder of his Wife and Child, by drowning them in the Paddington Canal; with a Curious Account of Galvanic Experiments on his Body; at: http://www.exclassics.com/newgate/ng464.htm69 Elliott, op.cit., ch. VI

18


in John Street, and Professor James Jeffray, professor of Anatomy, Botany and Midwifery at Glasgow University.”70

As such effects could be obtained from tissues without metal, they were claimed to demonstrate that the galvanic fluid was physiologically essential. Although they were controversial, for Aldini and Ure these results demonstrated the potential of galvanic medicine and offered the chance of “raising this wonderful agent to its expected rank, among the ministers of health and life to man”.71

[“Dr. Ure galvanizing the body of the murderer Clydesdale”; from Louis Figuier, Les merveilles de la Science (Paris, 1867), p. 653.]

Johann Konrad Dippel

Johann Konrad Dippel (1673-1734) was a German Pietist, theologian, alchemist and physician, born at Castle Frankenstein near Darmstadt, whence he got the addendum Franckensteinensis and later at his university (he studied theology, philosophy and

alchemy at the University of Giessen) the addendum Franckensteina-Strataemontanus. Although he quickly gained a reputation for brilliance, many peculiarities surrounded his studies and life in general, e.g. being imprisoned for heresy, killing an opponent in a duel, practicing palmistry or lecturing on alchemy prior to actually giving it some serious study. Aynsley and Campbell note: “That Dippel was no ordinary student is evident from his choice of a title for M.A. thesis, De Nihilo (1693).”72 About 1700, Dippel became interested in the oil obtained by the destructive distillation of animal parts (a concoction of bones, blood, and other bodily fluids distilled in iron tubes and other alchemical 70 Stevenson, David A.: The Galvanisation of Matthew Clydesdale; 1998; available at http://level2.phys.strath.ac.uk/ScienceOnStreets/galv05play.html#ref371 Elliott, op. cit., ch. VI72 Aynsley, E. E.,& Campbell, W. A.: Johann Konrad Dippel, 1673–1734; Medical History Journal, 1962, p. 281; at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1034731

19

equipment), which later became known as known as Dippel’s Oil (also known as Bone Oil), a supposed equivalent to the alchemists’ dream of the elixir vitae. However, the only result he achieved through the use of this oil was obtaining a blue dye from it (“Berliner Blau”, also called “Preussisch Blau” i.e. “Prussian blue”). He announced that he had discovered the legendary Philosopher’s Stone in 1701, but had to flee the area because he never actually produced any gold. In 1704 he moved to Berlin, where he had set up a laboratory for gold-making. At one point he offered to strike a deal with the Landgrave of Hesse, promising him an Arcanum chymicum (a supposed formula for prolonging life) in return for the ownership of his birthplace, Castle Frankenstein, and its associated title, Lord of Frankenstein. Dippel claimed to have taken some of the Arcanum chymicum himself, certain of living until 1801, when he would die aged 128. Aynsley and Campbell refer to this foresight as “a last flamboyant gesture of fantasy in the face of reality”.73 Partington sarcastically concludes: “One suspects that he mixed too much mercury with too little lamb’s blood, for he died a year after his claim.”74

He is said to have been interested in creating artificial life and alleged to practice grave-robbing. There are claims that during his stay at Castle Frankenstein he was working with nitroglycerin, which led to the destruction of a tower. Yet this seems to be a contemporary myth, since nitroglycerin hadn’t been discovered in Dippel’s time. And although the history of Castle Frankenstein during Dippel’s lifetime is well documented, the destruction of a tower - though surely a remarkable event - is nowhere

mentioned.75

His connection to the Castle Frankenstein gave rise to the theory that he was a model for Shelley’s novel, though that idea remains controversial. Little is known certainly of Dippel, and it is difficult to discern where fact ends and legend begins. The scarcity of material about his actual life leaves much room for doubt, and many of the traits attributed to him may well postdate Shelley’s novel. Still, in light of the work of Galvani, Aldini and Ure, it is not inconceivable to picture Dippel occupied by the gruesome cadaver experimentation. And so the question remains: was the character of Victor created after Dippel, or was Dippel’s actual persona embellished so to resemble Victor?

[Johann Konrad Dippel 1673-1734]

Castle Frankenstein

Radu Florescu, a Romanian academic who holds the position of Emeritus Professor of History at Boston College, first introduced the claim that Mary Shelley, who was

73 Ibid., p. 28474 Partington, Stephen Derwent: “Radu Florescu, In Search of Frankenstein: Exploring the Myths behind Mary Shelley's Monster”; Romanticism On the Net 7, August 1997; at: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~scat0385/florescu.html75 Hite, Kenneth: Suppressed Transmission: The Second Broadcast; “Frankenstein Family Album”; Austin, Tex.: SJ Games, 2000; pp. 65-66

20


passing by the Castle Frankenstein76 while being on a boat on the river Rhine in early September of 1814, heard about Dippel and the castle, visited it and based the character of Victor Frankenstein upon Dippel. Florescu himself admits that his claim was primarily based upon local folklore, as he mentions in his Acknowledgments section: “To the former Mayor of Nieder-Beerbach … I owed my initial inspiration, based upon his educated hunch, substantiated by local folklore, that Mary Shelley visited Castle Frankenstein and became acquainted with the story of the Alchemist Dippel”.77

According to the journals of both Mary Shelley and her step-sister Claire Clairmont, the Shelleys and Claire visited Gernsheim on the Rhine on September 2nd, and Florescu tells us that from the whole town of Gernsheim one can clearly see the imposing Castle Frankenstein on its hill. Although Mary and Claire never once mention the castle, Florescu thinks it inconceivable that Mary didn’t visit it, or at least, hear of it, along with the story of Dippel. Florescu asserts that Shelley, then an impressionable teenager, learned of Dippel’s “macabre work” during her stay at the castle. It was as a result of this visit, he proposed, that two years later, already spurred by gruesome tales, Shelley had a nightmare about Frankenstein which became the inspiration for her famous book.78

Florescu’s thesis was not received very well among historians at first, and many Shelly critics and devotees were enraged at this claim, and Leonard Wolf even calls Florescu’s thesis a “conspiracy theory”. Yet, a reissue of his book in the 1990s was followed by several books and TV-shows based upon it. Most notable is the book Burg Frankenstein – Mythos, Wahrheit, Legende by the German historian Walter Scheele, because it featured several new pieces of evidence that emphasized the connection between Frankenstein Castle, Johann Konrad Dippel and Shelley’s novel. At first Scheele recalls Florescu’s contention that Shelley falsified her own journals, calling this “to be a proven fact”.79 Scheele claimed that he had found “the true” journals but that they were in possession of a Swiss banking family that did not wish this mysterious journal to be published.80 He even cited from the alleged journal where the author invokes a gloomy “November mist” setting, which is somewhat dubious since according to Mary Shelly and Claire Clairmont, they were visiting this area on September 2nd and September 3rd, 1814. Ten days later Shelley was recorded to be back in England. Moreover, Scheele mentions a correspondence between Jacob Grimm and Mary Jane Clairmont, stepmother of Mary Shelley, a believed translator of Grimm’s work. Therein Grimm supposedly tells about a legend surrounding Frankenstein Castle, which strikingly resembles Mary Shelley’s famous novel.81 But, except for Scheele no one ever saw this letter and there is no record of Clairmont actually being Grimm’s translator or even a hint for a contact between them. There are however several publications in the 1800s documenting the legends and myths surrounding Frankenstein Castle, especially the ones about the Knight

76 Burg Frankenstein is a hilltop castle about 5 km south of Darmstadt in Germany. 77 Florescu, Radu: In Search of Frankenstein: Exploring the Myths Behind Mary Shelley's Monster; Parkwest Pubns, 1997. 78 Partington, op. cit., html text79

Jörg, Heléne: Frankenstein Castle, Shelley and the Construction of a Myth; July 25th, 2008; at: http://www.renegadenation.de/darmstadt/frankensteinengl.html; based upon the article by Walter Scheele: “Burg Frankenstein, Shelley und die Konstruktion eines Mythos”; pub. Feb. 2nd, 2008.80 Ibid., html text81 Ibid., html text

21

George and the Dragon (a version of the story of St. George), the only Frankenstein legend the Grimm brothers tell us about.

Although Dippel was very famous in Shelley’s day (there were countless publications about him, however, most of them in German), there is no actual historical evidence to support the claim that Johann Konrad Dippel was the inspiration for Victor Frankenstein or that the educated (and, apparently, very well-informed) Shelly was aware of his work. Yet, it is somewhat odd that the name Frankenstein simply appeared in her mind as a consequence of her “waking dream” when she “saw -- with shut eyes, but acute mental vision, -- I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts…”82 The suggestion of her “waking dream” reminds us of Coleridge’s widely popular “dream vision” of Kubla Khan (1816), another controversial notion.

It is perhaps most plausible to believe that Shelley had heard a story, perhaps of Dippel, perhaps of the Castle (or both), something that she might even have forgotten, and that her subconscious mind subsequently produced this name in her reverie. Shelley never denied that the novel was indeed spurred by the actual scientific experimentation of the time, and her fears and ethical dilemmas regarding such pursuits were expressed quite visibly, as they dictate the tenor of the entire novel. The inner workings of the author’s imagination are perhaps another question the answer to which is simply not meant to be given.

[1940’s postcard rendering of Castle Frankenstein]

§ The Urge for Creation

Prometheus, Icarus, Pygmalion’s Galatea, Paracelsus and alchemical homunculi, Faust, the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Doppelgänger, Golem, Frankenstein, Robot, AI, super-computers, and genetic engineering: the idea of artificially creating life (artificially referring to any creation outside of God’s) permeated human thought and effort as far back as written records exist. The means by which man has attempted such a folly have varied as philosophical and scientific advancements progressed. In the ancient times, there was a belief that putrefied flesh was a vessel for the birth of new life. For example, in his Metamorphoses Ovid specifies rather closely the different sorts of animals that are spawned from the putrefaction of various sorts of matter - bees from dead cattle, scorpions from crab-shells.83 This idea was wildly supported by the alchemists, leading to Paracelsus’ “recipe” for the creation of homunculus (“little man”) in 1537. In the 82 Shelley, op.cit., p. x

83 Cited in Syverson, Valerie: ‘Artificial Life' explained in historical perspective;

http://www.helium.com/items/163789-artificial-life-explained-in-historical-perspective

22


meantime, support for artificial creation can be found in the Hassidic tale of the golem, that especially took root in the Middle Ages. The difference in the methods one used to produce life is pointed out by Gary Lachman in his article Homunculi, Golems, and Artificial Life (2006): “Prior to the rise of science and the mechanical vision of human life and the universe, the idea of creating human simulacra had a strong organic foundation. The homunculus was something one grew … The golem, too, although not quite as organic as the homunculus, was nevertheless not pieced together bit by bit, as Mary Shelley’s monster would be; it was fashioned, molded from clay or soil and then miraculously brought to life.”84 Frankenstein’s Being leaned on the alchemical pursuit (still very prevalent in the 18th century) but also mirrored the influence of the Industrial Revolution and experiments with electricity. As science reached new frontiers, entered the robot, and later, artificial intelligence, and the attempts at cloning and genetic engineering that still occupy our thought. In literature, these motifs usually served as a warning against such hubris, but have apparently been unheeded.

Golem

In Jewish mystical tradition the idea of creating an artificial man from clay or soil goes back to Talmudic times.85 The legend of the golem can be found in literary works as early as the Middle Ages and it progressed on across Christian scholars in the Renaissance to German literature during the Romantic period surviving up to date in modern Hebrew and Yiddish literature. The word golem is usually rendered to mean the “unformed”, or “amorphous substance”. The word golem is used in the Bible to refer to an embryonic or incomplete substance: Psalm 139:16 uses the word גלמי, meaning “my unshaped dorm”. The name appears to derive from the word gelem (גלם), which means “raw material”.86 This “raw material” is the matter which God shaped into the form of Adam, before breathing the breath of life into his nostrils. It is the hyle of the ancients, the chaotic, inchoate state of matter before it is given form by the Creator.87 This undoubtedly resembles the alchemical prima materia, implicated in the creation of a homunculus. Making a golem involves reciting combinations of letters derived from Sefer Yetzirah, or Book of Creation, which describes the letters of the Hebrew alphabet as the key to all creation.88

84 Lachman, Gary: Homunculi, Golems, and Artificial Life; Theosophical Society in America, 2006; at:

http://www.theosophical.org/publications/questmagazine/janfeb06/Lachman/index.php

85 Gross, John: About the Arts; The Golem - As Medieval Hero, Frankenstein - Monster and Proto-

Computer; Sunday, New York Times, December 4, 1988; at: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/04/arts/about-arts-golem-medieval-hero-frankenstein-monster-proto-computer.html 86 Wikipedia, entry: Golem; at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem

87 Lachman, op. cit., html text

88 Looby, Robert: From the clay of the Kabala to the steel of Metropolis. The Golem Myth; December

2004; http://www.threemonkeysonline.com/als/_the_golem_myth_film_literature.html

23

Having a golem servant was seen as the ultimate symbol of enlightenment, and there are many tales of golems connected to prominent rabbis throughout the Middle Ages. The Kabbalah teaches that only the virtuous can create in this way.89 “For the medieval masters, the power to fashion a golem was a sign of spiritual perfection; they were concerned with the act of creation itself, rather than its consequences.”90 As the golem story evolved, golem became the symbol for the creation performed by the overambitious and overreaching mystics, who would inevitably be punished for their blasphemy.

The most celebrated of all golem legends, that of Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague. Nifla'ot Maharal im ha-Golem (“The Miraculous Deeds of Rabbi Loew with the Golem”; 1909), which was published by Judith Rosenberg as an early manuscript but actually was not written until after the blood libels of the 1890s. A historical figure, roughly contemporary with Shakespeare, Rabbi Loew was said to have created a golem in order to protect the Jews of Prague when they were threatened with violence and expulsion. His success was followed by the archetypal story of the creator loosing control over his creation, and as the golem went on a rampage, it had to be destroyed. Once again, the “playing God” argument is invoked, and the message is simple. As Gross points out, it is “a story with a double-edged moral. On the one hand the golem is the longed-for champion of a defenseless people, triumphant testimony to the power of faith. On the other hand he is a reminder that creation is God’s prerogative, not man’s, and that trying to emulate God is a presumptuous and dangerous business.”91 Gershom Scholem points out that, in keeping with kabbalistic tradition, the golem always lacks some essential human quality. In some versions it lacks the power to speak, emphasizing that the magical power of words is reserved for God alone. In others it lacks intelligence or some other positive human quality. Benjamin Lazier, commenting on Scholem, issues a similar warning: “The legend has therefore served as a cautionary tale about the perils of the creative impulse. For to create a golem is in some sense to compete with God’s own creation of man. ‘In such an act,’ as Scholem well knew, ‘the creative power of man enters into a relationship, whether of emulation or antagonism, with the creative power of God.’”92

Homunculus

The term homunculus (Latin for “little man,” sometimes spelled “homonculus”) was first used by the alchemist Theophrastus Aureolus Philippus Bombastus von Hohenheim, better known by his assumed name Paracelsus, in Book 1 (Concerning the Generation of Natural Things) of his 1537 treatise De natura rerum. This now-famous recipe for the creation of homunculus reveals that this creature “becomes thencefold a true living infant, having all the members of a child that is born from a woman, but much smaller.” 93

89 Ibid.

90 Gross, op. cit., html text

91 Ibid.92 Lazier, Benjamin: God Interrupted: Heresy and the European Imagination between the World Wars; Princeton University Press, 2009; p. 192; Citation from Gershom Scholem: Tagebücher93 Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas (translation): Paracelsus: Essential Readings; North Atlantic Books, 1999,; tr. from Paracelsus: De natura rerum (1537); Book 1: Concerning the Generation of Natural Things, 14.2.,

24


Paracelsus believed such a creature would be small and transparent of body, but pure and incorrupt in all its parts, and thus possessed of preternatural intelligence and an insight into the workings of Nature that amounted almost to a second sight, ‘know[ing] all secret and hidden matters’.”94 Apparently, the only “setback” to this creature would be its lack of soul, due to its creation out of male semen, as Paracelsus believed only beings produced through the union of male and female seed could posses one. This is similar to the concept of golem, which always lacked some human feature. Paracelsus’ provides explicit instructions for the little man’s creation: “Let the semen of a man putrefy by itself in a sealed cucurbite with the highest putrefaction of venter equinus [a horse’s womb] for forty days, or until it begins at last to live, move, and be agitated, which can easily be seen. At this time it will be in some degree like a human being, but, nevertheless, transparent and without a body … after this, it [is to] be every day nourished and fed cautiously with the arcanum of human blood, and kept for forty weeks in the perpetual and equal heat of venter equines … Now, this is one of the greatest secrets which God has revealed to mortal and fallible man. It is a miracle and a marvel of God, an arcanum above all arcana, and deserves to be kept secret until the last of times, when there shall be nothing hidden, but all things shall be manifest.”95

The reactions of the public to Paracelusus’ treatise were instantaneous. As Syverson points out: “When the homunculus of Paracelsus became a major part of scientific discourse, thinkers were alarmed by the lack of restraints upon a creature with no soul. Athanasius Kircher in Mundus subterraneus denounced Paracelsus’ method as impious, Henry More in his Enthusiasmus triumphatus called it ‘one of the latest sanctuaries for the Atheist and the very prop of ancien Paganism’, Joanes Bickerus in Hermes redivivus made incoherent claims about magnetic force attracting sorcery, and advocated prayer instead.”96 The counter argument to these claims was that such a creature, having no mother and father, would be exempt from the concept of original sin. This notion was later also ascribed to Frankenstein’s Being. The idea was that a creature with no original sin would perhaps be more virtuous that the typical sinful man. There is support for this claim in Frankenstein, as the Being did in fact display benign and virtuous qualities at first, later to be corrupted by his creator’s and the world’s reaction to him.

Paracelsus did little to alleviate the public’s concerns regarding the notions of artificial creation and playing God. He in fact claimed that there was an inherent difference in natural death caused by God, and mortification caused by man. “It is indeed true whatever perishes by its own natural death, or whatever mortifies by Nature according to its own predestination, God alone can resuscitate, or that it must be done by His divine command. So whatever Nature consumes man cannot restore. But whatever man destroys man can restore, and break again when restored. Beyond this man by his condition has no power, and if anyone strove to do more he would be arrogating to himself the power of God…”97 He further explains that there lay a difference in a man’s

p. 175

94 Syverson, op. cit., html text

95 Goodrick-Clarke, op. cit., p. 175

96 Syverson, op. cit., html text

97 Goodrick-Clarke, op. cit., p. 183

25

natural death, say by old age, and mortification impinged by other humans, in instances such as a man being slaughtered in battle. In the latter case, resuscitation was possible and did not interfere with the Divine Will. Such claims were rendered dubious as one must wonder: is mortification “caused by men” anything other than the Will of God?

A variant method for creating a homunculus cited by other alchemists involved the use of the mandrake (Mandragora officinarum), or more precisely its root, which can grow into remarkably anthropomorphic forms. Moreover, there is mention of a third method, cited by Dr. David Christianus at the University of Giessen during the 18th century, involved an egg laid by a black hen, human semen and virgin parchment. Interestingly, as Professor Florescu notes, during Dippel’s studies at the University of Giessen, he was in fact a student of Professor Christianus.

[Paracelsus ~1493-1541] [Roots of mandragora officinarum]

The alchemical connection also occurs in Goethe’s rendition of Faust, Part 2 which has the sorcerer’s former student, Wagner, create a homunculus, who then carries out extended conversations with Mephistopheles.

Robots and Transhumanism

In the short stories that make up I, Robot, Asimov depicts robots growing in sophistication and approaching ever nearer to humans in their consciousness. But the robot never attains humanity, just as man never attains godhead.98 Indeed, a straight line can be spied in these examples, since all artificially created life forms fail to attain true humanity, and specifically, usually lack soul.

Out of robotics stemmed the modern day concept of Transhumanism99, symbolized as H+, which strives to the idea of “human enhancement” and is basically a scientific

98 Looby, op. cit., html text

99 Wikipedia, entry: Transhumanism; at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

26


upgrade of the alchemical pursuit of elixir vitae, the fountain of youth, and other means of postponing ageing and death. In this, Transhumanism relies on biotechnology and other cutting-edge emerging technologies. Transhumanists claim that Darwin’s evolutionary theory made it plausible to believe the current version of humanity is not the endpoint of evolution but rather a possibly quite early phase. There have been attempts to classify Friedrich Nietzsche as a transhumanist predecessor due to his notion of the “übermensch” – super human, although this is rather absurd, since his emphasis was on self-actualization rather than technological transformation. There is a series of arguments meant to contradict such “transhumanistic” violation against Nature, the first of which was by no accident dubbed Hubris: playing God argument. Next, there ensues the Dehumanisation: Frankenstein argument. Shelley’s novel is most often alluded to by critics who suggest that biotechnologies could create objectified and socially-unmoored people and subhumans. Such critics propose strict measures in order to timely amputate what they render as dehumanizing possibilities, by altogether banning human genetic engineering on an international level. A completely different perspective is taken by the advocates of “personhood theory” who object to the “anthropomorphobia”. This concept was first introduced by Isaac Asimov, calling it the “Frankenstein complex”. Initially it was used to describe the fear of robots, predicting that the phobia against androids will be widespread, but now refers to the entire area of genetically mutated creatures as well as artificial intelligence. Personhood theory supporters argue that, provided they are self-aware, human clones, human-animal mutants and enhanced animal organisms would all be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights and citizenship. Apparently, to them, the ethical issue in question is not the creation of monsters but the way they will be treated in society.100 Again, this reminds us of Frankenstein’s predicament and his failure to love the Being of his making.

[Patricia Piccinini’s The Young Family, 2002-3; an attempt to address the reality of such possible “parahumans” in a compassionate way. Transhumanists call for the recognition of self-aware parahumans as persons.]

[Vladimir Demikhov (1916-1998), a pioneer in organ transplantation, became most notoriously known for creating a cruel monstrosity in

1954. He surgically attached the head, shoulders, and front legs of a puppy onto a mature dog. People were astonished, if not repulsed, to

see the animals lap up milk from bowls.]

100 See Glenn, Linda MacDonald: Biotechnology at the margins of personhood: an evolving legal paradigm; Journal of Evolution and Technology, issue 13 (Oct.), 2003; http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/406/

27

§ The Method of Creation: from Alchemy to Galvanism and Natural Philosophy

The method of the Being’s creation is never explicitly articulated. Victor Frankenstein explains to Robert Walton the dangers of disclosing such a finding and no further record is mentioned. There are however some hints, and as Victor recounts his life to Walton, the reader can clearly see the inspirational course that has guided Victor to his terrifying discovery.

When young Victor chances upon a work by the alchemist Cornelius Agrippa he immediately becomes absorbed in it. “When I returned home my first care was to procure the whole works of this author [Cornelius Agrippa], and afterwards of Paracelsus and Albertus Magnus … Under the guidance of my new preceptors I entered with the greatest diligence into the search of the philosopher’s stone and the elixir of life; but the latter soon obtained my undivided attention.”101 In the midst of his alchemical pursuits, Victor’s next great wonder comes in the form of electricity, or more precisely a storm. He recalls his boyhood memory: “on a sudden I beheld a stream of fire issue from an old and beautiful oak which stood about twenty yards from our house; and so soon as the dazzling light vanished, the oak had disappeared, and nothing remained but a blasted stump. … . Before this I was not unacquainted with the more obvious laws of electricity. On this occasion a man of great research in natural philosophy was with us, and excited by this catastrophe, he entered on the explanation of a theory which he had formed on the subject of electricity and galvanism, which was at once new and astonishing to me.” 102

Victor suffers a “miraculous change of inclination” and the “lords of his imagination” quickly become overthrown. Several years later, his studies take him to the University of Ingolstadt, where “the evil influence, the Angel of Destruction” leads him into the exploration of natural philosophy and chemistry (the modern alchemy) and the scientific claim natural philosophers had over “new and almost unlimited powers” and the command over the “thunders of heaven”. In the 1818 version, the emphasis was on Victor Frankenstein’s free will. However, in the 1831 version Shelley introduced the concept of what Victor perceived to be the “evil influence”, once again reminiscent of Milton and the idea that Satan had his say in the Fall of Man. Victor’s soul soon became engulfed in the grandeur of notions such as pioneering new ways and penetrating the deepest secrets of creation. He read and studied relentlessly, like an artist consumed and spurred only by his work, developing a particular interest in the science of physiognomy. Quickly he discerned that “to examine the causes of life, we must first have recourse to death.”103 As he became acquainted with the science of anatomy, he realized that in order to delve into the secrets of life and death, he must primarily understand the very progress of decay (in this concept, he did not venture that far from the alchemists, bearing in mind Paracelsus and his ideas regarding putrefaction), a painful pursuit that confined him to the murk of vaults and charnel-houses. “I saw how the fine form of man was degraded and wasted; I

101 Shelley, op. cit., pp. 26-27102 Ibid., pp. 28-29103 Ibid., p. 37

28


beheld the corruption of death succeed to the blooming cheek of life; I saw how the worm inherited the wonders of the eye and brain. I paused, examining and analysing all the minutiae of causation, as exemplified in the change from life to death, and death to life, until from the midst of this darkness a sudden light broke in upon me -- a light so brilliant and wondrous, yet so simple, that while I became dizzy with the immensity of the prospect which it illustrated, I was surprised that among so many men of genius who had directed their inquiries towards the same science, that I alone should be reserved to discover so astonishing a secret.”104 At last, “on a dreary night in November” Victor’s toils are proven “successful”.

Most movie renderings105 of the story attribute his success to the force of lightning, which is most probably spurred by a scene in Chapter 7 when Victor encounters his Being: “I quitted my seat, and walked on, although the darkness and storm increased every minute, and the thunder burst with a terrific crash over my head. It was echoed from Salêve, the Juras, and the Alps of Savoy; vivid flashes of lightning dazzled my eyes, illuminating the lake, making it appear like a vast sheet of fire; then for an instant everything seemed of a pitchy darkness, until the storm recovered itself from the preceding flash.”106 The storm here is a setting from which the Being will emerge, “discovered” by lightning: “A flash of lightning illuminated the object, and discovered its shape plainly to me; its gigantic stature, and the deformity of its aspect, more hideous than belongs to humanity, instantly informed me that it was the wretch, the filthy dæmon, to whom I had given life.”107 This connection between the lightning and the Being’s appearance is especially emphasized by Philips who then concludes: “In a way, the film versions of Frankenstein are right: the weather, with its frequent electrical storms, which kept all indoors at the Villa Diodati in June 1816, led directly to the monster’s genesis.”108

104 Ibid., p. 38105 The most famous adaptation of the story, 1931’s Frankenstein (produced by Universal Pictures & directed by James Whale) which starred Boris Karloff as the Being focuses on electricity, although the first film version from 1910 (Edison Studios; written & directed by J. Searle Dawley) featuring Augustus Phillips as Frankenstein and Charles Ogle as the Being has Frankenstein chemically create his Being in a vat.106 Shelley, op. cit., pp. 60-61107 Ibid.108 Philips, op. cit., p. 63

29

[Boris Karloff in Universal’s 1931 Frankenstein] [Elsa Lanchestein in 1935’s Bride of Frankenstein, the first sequel to Frankenstein]

§ The Creation of a Monstrosity

The theme of creation is highlighted by the many references to John Milton’s Paradise Lost (1667). Shelley evokes Milton as her muse on the title page of Frankenstein, where verses from Book X are quoted as an epigraph:

Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay To mould me man? Did I solicit thee From darkness to promote me?—

Paradise Lost

Milton was tremendously important for the Romantic poets, for his political stance as well as the model of his writing. As far as Coleridge was concerned, he sat, with Shakespeare, on “one of the two glory-smitten summits of the poetic mountain.”109

“Milton!” William Wordsworth exclaims in his poem London, 1802, “thou shoulds’t be living at this hour: / England hath need of thee”110. However, the Romantics interpreted Milton’s account of the biblical story of Genesis as a celebration of Satan – the rebellious and Romantic “hero” who defies the power of God, but not as an embodiment of evil, but as a victim of the tyrannical power of the establishment. This was clearly confirmed by Percy Shelley who in his 1821 A Defense of Poetry asserts: “Nothing can exceed the energy and magnificence of the character of Satan as expressed in Paradise Lost. It is a mistake to suppose that he could ever have been intended for the popular personification of evil… Milton’s Devil as a moral being is as far superior to his God, as one who perseveres in some purpose which he has conceived to be excellent in spite of adversity and torture, is to one who in the cold security of undoubted triumph inflicts the most horrible revenge upon his enemy.”111 Noticing that Books I and II of Paradise Lost are rather more absorbing than Book III, William Blake ventured an even more provoking thought in a note to his Marriage of Heaven and Hell: “The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels & God, and at liberty when of Devils & Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devil’s party without knowing it.”112 Interestingly, it is the “voice of the devil” in Blake’s work that argues this. However, the narrator of Paradise Lost issues something of a warring against such interpretation of Satan, and tries to control the readers’ response to his beguiling nature, as we read in Book I: “So spake th’ apostate angel, though in pain, / Vaunting aloud, but racked with deep / despair;”113. This is especially emphasized by Professor Ian Johnston in his lectures on Milton, who furthers to explain the “fettered” interpretation of God: “After all, any portrayal of God in a human form, with an appearance and a speaking voice, is going to invite a evaluative response. That is quite true, and that is probably the reason why the ancient Israelites

109 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor: Biographia Literaria; 2004; at: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6081, ch. 15110 Wordsworth, William: Complete Poetical Works; Introduction by Morley, John; London: Macmillan and Co., 1888.at: http://www.bartleby.com/145/ww219.html111 Shelley, Percy Bysshe: A Defense of Poetry, Part I; at: http://www.uni-due.de/lyriktheorie/texte/1821_shelley.html112 Blake, William: Marriage of Heaven and Hell; at: http://www.levity.com/alchemy/blake_ma.html113 Luxon, Thomas H., Ed.: The Milton Reading Room; at: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton; Paradise Lost, Book I:125-7

30


prohibited any depiction of God and made even his name unpronounceable. They insisted that God is an eternally powerful mystery and must be accepted as such. For the same reason, Dante gives no direct description of the Almighty, focusing instead on the narrator’s reaction to approaching the presence of God. Both of these methods convey the might and majesty of God without inviting us to judge Him. So if the character of God becomes a problem in Paradise Lost, that happens because Milton treats him in a certain way, first, by making him a character, and, second, by presenting him the way he does.”114

In Frankenstein, Milton’s poem is one of the books the Being reads. Moreover, he adopts language from the De Laceys’ reading of Paradise Lost, the syntax and diction of which then become present in his own speech. He proclaims: “It moved every feeling of wonder and awe that the picture of an omnipotent God warring with his creatures was capable of exciting. I often referred the several situations, as their similarity struck me, to my own. Like Adam, I was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence; but his state was far different from mine in every other respect. He had come forth from the hands of God a perfect creature, happy, and prosperous, guarded by, the especial care of his Creator; he was allowed to converse with and acquire knowledge from beings of a superior nature, but I was wretched, helpless, and alone. Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition, for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gall of envy rose within me.”115 It is impossible for the wretched Being to be anything but imperfect since his creator is in fact an imperfect one.

As Ty argues, the Being is caught between the states of innocence and evil. She further explains Victor’s condition: “Victor Frankenstein, too, is at once God, as he is the monster’s creator, but also like Adam, an innocent child, and like Satan, the rebellious overreacher and vengeful fiend.”116 Satan’s desire to rebel against his creator stems from his unwillingness to accept the fact he is a created being, and that he is not self-sufficient; Satan tries to justify his rebellion by denying that the ultimate authority of God derives from His being the author of Creation (according to Milton, God does not Create out of nothing, but out of Himself), and thus Satan claims his self-creation, declaring the angels “self-begot, self-rais’d”117, while he admits to himself this is not the case, and that God “deservd [sic.] no such return from me, whom he created what I was.”118 In view of this defiance against God’s Creation and the inability to accept his own imperfect nature, Satan essentially bears more resemblance to Victor than to the Being. Victor’s awareness of this parallel is evident as he states: “All my speculations and hopes are as nothing, and like the archangel who aspired to omnipotence, I am chained in an eternal hell.”119

Many scholars have argued that Victor’s “hell” derives not from the act of playing God by creating another being, but from his lack of responsibility towards the Life he has created, thus instigating the Being’s transformation from innocent to fiendish. Harold Bloom asserts that “Frankenstein’s tragedy stems ... from his own moral error, his failure

114 Johnston, Ian: Lecture on Milton's Paradise Lost; [The text of lectures delivered, in part, in English 200 at Malaspina University-College in November 1998]; at: http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/Eng200/milton.html115 Shelley, op. cit., pp. 111-12116 Ty, op. cit., html text117 Luxon, op. cit., V:860118 Ibid., IV:41-2119 Shelley, op. cit., p. 191

31

to love. He abhorred his creature, became terrified of it, and fled his responsibilities”120

[Gustave Doré, Satan in Milton’s Paradise Lost; 1866]

The Being is rightfully confused, he is deprived of mother and father, deprived of his past and deprived of any chances for having a future, and for no fault of his own. As Philip Allingham explains, the Being “is not a fully formed individual, but an ‘abortion’, a defilement of the

human form … The creature’s appearance immediately makes manifest his creator’s violation of social norms, for the monster’s ugliness exemplifies his impurity”.121 The fact that the Being remains nameless is another testimony to Victor’s attempt to distance himself from his creation. He is referred to as a “monster”, “fiend”, “dæmon”, “wretch” and “it”. When Victor converses with him in Chapter 10, he addresses him as “Devil”, “Vile insect”, “Abhorred monster”, “wretched devil” and “abhorred devil”. The word “fiend” is used 24 times in the novel. The misconception that the Being’s name is Frankenstein mainly arose from the screen renderings of the book. This is not entirely erroneous, as the logic behind it is that in the absence of a proper name he would thus be dubbed after his “father” and creator. Ty also acknowledges that many critics point out that this name matter is due to the fact that the creature and his maker are doubles of one another, or Doppelgängers. She indicates that “the conception of the divided self--the idea that the civilized man or woman contains within a monstrous, destructive force--emerges as the creature echoes both Frankenstein’s and narrator Robert Walton’s loneliness: all three wish for a friend or companion. Frankenstein and his monster alternately pursue and flee from one another. Like fragments of a mind in conflict with itself, they represent polar opposites which are not reconciled, and which destroy each other at the end.”122 Victor does, however, at some point realize that the responsibility for the Being is his: “For the first time, also, I felt what the duties of a creator towards his creature were, and that I ought to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness”123 but in effect fails to act accordingly.

The Being voices his plight: “Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust? God, in pity, made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid even

120 Bloom, Harold: An excerpt from a study of Frankenstein: or, The New Prometheus; Partisan Review, Vol. XXXII, No. 4, Fall, 1965, pp. 611-18. Reproduced in Literature Resource Center121 Allingham, Philip V.: Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” (1818) — A Summary of Modern Criticism; Victorian Web; at: http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/mshelley/pva229.html122 Ty, op. cit., html text123 Shelley, op. cit., p. 86

32

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Milton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Dore


from the very resemblance. Satan had his companions, fellow devils, to admire and encourage him, but I am solitary and abhorred.”124 His need is essentially so human, that the poignancy of his tragedy is even more so weighed upon the reader. Victor too feels the same need for a companion, as he tells Walton: “I have longed for a friend; I have sought one who would sympathize with and love me. Behold, on these desert seas I have found such a one, but I fear I have gained him only to know his value and lose him.”125

The Being reaches the only logical conclusion – in order for another being not to shun him, such a being must be “hideous” in the same way he is. He demands that Victor help him, although his threat is more of a plea: “I demand a creature of another sex, but as hideous as myself; the gratification is small, but it is all that I can receive, and it shall content me. It is true, we shall be monsters, cut off from all the world; but on that account we shall be more attached to one another. Our lives will not be happy, but they will be harmless, and free from the misery I now feel. Oh! my creator, make me happy; let me feel gratitude toward you for one benefit! Let me see that I excite the sympathy of some existing thing; do not deny me my request!”126 Victor initially agrees but eventually his “conscience” gets the better of him, as he grows terrified by the (Miltonian) prospect that this female creature will be “ten thousand times more malignant” than her companion, and that the two might produce “a race of devils”. Regretful, he exclaims: “Had I right, for my own benefit, to inflict this curse upon everlasting generations? … I shuddered to think future ages might curse me as their pest, whose selfishness had not hesitated to buy its own peace at the price, perhaps, of the existence of the whole human race.”127

Breaking his promise to the Being, Frankenstein disposes of the body parts he had gathered to produce the female. Outraged and deprived of the notion that he will ever find a companion, the Being declares “I will be with you on your wedding night!”128

Abandoned anew, full of rage and utterly alone, the Being starts to take his revenge. Yet, he does not stop his search for himself. When upon recollecting his reading of the Goethe’s Sorrows of Young Werther, the Being pronounces: “My person was hideous and my stature gigantic. What did this mean? Who was I? What was I? Whence did I come? What was my destination? These questions continually recurred, but I was unable to solve them.”129 It is evident that this “artificially” created Being is troubled by the same questions philosophers have been pondering upon for generations, the very same questions each human individual broods over; and similarly, he is left with no answer. In the 20th century, these reflections have been articulated in the form of existentialist philosophy.

§ Conclusion: Sin, Redemption and Farewell

Notions of sin, redemption, life, death, imagination, loneliness and the importance and value of the redemptive narrative itself – all resonate of the focal points in Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner (1797-1798). A passage from the poem is 124 Ibid., p.112125 Ibid., pp. 191-92126 Ibid., p. 127127 Ibid., pp. 146-47128 Ibid., p. 149129 Ibid., p. 111

33

quoted by Victor in Chapter 5 when, stricken by “fear and dread”, he anticipates the re-appearance of the Being:

Like one who, on a lonely road, Doth walk in fear and dread,And, having once turned round, walks on, And turns no more his head;Because he knows a frightful fiend Doth close behind him tread.130

An important imprint on Mary during her childhood time is undeniably the event of 1806 (when Mary was scarcely 9 years old) when she and Jane (she was still Jane at the time) Clairmont hid under the parlor sofa to hear Coleridge recite The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. A parallel between the Mariner’s voyage and those of the protagonists of Frankenstein is established at the very beginning of the novel when Walton accounts for his travels: “I am going to unexplored regions, to “the land of mist and snow,” but I shall kill no albatross; therefore do not be alarmed for my safety or if I should come back to you as worn and woeful as the “Ancient Mariner.” You will smile at my allusion, but I will disclose a secret. I have often attributed my attachment to, my passionate enthusiasm for, the dangerous mysteries of ocean to that production of the most imaginative of modern poets.131

“Alone––alone––all––all––aloneUpon the wide, wide sea–– And God will not take pity onMy soul in agony!”132

These lines comprise one of Mary’s late journal entries; and as they speak of the state of her inner self, they also voice the sufferings of many of her characters, most notably the Being. Shelley’s “Mariner”, Robert Walton, mourns his isolated state and desperately longs for a friend. Even more so, Victor not only shares Walton’s longing for a sympathetic soul, but is reminiscent of the Mariner in suffering the loss of his dear ones: for the Mariner these are his crew members, and for Victor his closest friend and his bride. Additionally, his “lonely road” is also that of a ground breaking scientist, one who has followed the footsteps of his predecessors up to a point, but who must solitarily engage in the culmination of his voyage. But it is the Being who suffers the utmost pain and misery of isolated existence. Near the end of the novel, he expounds his life to Walton: “Once I falsely hoped to meet with beings who, pardoning my outward form, would love me for the excellent qualities which I was capable of unfolding. I was nourished with high thoughts of honour and devotion. But now crime has degraded me beneath the meanest animal … the fallen angel becomes a malignant devil. Yet even that enemy of God and man had friends and associates in his desolation; I am alone.”133 His misery is so severe that he receives no consolation and companionship, not even from other fiends.

130 Ibid., p. 45 (quote from “The Rime of the Ancient Marinere”, VI:443-448)131 Ibid., p. 9132 Shelley, Journals, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 573133 Shelley, op. cit., pp. 199-200

34


A subtext to the entire story, another theme resurfaces – that of sin. Like the Mariner, Victor commits an intolerable crime against Life, and recoils from the Being whom he is supposed to provide for with guidance and affection. Walton, in another parallel to the Mariner, endangers not only his own life by pursuing his ideas of glory but also the lives of his crew. Yet, although he feels some compassion for the wretched Being, Walton does not hesitate to convict him for his “catalogue of sins”, yet laying no such claim over Victor’s misdeeds. The Being requests: “Am I to be thought the only criminal, when all humankind sinned against me?”134 Walton essentially fails to achieve an actual insight into the Being’s soul and the path it was enforced to undertake, from essentially sinless to remorsefully malignant. In view of the fate of Coleridge’s Mariner, it is important to distinguish between Victor’s sin, witnessed in the lack of true empathy for any living thing (aside from himself) and the failure to grasp another’s suffering, and that of the Being – although his act of retribution is hateful and fatal, he never ceases to feel empathy for the beings who have abhorred and violated him. The abhorrence he feels for himself is unmatched, aware that his “heart was fashioned to be susceptible of love and sympathy, and when wrenched by misery to vice and hatred, it did not endure the violence of the change without torture such as you cannot even imagine”.135

It seems that Coleridge principally adopts the Christian view of redemption. His Mariner is given a “lifeline”, and his salvation consists of two key deeds. Chiefly, it is the realization that even the most loathsome of creatures should not be robbed of love; deep love for Creation stirs in his heart and whilst marveling at the beauty of things, he unconsciously blesses the creatures that threaten him:

O happy living things! no tongueTheir beauty might declare:A spring of love gushed from my heart,And I blessed them unaware :Sure my kind saint took pity on me, And I blessed them unaware.136

He achieves love for even the most intolerable creatures, products of the utmost inhospitable offerings of Nature, the slimy sea serpents that encircled his ship, and thus the curse of his life-in-death slowly subsides. Once his conscience has been woken up, his duties shift towards the second stage of his salvation – he feels the burning urge to tell his story to others and thus exceed the belief he had attained for himself, by conveying it to others and educating by example.

The importance of the redemptive tale-telling in Frankenstein cannot be overstressed. All three major characters are driven by this urge. The Being recounts his miseries to anyone who would listen – at first to De Lacey, then to Victor, and finally to Walton. He concludes that the ultimate resolve to his suffering can be found only in death. With this, he bids his last farewell: “I shall die. … I shall no longer see the sun or stars or feel the winds play on my cheeks. Light, feeling, and sense will pass away; and in this condition must I find my happiness. … Polluted by crimes and torn by the bitterest

134 Ibid., p. 200135 Ibid., p. 198136 Coleridge, op. cit., IV:279-284

35

remorse, where can I find rest but in death? … Farewell! I leave you, and in you the last of humankind whom these eyes will ever behold. Farewell, Frankenstein!”137

[Death Rolling Dice; The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, 1878 Gustave Doré Engraving]

With Victor, the redemptive tale-telling serves the clearest of purposes, and although he initially invites his listener to share in the grandeur of his dreams, his final farewell has all the seeming of a cautionary moral: “The forms of the beloved dead flit before me, and I hasten to their arms. Farewell, Walton! Seek happiness in tranquillity, and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries.”138 Consequently, Walton’s concern for his crew wins over his ambition to seek the unexplored “region of beauty and light”. Although a mariner, Walton’s purpose in the novel is that of Coleridge’s Wedding Guest, who ultimately turns away “A sadder and a wiser man”.139 The ultimate tale-teller is Walton, who duly notes all of these strange occurrences in his letters to his sister Margaret. As the reader encounters the last sentence, “He sprang from the cabin window as he said this, upon the ice raft which lay close to the vessel. He was soon borne away by the waves and lost in darkness and distance”140, the reader is left with an uneasy feeling of abrupt closure. There is no account of what happens to the Being after he leaves Walton’s ship; there is no account of Walton’s return and reunion with his sister or her perspective on the matter. The reader is left with nothing but a blank page and an open mind. This perhaps serves to accentuate that after redemption, there can be no judgment.

A specific bond of identity appears to be established through the tale-telling: the listener recognizes the speaker’s experience as one that could have been his own, and in that the listener perhaps recognizes himself as the speaker’s double i.e. Doppelgänger. Creator and creation, listener and speaker, benevolence and malice, sin and redemption, life and death, imagination and science – all of these profoundly intertwined opposites serve to emphasize that creation and destruction are the inevitable counterparts of human

137 Shelley, op. cit., p. 201138 Ibid., p. 196139 Coleridge, op. cit., VII:621140 Shelley, op. cit., p. 202

36


existence, but that the full scope of knowledge in understanding these poles, rests solely in the hands of the all-loving, all-creating Supreme Being.

Farewell, farewell! but this I tellTo thee, thou wedding-guest!He prayeth well who loveth wellBoth man and bird and beast.

He prayeth best who loveth best,All things both great and small:For the dear God, who loveth us,He made and loveth all.141

§ List of References

Aesop: Fables Aesop; Trans. Laura Gibbs; Oxford University Press, 2002 Allingham, Philip V.: Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" (1818) — A Summary of Modern Criticism; Victorian Web; at: http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/mshelley/pva229.html Aynsley, E. E. & Campbell, W. A.: Johann Konrad Dippel, 1673–1734; PubMed Central (PMC3 - NLM DTD), US; at: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1034731

141 Coleridge, op. cit., VII:607-614

37

Benjamin Franklin in London, The Royal Society; at: www.royalsociety.org Bible, King James; Genesis, from The Holy Bible, King James version; Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library; at: http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvGene.html Blake, William: Marriage of Heaven and Hell; at: http://www.levity.com/alchemy/blake_ma.html Bloom, Harold: An excerpt from a study of Frankenstein: or, The New Prometheus; Partisan Review, Vol. XXXII, No. 4, Fall, 1965, pp. 611-18. Byron, George Gordon: Works; London: John Murray, 1832, at: http://www.poetry-archive.com/b/prometheus.html Clement of Alexandria: Stromateis: Bks.1-3 (Fathers of the Church); The Catholic University of America Press, 15 Dec 1992 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor: Biographia Literaria; 2004; at: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6081, ch15 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor: The Rime of the Ancient Mariner; revised version, including addition of his marginal glosses, published in 1817; Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library, 1994; at: http://etext.virginia.edu/stc/Coleridge/poems/Rime_Ancient_Mariner.html Compact Oxford English Dictionary; online database; at: http://www.askoxford.com/?view=uk Elliott, Paul: “More Subtle than the Electric Aura”: Georgian Medical Electricity, the Spirit of Animation and the Development of Erasmus Darwin’s Psychophysiology; Medical History Journal; April 2008; 52(2): 195–220; at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2329858 Finger, Stanley: Origins of Neuroscience: A History of Explorations Into Brain Function; Oxford University Press, USA, 2001. Finger, S., and Law, M. B.: Karl August Weinhold and his "science" in the era of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: Experiments on electricity and the restoration of life; Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences; 53, 161-180; 1998. Florescu, Radu: In Search of Frankenstein: Exploring the Myths Behind Mary Shelley's Monster; Parkwest Pubns, 1997. Fortson, Benjamin: Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction; Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Galvanic Reanimation; at: www.corrosion-doctors.org Glenn, Linda MacDonald: Biotechnology at the margins of personhood: an evolving legal paradigm; Journal of Evolution and Technology, issue 13 (Oct.), 2003; at: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/406/ Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas (translation): Paracelsus: Essential Readings; North Atlantic Books, 1999. Gross, John: About the Arts; The Golem - As Medieval Hero, Frankenstein - Monster and Proto-Computer; Sunday, New York Times, December 4, 1988. Heraclitus, online article, at: http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Heraclitus.htm Hite, Kenneth: Suppressed Transmission: The Second Broadcast; “Frankenstein Family Album”; Austin, Tex.: SJ Games, 2000.

38


In search of the real Frankenstein [videorecording] / produced by Wild Dream Films for the History Channel; produced & directed by Stuart Clarke; Burlington, VT: A&E Television Networks; [New York, NY]: Distributed by New Video, c2008. Jörg, Heléne: Frankenstein Castle, Shelley and the Construction of a Myth; July 25th, 2008; at: http://www.renegadenation.de/darmstadt/frankensteinengl.html; based upon the German article by Walter Scheele: “Burg Frankenstein, Shelley und die Konstruktion eines Mythos”; pub. Feb. 2nd, 2008. Johnston, Ian: Lecture on Milton's Paradise Lost; [The text of lectures delivered, in part, in English 200 at Malaspina University-College in November 1998]; at: http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/Eng200/milton.html Karbiener, Karen: Introduction and Notes to Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”; Barnes and Noble Classics, NY, 2003. Kochan, Mary: Sympathy for the Devil; March 27th, 2009; at: http://catholicexchange.com/2009/03/27/115601/ Lachman, Gary: Homunculi, Golems, and Artificial Life; Theosophical Society in America; at: http://www.theosophical.org/publications/questmagazine/janfeb06/Lachman/index.php Lattimore, Richmond, translation: The Odes of Pindar; University of Chicago Press, 1947; at: http://www.archive.org/stream/odesofpindar035276mbp/odesofpindar035276mbp_djvu.txt Lazier, Benjamin: God Interrupted: Heresy and the European Imagination between the World Wars; Princeton University Press, 2009 Looby, Robert: From the clay of the Kabala to the steel of Metropolis. The Golem Myth; December 2004; at: http://www.threemonkeysonline.com/als/_the_golem_myth_film_literature.html Luxon, Thomas H., Ed.: The Milton Reading Room; at: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton Newgate Prison Archive; entry: GEORGE FOSTER, Executed at Newgate, 18th of January, 1803, for the Murder of his Wife and Child, by drowning them in the Paddington Canal; with a Curious Account of Galvanic Experiments on his Body; at: http://www.exclassics.com/newgate/ng464.htm Newman, William R.: Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature; University of Chicago Press; 2004 Partington, Stephen Derwent: Radu Florescu, In Search of Frankenstein: Exploring the Myths behind Mary Shelley's Monster ; 1997; at: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~scat0385/florescu.html Pilkington, Mark: Sparks of Life; The Guardian, Thursday 7 October 2004; at: www.guardian.co.uk Phillips, Bill: Frankenstein and Mary Shelleys Wet Ungenial Summer; Universidad de Barcelona; 28.2 (December 2006): 59–68; at: www.atlantisjournal.org/Papers/28_2/BPhillips.pdf Simplicius: On Aristotle's Physics 5, (The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle); Ithaca, New York; Cornell University Press, 1997.

39

Shelley, Mary: Frankenstein; Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library, 1994; From the printed version: Shelley, Mary: Frankenstein; Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley; London, 1831; with the 1818 Preface. Shelley, Mary: The Journals of Mary Shelley 1814-1844, Vol. I: 1814-1822 & Vol. II: 1822-1844; Eds. Paula R. Feldman and Diana Scott-Kilvert; Oxford: Oxford UP; 1987. Shelley, Mary & Percy Bysshe: History of a Six Weeks’ Tour Through a Part of France, Switzerland, Germany, and Holland, With Letters Descriptive of A Sail Round the Lake of Geneva, and of The Glaciers of Chamouni; London: Published by T. Hookham, Jun. Old Bond Street; And C. and J. Ollier, Welbeck Street; 1817. Shelley, Percy Bysshe: A Defense of Poetry, Part I; at: http://www.uni-due.de/lyriktheorie/texte/1821_shelley.html Shelley, Percy Bysshe: On Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus; Thomas Medwin; Athenaeum for 10 November 1832. Stinson, Mark: The Real Dr Frankenstein; Parapsychology Plus, American Paranormal Investigations, Sacramento CA; May 28, 2007; at: http://www.ap-investigations.com/Parapsychology_DrFrankenstein.html Stevenson, David A.: The Galvanisation of Matthew Clydesdale; 1998; at: http://level2.phys.strath.ac.uk/ScienceOnStreets/galv05play.html#ref3 Syverson, Valerie: ‘Artificial Life’ explained in historical perspective; at: http://www.helium.com/items/163789-artificial-life-explained-in-historical-perspective The Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley Chronology; Romantic Circles; at: http://www.rc.umd.edu/reference/chronologies/mschronology/chronology.html Ty, Eleanor: “Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley” [biographical essay]; Dictionary of Literary Biography 116: British Romantic Novelists, 1789-1832; Ed. Bradford Mudge; Detroit: Bruccoli Clark Layman; 1992, 311-325; at: http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/shelleybio.html Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; various entries; at: www.wikipedia.org Williamson, George S.: The Longing for Myth in Germany: Religion and Aesthetic Culture from Romanticism to Nietzsche; Chicago, 2004. Wolf, Leonard: Introduction and Notes to Mary Shelley: Annotated Frankenstein; Clarkson N. Potter, Inc, NY, 1977. Wordsworth, William: Complete Poetical Works; Introduction by Morley, John; London: Macmillan and Co., 1888.at: http://www.bartleby.com/145/ww219.html

40

quest for life: imagination and science in mary shelley's frankenstein

Documents