In Victor Frankenstein’s youth at the age of thirteen, he came across the works of Cornelius Agrippa, a 16th century natural philosopher. Frankenstein recalls this book as that which catapulted him into his obsession with mastering the mystical, alchemical sciences; he says, “My dreams were therefore undisturbed by reality; and I entered with the greatest diligence into the search of the philosopher’s stone and the elixir of life.” It was discovering this field of study and the non-accepting way his father had received his interest in the field that he claims ultimately led him to take on a quest for curing human malady and “rendering man invulnerable to any but a violent death.”
“If, instead of this remark, my father had taken the pains to explain to me, that the principles of Agrippa had been entirely exploded, and that a modern system of science had been introduced, which possessed much greater powers than the ancient…., I should certainly have thrown Agrippa aside… It is even possible, that the train of my ideas would never have received the fatal impulse that led to my ruin.” (Shelley, 68)
Agrippa considered himself a “magus,” someone who practices what was called natural or white magic, one who could perceive the connections of everything in the universe and manipulate them for the greater good. It was the idea of being able to create life out of dead matter by manipulating what was already in existence, that Frankenstein had which was a direct application of Agrippa’s described “natural magic.”
Agrippa’s most famous work, “Three Books of Occult Philosophy,” is one of the most well-known books on the subject to date and led to his repudiation by religious leaders and theologists. However, in Agrippa’s later years he published a book titled, “De Vanitate,” (short for “De Incertitudine Et Vanitate Scientiarum Liber,”) which surprisingly refuted everything he had written in his earlier years in his previous books on the occult. “De Vanitate” was even more widely printed and published in more languages. In it, Agrippa proposes the uncertainty and uselessness of every known field of study, including the occult, which was the heart of his work not too long before. He challenges the disconnect between different schools of thought and seeks cultural, religious, and scientific reform.
There is a lot of speculation as to why Agrippa wrote two books with such contradictory messages. Some scholars, such as Henry Morley in 1856 have posited that “De Vanitate” is a denunciation of the heedless quest for knowledge; a revelation of the dangers of knowledge when met with hubris. As to Victor Frankenstein’s reception of Agrippa’s writings, only the occult writings made an impression on Victor. It’s unusual that Victor didn’t acknowledge such an important aspect of a scholar whose work he admired so much.
It seems fitting that through disregarding an entire element of Agrippa’s works, one which should have made him rethink “his creation,” he did exactly what Agrippa was possibly warning us about. He allowed the innocent pursuit of knowledge to be corrupted with ego and selfish motivation.
I believe the tunnel vision he developed for one aspect of Agrippa’s works while disregarding the other, was Shelley’s intention. Her incorporation of someone with such powerful yet conflicting ideas into Frankenstein’s young impressionable self, was meant to reflect humanity and the motivations that drive our quest for knowledge, the obsession that takes over, and the insatiability that is inherent to it. It was also a perfect foreshadowing of Victor’s fate.
Bowen, Barbara C. “CORNELIUS AGRIPPA’S DE VANITATE: POLEMIC OR PARADOX?” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 34, no. 2 (1972) http://www.jstor.org/stable/41430209.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41430209
The Materials of History, Thought, and Art 
Hi Sydney! I really like your interpretation of Shelley’s inclusion of Agrippa in the novel. It’s interesting to learn that Agrippa published his ideas, only to refute them years later after they were denounced by the church. It’s possible that Shelley included Agrippa to foreshadow how Victor’s pursuit of knowledge becomes one for personal gain, rather than for the sake of learning. I think it’s important to note that Victor was at an impressionable age when he found Agrippa’s work, which may be the reason why his reasons for pursuing science changes when he gets the idea of creating the monster. Good job!