Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein: or The Modern Prometheus, has stood over nearly two centuries as a literary masterpiece. Shelley gives birth to these two very essential characters, who we come to know as the creature and the creator of this being, scientist Victor Frankenstein. Throughout the novel, we see the battle between these two opposites, both physically and mentally, bringing to light many life lessons and struggles, one of them being what it means to be different and shunned from society. Victor Frankenstein’s creation, the creature, is neither man nor inhuman, but rather another species all on itself who has trouble navigating through this new life he was brought into. Often shunned, mocked, and ridiculed, the creature quickly realizes this world does not accept his nature. 

Upon beginning this novel, I was highly interested in Mary Shelley herself. Shelley, daughter of the infamous feminist Mary Wollstonecraft, followed in her mother’s footsteps in her ideas regarding women’s status in society. This knowledge and background on Shelley herself are interesting to show that Shelley’s life piece, Frankenstein, did not include a strong female protagonist. Instead, Shelley wrote in two leading male characters: a well-respected and genius scientist and an inhuman monster-like being. However, after reading further into it and keeping in mind Shelleys very own background, the connection between the creature and the female race can be made.

The creature is often shunned and mocked for things out of their control, just like women in Shelley’s time. Because of a woman’s appearance and features, they were deemed incapable of specific jobs, duties, or the ability to do things that the male race could physically do. The creature is also judged heavily on its appearance, looking inhuman and being described as grotesque and horrifying to some who cross his path. “A mummy again endured with animation could not be so hideous as that wretch. I have gazed on him while unfinished; he was ugly then, but when those muscles and joints were rendered capable of motion, it became a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived”(Shelley, p.55). Shelley describes through the creator’s eyes how horrific the creature is to the eye and making a comparison Dante inferring hell and satanic ideas. This comparison is attractive in how Shelley included how women were perceived in history, tying in women as evil and satanic creatures during the witch hunt era. In addition to appearances and physical differences, the creature is also viewed as Frankenstein’s property. The creature is not its being but rather an object associated with Victor. This idea of people being property to others is very similar to what women were encountering daily when Shelley was around. “But I knew that I possessed no money, no friends, no kind of property”(Shelley, p.143). Women at that time were not viewed as separate entities, but rather an accessory to their husband, with no thoughts, actions, or views held separately. 

Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein ties in feminist ideals by introducing the creature as one of the main protagonists. The beast is shunned, mocked, and treated as unequal to men throughout the novel, similar to how women were treated and viewed during Mary Shelley’s time. Shelley brought her background and beliefs into Frankenstein, making this novel even more complex, genuinely allowing it to stand the test of time.  

    This was not the first time I had read Frankenstein. Still, it was the first time that I read it diligently enough to catch on to the themes of alchemy, specifically the reference to the Philosopher stone and the elixir of life. I’m not going to lie when I read over this passage “My dreams were therefore undisturbed by reality; and I entered with the greatest diligence onto the search of the philosopher and the elixir of life.” (Shelly, p.23) where these items were mentioned my mind was kind of blown. I had never heard either of these terms used outside of the Harry Potter books before so to say I was surprised to learn that these are actual objects that have been studied throughout time was a shock to my system, to say the least. 

    The Philosophers Stone is a substance that could turn any metal such as iron, tin, lead, zinc, nickel, and copper into metals like gold and silver (Pruitt, 2018). It is said to come in a variety of substances ranging from anything from powder to red and white stones. The white stone is said to be a more immature version only being able to turn metals into silver, while the red can change them into gold. The history of this stone is said to date back to biblical times where Adam received the knowledge of it from God. According to the legend it was passed down to biblical patriarchs through the years. This stone was also mentioned in connection to the Temple of Solomon (Psalm 118). However, the first written account of the Philosopher’s stone was found to be c. 300 CE in Cheirokmeta by Zosimos of Panopolis. From the Philosopher’s stone, it was said that the elixir of life or the elixir of immortality could be created. The elixir of life is a potion that is said to give its drinker immortality, as well as cure any disease. If you believe the legend that it was passed to biblical patriarchs it would explain the longevity of their lives. 

    Both the Philosopher stone and the elixir of life have been studied by alchemists for centuries as alchemy is the study of finding ways to transmute metals, prolong life, and even create life (cough cough Victor Frankenstein). The history of alchemy goes all the way back to Egyptians and their beliefs of life, death, immortality, and mummification, as well as the Arabs and their beliefs of transforming metals into noble metals which they then brought to Spain. However, the height of alchemy came with both the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment period. 

The historic periods shaped the way Shelly created this story as the Enlightenment period was a time where philosophy and intellect dominated Europe and the Scientific Revolution shined a light on biology, mathematics, physics, astronomy, and chemistry. Using these major scientific advances Shelly integrated them into Frankenstein by making it the foundation of Victor’s character. We learn very early on about Victor’s love of natural philosophers such as Cornelius Agrippa, Paracelsus, and Albertus Magnus despite the criticism he receives for enjoying their works. These philosophers were monumental figures in alchemy science outside of this novel, making it very obvious that Shelly had outside influence from these scientific movements. These initial philosophers Victor fell in love with as an adolescent shaped the actions he would do later in life. When reading through Frankenstein Shelly really just name drops the Philosopher’s Stone and the elixir of life and moves on with the story, yet I think this is such a turning point within the story. This is where Victor’s fascination with alchemy goes from something he reads about and studies to something real. After he mentions the stone and elixir he begins his work on creating the creature and challenging life and death. With both the stone and the elixir there is a lot of worry about the soul not being complete if you are to create life using these methods and I think that is also really emphasized throughout the story. Victor views his creation as a soulless monster which aligns with the theories and worries that alchemists used to discuss. Shelly uses these objects in order to foreshadow and really create a foundation for this story. She integrates the science and philosophy of the time into a work of fiction and storytelling. Maybe this is Shellys way of theorizing what could happen if these real scientific and philosophical theories were to become real? Regardless I think the mentioning of these objects was extremely important for the structure of the story and can be overlooked if not engaging in the reading. 

                        References 

“Elixir of Life.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 Nov. 2021, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_of_life.

Nobes, Patrick, et al. Frankenstein. Oxford University Press, 2008.

“Philosopher’s Stone.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 Oct. 2021, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher%27s_stone.

Pruitt, Sarah. “What Was the Philosopher’s Stone?” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 25 Sept. 2015, http://www.history.com/news/what-was-the-philosophers-stone.

In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, one of Victor’s greatest sources of inspiration in his journey of scientific inquiry is German alchemist Cornelius Agrippa. In chapter two of the novel, when recalling his studies of natural science, Victor states: “When I was thirteen years of age… I chanced to find a volume of the works of Cornelius Agrippa. I opened it with apathy; the theory which he attempts to demonstrate, and the wonderful facts he relates, soon changes this feeling into enthusiasm. A new light seemed to dawn upon my mind…”. Victor is immediately drawn to Agrippa’s works, and is so overjoyed by this newfound wisdom, that he shows it to his father. Upon reading Agrippa’s works, William Frankenstein tells his son “do not waste your time upon this; it is sad trash” (68). After his father shows him simple experiments with electricity, Victor abandons his devotion to Agrippa’s work, stating ” “This last stroke completed the overthrow of Cornelius Agrippa, Albertus Magnus, and Paracelsus, who had long reigned the lords of my imagination.” (70), After his father demonstrates to him the natural principles of electricity, Agrippa’s wisdom is nothing but fiction to Victor. However, it may be possible that Shelley purposefully chose to mention Cornelius Agrippa as one of Victor’s first mentors in his passion for scientific knowledge, despite his ultimately small role in the novel.

Mary Shelley was known to have radical political beliefs for her time, and she was inspired by her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft’s beliefs, which, by today’s standards would be considered feminist ideas. Mary Wollstonecraft was the author of The Vindication of the Rights of Woman, which defended the concept of natural rights, especially those of women. Coincidentally, Cornelius Agrippa had published his own proto-feminist book in 1529, titled, Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex. In this book, Agrippa argues that woman are superior to men, and combats discriminatory portrayals of the female body in the Bible, Greek medicine, and other sources considered canon at the time. Agrippa states: “Woman was created as much superior to man as the name she has received is superior to his. For Adam means Earth, but Eve is translated as life. And as far as life is to be ranked above earth, so far is woman to be ranked above man”. He also defends Eve, and condemns men for being the source of evil and sin in all of us. He states, “it was therefore the man who committed the sin in eating, not the woman, the man who brought death, not the woman. And all of us have sinned in Adam not in Eve, and we are infected with original sin not from our mother, who is a woman, but from our father, a man” (Agrippa). As an early feminist, Shelley’s beliefs had an impact on her novel Frankenstein, and her ideas were shaped by earlier influences such as Agrippa, and her mother.

Despite the lack of prominent female characters in the novel, Frankenstein can be seen as an empowering work, through Victor’s contemplation of the creation of a female companion for the creature. Victor ponders, “She who, in all probability, was to become a thinking and reasoning animal, might refuse to comply with a compact made before her creation. They might even hate each other…and might he not conceive a greater abhorrence for it when it came before his eyes in the female form? She also might turn with disgust from him to the superior beauty of man; she might quit him, and he be again alone, exasperated by the fresh provocation by being deserted by one of his own species”. Victor is not concerned about there being two of the monster, he is worried that the female will develop autonomy, and have the rationality to make her own decisions. He is anxious that the female creature may not want to submit herself to the will of the original creature, which is what men at this time assumed was natural for women. Without this feminine influence, the creature grows hateful towards its creator, and this is what ultimately causes it to take its revenge on Victor. Despite the fact that he is only briefly mentioned in the beginning of the novel, mentioning Agrippa was a deliberate choice made by Shelley to reflect her radical beliefs, and alludes to the fact that the absence of a female mate is what causes the creature to cause Victor so much grief.

Works Cited:

Agrippa, Cornelius. “Declamation On The Nobility And Preeminence Of The Female Sex (1529)”. Mrdivis.Yolasite.Com, 2021, http://mrdivis.yolasite.com/resources/Agrippa’s%20feminism.pdf.

“A Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY: EXPLORING THE FRENCH REVOUTION, accessed November 18, 2021, https://revolution.chnm.org/d/579.

O’Shea, Ayla. “The Fear Of Femaleness: How “Frankenstein” Acts As A Feminist Platform”. Medium, 2016, https://medium.com/@aylaoshea/the-fear-of-femaleness-how-frankenstein-acts-as-a-feminist-platform-bfd3dfdf5b02.

Throughout Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, several concepts and objects are used as symbols to greater themes Shelley is trying to convey. There is the use of fire and light, which represent intelligence and discovery (such as how the Monster is drawn to the light of the small cottage, in which he learned of how humans behave by observing the family inside), and there is the use of Adam and other biblical figures as symbolic descriptions for the Monster (who refers to themself as Adam but is called a Devil or “Daemon” by Victor). However, I want to focus on the symbolic use of lightning, as it is quite possibly the most misrepresented symbol in all of Frankenstein.

Many people who haven’t read Mary Shelley’s original Frankenstein likely connect the use of lightning to the creation of the monster, but the novel doesn’t inherently mention electricity in the monster’s creation. While this may be a mistaken interpretation of Shelley’s use of the phrase “I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet.” (pg 83, Volume 1) However, use of lightning is more likely attributed to James Whale’s 1931 film adaptation to the novel, which established many of the tropes we associate with Frankenstein in the modern day. This isn’t to say that Shelley didn’t know the electrifying properties of lightning, as that information had become widespread by the point she had written her novel. But the use of lightning as a way of powering a machine, let alone a corpse, was beyond the thoughts of science fiction. 

The original symbolic meaning of lightning was to represent, and often foreshadow, death and destruction. This symbolic connection can be seen very early on in the novel, as Victor watches a bolt of lightning destroy a tree. This event sparks Victor’s interest in the philosophies of life and death but it also serves as a warning to the destructive and dangerous qualities of lightning. 

This destructive quality is used to describe the Monster as well, and lightning is used to foreshadow the arrival of the Monster with malicious intent. For example, after Victor returns to Geneva he sees the Monster silhouetted in the light created by a storm’s lightning. This event is preceded by the death of William, Victor’s brother, and alludes to the idea that the Monster killed William by using lightning to suggest the monster’s destructive capabilities. Lightning is also present at Victor’s wedding, specifically after it is revealed that the Monster killed Elizabeth. Both of these cases use lightning as a symbol of the Monster’s violent actions, but it’s also used to show the destruction caused by others. The most notable example of this is when Victor is attempting to create a partner for the Monster, he destroys his new creation in a thunderstorm. While destroying the body, Victor spots the Monster as he is illuminated by the light from the storm’s lightning. The use of lightning in this scene represents both the malicious intent by the Monster as well as the destructive actions of Victor Frankenstein. The use of lightning as a symbol in Frankenstein is often misunderstood. Most people see lightning as a symbol of life and creation when in actuality it is quite the opposite: a symbol of death and malicious destruction. It is important to understand the use of lightning in this book, as to understand the themes present and the author’s original intent.

The very start of the novel begins with a letter from Captain Robert Walton, remarking on his passage and expedition to the North Pole. The novel also ends with Walton confronting the creature and eventually turning back from his expedition. Initially, he describes it as a place of “beauty and delight”, even though he attempts to persuade himself of its dangers.  I took interest in Shelly’s use of the North pole as a framing device, and I find that the location fits well with the themes of the book. The mystery, the sense of the unknown, and the sense of danger that the North pole presents lends itself well to the narrative and there are clear connections that can be drawn between the setting, and the tone of the book.

In Shelly’s time, the nature of the poles was still largely unknown. Frankenstein is set in the late 1700s, a time when polar exploration was not widespread. Its writing and publication, however, was in the early 1800s, a time when exploration of the poles was really starting to take off; there was clear interest related to the discovery of its nature and of course, economic gain. Some of the very first expeditions were conducted with the hope of finding a “northern passage”, a theoretical trade route that would be able to act as a shortcut for merchant ships (Connors). However, the largest source of expeditions would actually be done in the post-Napoleonic age, through military expeditions (Beck, 1). 

There had been a few expeditions before the turn of the century, notably the voyage of Captain Cook, who in 1778 managed to “Penetrate the arctic circle” and sail through the Bering strait (Beck,2). Many of the following expeditions mainly charted islands that were found north of Siberia, as well as regions of Alaska. David Buchanan is a notable explorer, whose story seems to have some similarities with that of Walton. Buchanan was a Scottish naval officer who set off with fellow officer John Franklin in 1818 due to new reports of the Arctic ice having cleared up. Unfortunately, by the time they had reached the Arctic circle the ice had returned. They were trapped in the ice for a few weeks but eventually managed to escape. Buchanan wished to continue exploring, but Franklin overruled him, and they eventually returned home (Hayes). This story seems somewhat reminiscent of Walton’s journey, though it is likely unrelated as Shelly published Frankenstein in 1818.

The frigid setting of Walton’s journey, and Walton himself to an extent, seem to tie very clearly to Victor Frankenstein’s own characteristics and motives. Walton remarks at the emptiness of the land, a clear parallel to the isolation that Victor forces on himself. Walton desperately seeks friendship, yet he has willingly brought himself to one of the most isolated places on earth. Victor created the monster in a place of isolation, and the creature remarks that he “shall seek the most northern extremity of the globe; I shall collect my funeral pile, and consume to ashes this miserable frame, that its remains may afford no light to any curious and unhallowed wretch, who would create such another as I have been” (Shelly,158), dying in a place of isolation.

The pursuit of forbidden knowledge is another theme that is mirrored in this setting. Victor hopes to unravel the secrets of life, something that is taboo in and of itself, and Milton seeks to reveal the secrets of the North pole and magnetism, another great mystery of the natural world; in the case of Walton, he sacrifices his well being and the safety of his crew for the sake of knowledge. 

Sources:

Connors, Tiffany. “How North Pole Expeditions Work.” HowStuffWorks, HowStuffWorks, 1 Apr. 2008, https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/snow-sports/north-pole-expedition.htm#pt3. 

Beck, Rudolf. “‘The Region of Beauty and Delight’: Walton’s Polar Fantasies in Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein.’” Keats-Shelley Journal, vol. 49, Keats-Shelley Association of America, Inc., 2000, pp. 24–29, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30213044.

Hayes, Isaac Israel. The Open Polar Sea: a Narrative of a Voyage of Discovery Towards the North Pole: In the Schooner” United States”. London: Sampson Low, Son, and Marston, 1867.

http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/buchan_david_7E.html

Atheism/Religion in the creation of man/it’s own existence

“The other argument which is founded upon a man’s knowledge of his own existence, stands thus. — A man knows not only that he now is, but that there was a time when he did not exist; consequently there must have been a cause. But what does this prove? We can only infer from effects causes exactly adequate to those effects; — But there certainly is a generative power which is effected by certain instruments; we cannot prove that it is inherent in these instruments, nor is the contrary hypothesis capable of demonstration: we admit that the generative power is incomprehensible, but to suppose that the same effect is produced by an eternal, omniscient, Almighty Being, leaves the cause in the [same] obscurity, but renders it more incomprehensible.”

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/PShelley/atheism.html

If anyone is interested in reading “Paradise Lost,” here is a PDF of the full text.

(Sorry for the late post!)

Recently, I’ve started wearing jewelry much more often, and have built up quite a collection of bracelets, necklaces, and especially earrings. So, decided to tidy up my collection using Marie Kondo’s “joy test” (however, I did not actually get rid of any of the items). To store my accessories, I use this plastic container which is usually used for craft supplies like beads or embroidery floss. I have them organized in a way that seems cohesive to me, but may sound a bit strange to explain. The top left section contains a few necklaces (two of which happen to be references to Avatar: The Last Airbender). The section next to it contains all of my smaller earrings (from a set I bought at Target), and two pairs of hoops (these earrings being much more tame than the ones in the third section on the left).The second section on the left is the more necklaces, along with three glasses chains I bought in a set off Amazon, which I did not include in my process. The second section on the right is a set of chain necklaces I bought together, and another smaller silver necklace. The last two sections on the right contain bracelets, most of which I made myself.

Since my collection was already organized into categories, I was ready to begin Marie Kondo’s process of tidying up. Going section by section, I determined whether or not each piece sparked joy. With my necklaces, the process seemed fairly simple. I know which necklaces I wear the most often, and which ones I know I could live without. But there were a few that had me stumped. My necklaces of a cameo I bought in Italy, and Starlord’s blaster from Guardians of the Galaxy were two of my most worn necklaces for a long time, and their chains are evident of this. What used to be clean, shiny, silver metal now looked darker and almost black in some areas. It felt hard to let them go, but I have not worn either of them as much as I used to because of this. (Since they’re not real silver I have no way of cleaning them effectively). I ended up keeping the cameo, since it was one of my only souvenirs from my trip to Italy (and the most expensive one), and saying goodbye to Starlord’s blaster because it had served its purpose to me (and the Guardians of the Galaxy movie is much older than I remember).

Next was bracelets. I knew this category would be one of the hardest because most of the bracelets I own are handmade. I ended up keeping most of them, probably because it’s the category that has the least items. I do not wear bracelets very often, and I realized afterwards that I left out one of them because it was on my wrist the entire time, and I wear it almost every day (that bracelet obviously made the cut and stayed on me). I thought at first I would want to keep all of the handmade bracelets I had, since I was the one who got to decide what they looked like. This actually was not the case. I had two beaded bracelets, one that was a seven-layer stack of beads in the colors of the rainbow (this type of bracelet is called a cuff) and a small bracelet of multicolored star beads. As much as I enjoyed the rainbow cuff when I first made it, it’s not very good-looking and not the most practical to wear. I mostly made it to see if I could understand the process of how to do so. The same thing goes for the star bracelet. I made it using one of each color bead that came in the bag I bought, and it looks pretty, but is a little too tight, and the beads sometimes dig into my wrist when I wear it. These two bracelets did help me learn more about making kandi bracelets, but don’t serve much of a purpose in my daily life.

The last category was earrings. This was by far the biggest, and most recent collection of all. I only started wearing earrings daily towards the beginning of this year, and since then I’ve bought many different pairs. Most of my smaller earrings came from a set of 16 (?) pairs that I bought at Target. The bigger earrings come from a variety of sources, some from stores and local businesses, one pair from Amazon, and two handmade pairs. I ended up keeping most of the bigger earrings, except the black and white beaded ones. While I do wear them fairly often, and they match a lot of the outfits I wear, they don’t really look like the vision I had for them when I made them. They are supposed to be stars, and I’m not sure how well that comes across. I was also reluctant to say goodbye to the banana earrings I bought from the farmer’s market a few weeks ago. I’ve never worn them for more than about 10 minutes, because I did not like how transparent they are. Regarding the smaller earrings, I did not end up getting rid of most of them. I like how small and simple they are, and they match every outfit. I did get rid of one of the pairs that made me want to buy the set, a pair of black stars. I used to wear them at least 3-4 times a week, but soon after I started wearing them, the paint began flaking off of them. So, I put them to rest.

All in all, tidying up was a fairly straightforward process. I find it pretty hard to let go of things, especially something as habitual as clothing or accessories. But since the cost of jewelry can add up pretty quickly, I am often careful when making selections. If I had it my way, I’d buy any pair of funky earrings that catches my eye. It hurt my heart a bit to consider getting rid of pieces I had made myself, but I know that if they actually were to leave my collection, they could brighten up somebody else’s outfit. I feel happiest when I am able to be surrounded by things I enjoy (which is probably the reason why half my desk at home is filled with knickknacks), but I also know that too much of a good thing exists. All of the pieces in my collection have had a chance to shine, but some of them do a better job than others. I enjoyed Kondo’s process much more than I thought I would have when I first learned what it entailed. I’m not sure if it would have been this cut-and-dry if I was actually planning on getting rid of the items, but the feelings were still there. I would definitely consider using this process on a larger collection, like my books, when I come home.

I typed up a document of the work we did on the “Overseers of the Poor of Town of New Paltz”