💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › percy-bysshe-shelley-on-frankenstein.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:12:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: On "Frankenstein"
Author: Percy Bysshe Shelley
Date: 1832
Language: en
Topics: notes, science fiction
Source: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Prose_Works_of_Percy_Bysshe_Shelley/On_%22Frankenstein%22

Percy Bysshe Shelley

On "Frankenstein"

The novel of "Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus," is undoubtedly,

as a mere story, one of the most original and complete productions of

the day. We debate with ourselves in wonder, as we read it, what could

have been the series of thoughts—what could have been the peculiar

experiences that awakened them—which conduced, in the author's mind, to

the astonishing combinations of motives and incidents, and the startling

catastrophe, which compose this tale. There are, perhaps, some points of

subordinate importance, which prove that it is the author's first

attempt. But in this judgment, which requires a very nice

discrimination, we may be mistaken; for it is conducted throughout with

a firm and steady hand. The interest gradually accumulates and advances

towards the conclusion with the accelerated rapidity of a rock rolled

down a mountain. We are led breathless with suspense and sympathy, and

the heaping up of incident on incident, and the working of passion out

of passion. We cry "hold, hold! enough!"—but there is yet something to

come; and, like the victim whose ​history it relates, we think we can

bear no more, and yet more is to be borne. Pelion is heaped on Ossa, and

Ossa on Olympus. We climb Alp after Alp, until the horizon is seen

blank, vacant, and limitless; and the head turns giddy, and the ground

seems to fail under our feet.

This novel rests its claim on being a source of powerful and profound

emotion. The elementary feelings of the human mind are exposed to view;

and those who are accustomed to reason deeply on their origin and

tendency will, perhaps, be the only persons who can sympathize, to the

full extent, in the interest of the actions which are their result. But,

founded on nature as they are, there is perhaps no reader, who can

endure anything beside a new love-story, who will not feel a responsive

string touched in his inmost soul. The sentiments are so affectionate

and so innocent—the characters of the subordinate agents in this strange

drama are clothed in the light of such a mild and gentle mind—the

pictures of domestic manners are of the most simple and attaching

character: the pathos[1] is irresistible and deep. Nor are the crimes

and malevolence of the single Being, though indeed withering and

tremendous, the offspring of any unaccountable propensity to evil, but

flow irresistibly from certain causes fully adequate to their

production. They are the children, as it were, of Necessity and Human

Nature. In this the direct moral of the book consists; and it is perhaps

the most important, and of the most universal application, of any moral

that can be enforced ​by example. Treat a person ill, and he will become

wicked. Requite affection with scorn;—let one being be selected, for

whatever cause, as the refuse of his kind—divide him, a social being,

from society, and you impose upon him the irresistible

obligations—malevolence and selfishness. It is thus that, too often in

society, those who are best qualified to be its benefactors and its

ornaments, are branded by some accident with scorn, and changed, by

neglect and solitude of heart, into a scourge and a curse.

The Being in "Frankenstein" is, no doubt, a tremendous creature. It was

impossible that he should not have received among men that treatment

which led to the consequences of his being a social nature. He was an

abortion and an anomaly; and though his mind was such as its first

impressions framed it, affectionate and full of moral sensibility, yet

the circumstances of his existence are so monstrous and uncommon, that,

when the consequences of them became developed in action, his original

goodness was gradually turned into inextinguishable misanthropy and

revenge. The scene between the Being and the blind De Lacey in the

cottage, is one of the most profound and extraordinary instances of

pathos that we ever recollect. It is impossible to read this

dialogue,—and indeed many others of a somewhat similar

character,—without feeling the heart suspend its pulsations with wonder,

and the "tears stream down the cheeks." The encounter and argument

between Frankenstein and the Being on the sea of ice, almost approaches,

in effect, to the expostulation of Caleb Williams with Falkland. It

reminds us, indeed, somewhat of the style and character of that

admirable writer, to whom the ​author has dedicated his work, and whose

productions he seems to have studied.

There is only one instance, however, in which we detect the least

approach to imitation; and that is the conduct of the incident of

Frankenstein's landing in Ireland. The general character of the tale,

indeed, resembles nothing that ever preceded it. After the death of

Elizabeth, the story, like a stream which grows at once more rapid and

profound as it proceeds, assumes an irresistible solemnity, and the

magnificent energy and swiftness of a tempest.

The churchyard scene, in which Frankenstein visits the tombs of his

family, his quitting Geneva, and his journey through Tartary to the

shores of the Frozen Ocean, resemble at once the terrible reanimation of

a corpse and the supernatural career of a spirit. The scene in the cabin

of Walton's ship—the more than mortal enthusiasm and grandeur of the

Being's speech over the dead body of his victim—is an exhibition of

intellectual and imaginative power, which we think the reader will

acknowledge has seldom been surpassed.

[1] In The Athenæum and The Shelley Papers the word father's occurs here

instead of pathos. As father's barely makes sense, and pathos is

unquestionably the right word, there need be no hesitation in crediting

Medwin with an error of transcription.