Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Melissa_W
Posts: 4,124
Topics: 516
Kudos: 966
Blog Posts: 3
Ideas: 15
Registered: ‎10-19-2006

FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, 1831 Introduction, 1818 Preface, Letters I-IV, and Chapters I-IV

Please use this thread for discussion of the 1831 Introduction, 1818 Preface, Letters I-IV, and the first four chapters of Frankenstein.  Please clearly mark a SPOILER WARNING if your post contains references to plot points later in the novel.

Melissa W.
I read and knit and dance. Compulsively feel yarn. Consume books. Darn tights. Drink too much caffiene. All that good stuff.
balletbookworm.blogspot.com
Melissa_W
Posts: 4,124
Topics: 516
Kudos: 966
Blog Posts: 3
Ideas: 15
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

1831 Introduction and 1818 Preface

[ Edited ]

The Preface to the 1818 edition was published anonymously, as was the novel, but by 1831, when Colburn and Bentley* invited Mary Shelley to polish Frankenstein and provide an introduction for the new edition, it was well-known that Mary was the author of the tale.  Some have speculated Percy Bysshe Shelley was the author of the Preface, not Mary.  What in the Preface and Introduction would lead you to think Shelley was the author of the Preface?  Or do you think the Preface was by Mary, with Shelley as editor like the novel itself?

 

Additionally, do you think the Preface was necessary for the 19th century readership as opposed to the 21st century?

 

*Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley were the publishers of the Standard Novels series (and there are no Wikipedia links for this, nor any very good websites in general available with a succinct summary of the Standard Novels).  The series aimed to provide inexpensive reprints of popular novels, published at a regular interval every few weeks.  When the series ended in 1854 there were 126 volumes ranging from Jane Austen to Harriet Beecher Stowe and everything in between (Bentley, who continued in the business when Colburn resigned his partnership in 1826, arranged the sequence of titles alphabetically by author's last name).  I am unable to find a good listing of the final publication list but I think Frankenstein was about number 30 on the publication list (Choisya? have you ever run across a reference to this?) but the Bentley family papers are on deposit at UCLA Special Collections and there is a Google Books hit for The Reading Nation in the Romantic Period which provides some detail about the Standard Novels.

Melissa W.
I read and knit and dance. Compulsively feel yarn. Consume books. Darn tights. Drink too much caffiene. All that good stuff.
balletbookworm.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
pen21
Posts: 3,653
Registered: ‎03-23-2009
0 Kudos

Re: FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, 1831 Introduction, 1818 Preface, Letters I-IV, and Chapters I-IV

The style of the writing and the way things are phrased took me a little time to get into.

I am enjoying it very much.
I thought it was interesting that her husband Percy wrote the Preface to the book.

pen21

 

Melissa_W
Posts: 4,124
Topics: 516
Kudos: 966
Blog Posts: 3
Ideas: 15
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, 1831 Introduction, 1818 Preface, Letters I-IV, and Chapters I-IV

Do you think it necessary for publication that Shelley took on the role of writing the Preface for Mary rather than allow Mary to write it herself? 
pen21 wrote:


I thought it was interesting that her husband Percy wrote the Preface to the book.

pen21

 


 

Melissa W.
I read and knit and dance. Compulsively feel yarn. Consume books. Darn tights. Drink too much caffiene. All that good stuff.
balletbookworm.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
pen21
Posts: 3,653
Registered: ‎03-23-2009
0 Kudos

Re: FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, 1831 Introduction, 1818 Preface, Letters I-IV, and Chapters I-IV

I thought it was odd that Percy wrote the Preface. I am not sure the Preface was necessary.

And considering the excellent quality of Mary's writing skills, that Mary was certainly capable of writing one if needed.

I guess I wondered when it was discovered that Percy had written it.

It just adds to the mystery of the author and her husband.

pen21

 


Melissa_W wrote:
Do you think it necessary for publication that Shelley took on the role of writing the Preface for Mary rather than allow Mary to write it herself? 
pen21 wrote:


I thought it was interesting that her husband Percy wrote the Preface to the book.

pen21

 


 


 

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: 1831 Introduction and 1818 Preface

"The Preface to the 1818 edition was published anonymously, as was the novel, but by 1831, when Colburn and Bentley* invited Mary Shelley to polish Frankenstein and provide an introduction for the new edition, it was well-known that Mary was the author of the tale.  Some have speculated Percy Bysshe Shelley was the author of the Preface, not Mary.  What in the Preface and Introduction would lead you to think Shelley was the author of the Preface?  Or do you think the Preface was by Mary, with Shelley as editor like the novel itself?"

 

If what is called "Author's Introduction" in my copy is the same as the 1831 Introduction, Mary Shelley herself states in it:

"At first I thought but of a few pages, of a short tale, but Shelley urged me to develop the idea at greater length. I certainly did not owe the suggestion of one incident,  nor scarcely of one train of feeling, to my husband, and yet but for his excitement it would never have taken the form in which it was presented to the world. From this declaration I must except the preface.  As far as I can recollect, it was entirely written by him."

I presumed he did the preface for the publishers (and themselves) to capitalize on his known name, much as new editions of classics often are introduced today by well recognized authors, lending both cachet and sources of revenues.

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Contributor
TheTrueBookAddict
Posts: 10
Registered: ‎08-10-2009
0 Kudos

Re: FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, 1831 Introduction, 1818 Preface, Letters I-IV, and Chapters I-IV

First, I do feel that the Preface was completely unnecessary.  I have always had the impression that Percy was an overbearing and egotistical man and I think his writing the Preface was entirely a self indulgent act on his part.  This is just my personal opinion...I could be wrong, of course.

 

I can tell immediately that the Preface was definitely written by Percy.  All one has to do is compare the writing style of Mary in the intro to the writing style of the Preface and they are entirely different.

 

In the introduction, Mary seems a very humble person who may have been a bit surprised by her own creativity.

Medicine for the soul. ~inscription over the door of the library at Thebes

thetruebookaddict.blogspot.com

http://castlemacabre.blogspot.com/
Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, 1831 Introduction, 1818 Preface, Letters I-IV, and Chapters I-IV

[ Edited ]

 


TheTrueBookAddict wrote:

First, I do feel that the Preface was completely unnecessary.  I have always had the impression that Percy was an overbearing and egotistical man and I think his writing the Preface was entirely a self indulgent act on his part.  This is just my personal opinion...I could be wrong, of course.

 

I can tell immediately that the Preface was definitely written by Percy.  All one has to do is compare the writing style of Mary in the intro to the writing style of the Preface and they are entirely different.

 

In the introduction, Mary seems a very humble person who may have been a bit surprised by her own creativity.


 

Well, given her parents and her young tryst with Percy, while I haven't read a biography of Mary Shelley, "very humble" is hardly the first description I would have expected to apply to her!

 

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, 1831 Introduction, 1818 Preface, Letters I-IV, and Chapters I-IV

There is a difference between the way she lived her life while she was younger and the way she lived her life as she got older. She wrote the author's introduciton later in life, after she had already lost so much, so of course her tone would be a little bit "humbled" as opposed to if she had wrote it when she was youn and everyone around her was alive.  We already know she became more conservative in thinking and in life and that's why she edited out parts that built off of the beliefs or her mother and father.

 

I think humble is a apt word to use for where her mindset was at in her later years.


Peppermill wrote:

 


TheTrueBookAddict wrote:

First, I do feel that the Preface was completely unnecessary.  I have always had the impression that Percy was an overbearing and egotistical man and I think his writing the Preface was entirely a self indulgent act on his part.  This is just my personal opinion...I could be wrong, of course.

 

I can tell immediately that the Preface was definitely written by Percy.  All one has to do is compare the writing style of Mary in the intro to the writing style of the Preface and they are entirely different.

 

In the introduction, Mary seems a very humble person who may have been a bit surprised by her own creativity.


 

Well, given her parents and her young tryst with Percy, while I haven't read a biography of Mary Shelley, "very humble" is hardly the first description I would have expected to apply to her!

 


 

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Melissa_W
Posts: 4,124
Topics: 516
Kudos: 966
Blog Posts: 3
Ideas: 15
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Letters I-IV

The first narrator in Frankenstein is Robert Walton, gentleman and explorer (of sorts).  The four letters written to Walton's sister describe the preparations for his expedition to the North Pole, the fourth letter in particular relating the problems that befell Walton and his crew and the introduction of a drifting, mysterious stranger (Frankenstein) who only boards the ship once he learns it is bound for the North Pole.

 

A major theme in Frankenstein is the metaphor of light and fire in relation to the pursuit of knowledge and scientific discovery.  Walton supplies the first references to light in his first letter.  He is very single-minded in his quest for the North Pole or even a Passage to the Pacific Ocean; do you think he is foolhardy given that the history of exploration, although dangerous and littered with bodies, has demonstrated the need for sacrifice and determination?  Is Walton's quest for geographic knowledge really that dangerous?

Melissa W.
I read and knit and dance. Compulsively feel yarn. Consume books. Darn tights. Drink too much caffiene. All that good stuff.
balletbookworm.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, 1831 Introduction, 1818 Preface, Letters I-IV, and Chapters I-IV

Maybe its because I've just enrolled in a class on postmodern literature, where issues include how are gender, class, race, ..., presented, that I couldn't help but notice this passage in Frankenstein:

 

"Among these there was one which attracted my mother far above all the rest. She appeared of a different stock. The four others were dark eyed, hardy little vagrants; this child was thin, and very fair. Her hair was the brightest living gold, and, despite the poverty of her clothing, seemed to set a crown of distinction on her head. Her brow was clear and ample, her blue eyes cloudless, and her lips and the moulding of her face so expressive of sensibility and sweetness, that none could behold her without looking on her as of a distinct species, a being heaven-sent, and bearing a celestial stamp in all her features.

 

"The peasant woman, perceiving that my mother fixed eyes of wonder and admiration on this lovely girl, eagerly communicated her history. She was not her child, but the daughter of a Milanese nobleman. Her mother was a German, and had died on giving her birth. The infant had been placed with these good people to nurse: they were better off then...."

 

"When my father returned from Milan, he found playing with me in the hall of our villa a child fairer than pictured cherub--a creature who seemed to shed radiance from her looks, and whose form and motions were lighter than the chamois of the hills. The apparition was soon explained...."  (Chapter 1)

 

But, then, Gordimer's The Pickup alone might have evoked a heightened awareness.

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Letters I-IV

 


Melissa_W wrote:

The first narrator in Frankenstein is Robert Walton, gentleman and explorer (of sorts).  The four letters written to Walton's sister describe the preparations for his expedition to the North Pole, the fourth letter in particular relating the problems that befell Walton and his crew and the introduction of a drifting, mysterious stranger (Frankenstein) who only boards the ship once he learns it is bound for the North Pole.

 

A major theme in Frankenstein is the metaphor of light and fire in relation to the pursuit of knowledge and scientific discovery.  Walton supplies the first references to light in his first letter.  He is very single-minded in his quest for the North Pole or even a Passage to the Pacific Ocean; do you think he is foolhardy given that the history of exploration, although dangerous and littered with bodies, has demonstrated the need for sacrifice and determination?  Is Walton's quest for geographic knowledge really that dangerous?


 

Fascinating questions, Melissa.  I have never thought very much about all the efforts to find a Northwest passage from Europe to Asia, although most of us have been aware since probably fourth grade history of all the great explorers, from Vasco de Gama (~1460-1524) to Columbus (1451-1506) to Magellan (1480-1521) to Henry Hudson (d. ~1611) to ... who have searched for shortened water routes between the great land masses of this planet. 

 

 

This from Wikipedia: "One of the earliest expeditions to set out with the explicit intention of reaching the North Pole was that of British naval officer William Edward Parry, who in 1827 reached latitude 82°45′ North."  If one has a few minutes, a quick survey of the efforts to reach the pole in that Wikipedia article is rather fun. It is rather incredible how late into the 29th century many of these efforts extended -- and the range in the types of efforts.  They actually overlap the expeditions into space!

 

(I did not see names of explorers about whom Mary Shelley may have been reading (but no TV :smileysad: :smileyvery-happy: ) at the time she was writing Frankenstein.)

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, Chapter 2

In my continuing exploration as to why Frankenstein has never caught my fancy and indeed rankles, let me place this paragraph with its assumptions about gender characteristics:

 

"...Harmony was the soul of our companionship, and the diversity and contrast that subsisted in our characters drew us nearer together. Elizabeth was of a calmer and more concentrated disposition; but, with all my ardour, I was capable of a more intense application, and was more deeply smitten with the thirst for knowledge. She busied herself with following the aerial creations of the poets; and in the majestic and wondrous scenes which surrounded our Swiss home--the sublime shapes of the mountains; the changes of the seasons; tempest and calm; the silence of winter, and the life and turbulence of our Alpine summers--she found ample scope for admiration and delight. While my companion contemplated with a serious and satisfied spirit the magnificent appearances of things, I delighted in investigating their causes. The world was to me a secret which I desired to divine. Curiosity, earnest research to learn the hidden laws of nature, gladness akin to rapture, as they were unfolded to me, are among the earliest sensations I can remember."

 

It seems to me there are assumptions here about interests and predispositions so buried that they are not even recognizable.  But, maybe the female trained in science in me is being over sensitive?

 

A broader question:  Has Frankenstein colored attitudes toward science and, in particular, toward such practices as cloning, or is it simply an appropriate exploration of those risks, written already at a time that pre-dated Darwin's publication of Origin of Species (1859), Freud (1856-1939), DNA (~1952), Dolly (1996)?

 

Mary Shelley could look back on Cornelius Agrippa (1486-1535), Paracelsus (1493-1541), and Albertus Magnus (~1193/1206 - 1280) , but not forward to the incredible discoveries that would follow in the next 200 years.  It is interesting that her references are so far back in time -- I don't know what that implies, if anything, about her knowledge of more contemporary scientific work. (E.g., even  William Harvey, 1628.)

 

Pepper

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, Chapter 2

Mary Shelley could look back on Cornelius Agrippa (1486-1535), Paracelsus (1493-1541), and Albertus Magnus (~1193/1206 - 1280) , but not forward to the incredible discoveries that would follow in the next 200 years.  It is interesting that her references are so far back in time -- I don't know what that implies, if anything, about her knowledge of more contemporary scientific work. (E.g., even  William Harvey, 1628.)

 

 

I'm not sure anything could be implied by the references.  She was making the point that Frankenstein was going back and studying people that by his time were "discredited" is really the word I want to use but it's the closet my tired brain can come up with.  She pretty much says that Frankenstein was studying the old "masters" and not what was curretnly understood or being taught.  HIs one proffesor even razzes him about it.

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, Chapters 2-4

[ Edited ]

 


Ryan_G wrote:

Mary Shelley could look back on Cornelius Agrippa (1486-1535), Paracelsus (1493-1541), and Albertus Magnus (~1193/1206 - 1280) , but not forward to the incredible discoveries that would follow in the next 200 years.  It is interesting that her references are so far back in time -- I don't know what that implies, if anything, about her knowledge of more contemporary scientific work. (E.g., even  William Harvey, 1628.)

 

 

I'm not sure anything could be implied by the references.  She was making the point that Frankenstein was going back and studying people that by his time were "discredited" is really the word I want to use but it's the closet my tired brain can come up with.  She pretty much says that Frankenstein was studying the old "masters" and not what was curretnly understood or being taught.  HIs one proffesor even razzes him about it.


Ryan_G -- what I am playing with here is trying to place Frankenstein in the context of the time in which it was written.   It is hard to remember that this is a world that still had no concept of electricity as we take for granted today.  (George III, king at the time of the US revolution, still reigned until 1820.  James Clerk Maxwell, with his development of classical electromagnitc theory, was not born until 1831.)   This site gives a timeline of key inventions associated with electricity, including the light bulb ~1878.  About the time Frankenstein was written, discoveries were being made relevant to batteries and the electric motor.  Ben Franklin had established a relationship between electricity and lightning in 1752.  I was curious as to what scientists Frankenstein's father and two teachers, M. Krempe and M. Waldman, might have directed his attentiions when they decried the occult and alchemists of Frankenstein's predispostion.

 

I can't find it at the moment, but there is a reference to "galvanic" relative to electricity.  Luigi Galvani lived 1737-1798   His interests in electricity and the human body are certainly relevant to Shelley's theme.

 

Oh, here it is (near the end of Chapter 2: 

"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. All that he said threw greatly into the shade Cornelius Agrippa, Albertus Magnus, and Paracelsus, the lords of my imagination; but by some fatality the overthrow of these men disinclined me to pursue my accustomed studies. It seemed to me as if nothing would or could ever be known. All that had so long engaged my attention suddenly grew despicable. By one of those caprices of the mind, which we are perhaps most subject to in early youth, I at once gave up my former occupations; set down natural history and all its progeny as a deformed and abortive creation; and entertained the greatest disdain for a would-be science, which could never even step within the threshold of real knowledge. In this mood of mind I betook myself to the mathematics, and the branches of study appertaining to that science, as being built upon secure foundations, and so worthy of my consideration."

Can anyone comment on what Shelley means by the terms "natural history" and "natural philosophy" within the scope of Frankenstein?  I haven't been able to figure out the scope and differences of the terms as used in this context.

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, Ingolstadt

[ Edited ]

Some images and information about Ingolstadt in Bavaria, Germany, where Victor Frankenstein studied at the University.

 

Wikipedia article.

"...Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is related to the Ingolstädter Alte Anatomie (Old Anatomy Building), now a museum for medical history."

 

"The baroque era is today still represented by the Old Anatomy Building of the university (1723-1736, by Gabriel de Gabrieli)..."

 

"The X-Files episode 'The Post-Modern Prometheus' makes a reference to the University of Ingolstadt. This was an allusion to Frankenstein, as the episode was filled with Frankenstein references, and the full title of Frankenstein is actually 'Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus' (also see: Prometheus)."

 

The link to the University itself says that it was closed in 1800 (or 1802), which would have been before Mary Shelley wrote.  It was a forerunner of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, today one of the highest ranking universities in Germany.

Old Anatomy Building?

 

University of Ingolstadt  (see also related links from this page)

"The great syntheses of eighteenth-century anatomical knowledge were Buffon's massive Natural History (44 volumes, 1749-1804) and Baron Cuvier's Le regne animal distribué d'après son organisation (9 volumes, 1817-1830)."

 

The link on contexts-science-chemistry describes some of the great chemists of history.  The pictures suggest some of the types of apparatus and equipment Victor might have been involved in creating: 

"...None but those who have experienced them can conceive of the enticements of science. In other studies you go as far as others have gone before you, and there is nothing more to know; but in a scientific pursuit there is continual food for discovery and wonder. A mind of moderate capacity, which closely pursues one study, must infallibly arrive at great proficiency in that study; and I, who continuity sought the attainment of one object of pursuit, and was solely wrapt up in this, improved so rapidly that, at the end of two years, I made some discoveries in the improvement of some chemical instruments which procured me great esteem and admiration at the university...."  [Near beginning of Chapter 4. Bold added.]

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Melissa_W
Posts: 4,124
Topics: 516
Kudos: 966
Blog Posts: 3
Ideas: 15
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, Chapters 2-4

Here are the Wikipedia pages for natural philosophy and natural history.  They are the forerunners of physics and biology.


Peppermill wrote:

 


Ryan_G wrote:

Mary Shelley could look back on Cornelius Agrippa (1486-1535), Paracelsus (1493-1541), and Albertus Magnus (~1193/1206 - 1280) , but not forward to the incredible discoveries that would follow in the next 200 years.  It is interesting that her references are so far back in time -- I don't know what that implies, if anything, about her knowledge of more contemporary scientific work. (E.g., even  William Harvey, 1628.)

 

 

I'm not sure anything could be implied by the references.  She was making the point that Frankenstein was going back and studying people that by his time were "discredited" is really the word I want to use but it's the closet my tired brain can come up with.  She pretty much says that Frankenstein was studying the old "masters" and not what was curretnly understood or being taught.  HIs one proffesor even razzes him about it.


Ryan_G -- what I am playing with here is trying to place Frankenstein in the context of the time in which it was written.   It is hard to remember that this is a world that still had no concept of electricity as we take for granted today.  (George III, king at the time of the US revolution, still reigned until 1820.  James Clerk Maxwell, with his development of classical electromagnitc theory, was not born until 1831.)   This site gives a timeline of key inventions associated with electricity, including the light bulb ~1878.  About the time Frankenstein was written, discoveries were being made relevant to batteries and the electric motor.  Ben Franklin had established a relationship between electricity and lightning in 1752.  I was curious as to what scientists Frankenstein's father and two teachers, M. Krempe and M. Waldman, might have directed his attentiions when they decried the occult and alchemists of Frankenstein's predispostion.

 

I can't find it at the moment, but there is a reference to "galvanic" relative to electricity.  Luigi Galvani lived 1737-1798   His interests in electricity and the human body are certainly relevant to Shelley's theme.

 

Oh, here it is (near the end of Chapter 2: 

"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. All that he said threw greatly into the shade Cornelius Agrippa, Albertus Magnus, and Paracelsus, the lords of my imagination; but by some fatality the overthrow of these men disinclined me to pursue my accustomed studies. It seemed to me as if nothing would or could ever be known. All that had so long engaged my attention suddenly grew despicable. By one of those caprices of the mind, which we are perhaps most subject to in early youth, I at once gave up my former occupations; set down natural history and all its progeny as a deformed and abortive creation; and entertained the greatest disdain for a would-be science, which could never even step within the threshold of real knowledge. In this mood of mind I betook myself to the mathematics, and the branches of study appertaining to that science, as being built upon secure foundations, and so worthy of my consideration."

Can anyone comment on what Shelley means by the terms "natural history" and "natural philosophy" within the scope of Frankenstein?  I haven't been able to figure out the scope and differences of the terms as used in this context.


 

Melissa W.
I read and knit and dance. Compulsively feel yarn. Consume books. Darn tights. Drink too much caffiene. All that good stuff.
balletbookworm.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, Chapters 2-4


Melissa_W wrote:

Here are the Wikipedia pages for natural philosophy and natural history.  They are the forerunners of physics and biology.


Peppermill wrote [edited]:

 

Can anyone comment on what Shelley means by the terms "natural history" and "natural philosophy" within the scope of Frankenstein?  I haven't been able to figure out the scope and differences of the terms as used in this context.



Thanks, Melissa.  I'll take a look tomorrow.  I feel as if I am dipping into a history of science exercise.

Found this on a U of Penn site today: 

 

"William Godwin knew [Sir Humphry] Davy well, and in the early 1800s the scientist was a frequent guest at his home. How well Mary in her childhood would have understood Davy's prominence is not known, but as a family name his scientific advances could not but attract her later attention. The same can be said for the youthful Shelley, who was fascinated with chemical experimentation and a keen student of modern science. It is safe to say that from 1805 to 1825 there was no greater scientist practicing in England."

 

That site has a number of fascinating links on Frankenstein, including early reviewsand  biographical information.  (Access is denied to current reviews.) I haven't figured out yet how to use the entries comparing editions.

 
"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Scribe
Laurel
Posts: 5,747
Registered: ‎10-29-2006
0 Kudos

Re: FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, Chapters 2-4

That's a great source, P!!

 

The thing about the early modern scientists (natural philosophers) is that they in large part wrote and spoke in terms that the common man (and child) could understand. There's a famous painting of a demonstration of the depletion of oxygen. Can't find it right now, but a mouse is in a jar, dead, and the scientist is lecturing about the experiment to a group of adults and children. Anyone know what I'm talking about? Humphrey Davy was perhaps the most popular lecturor of his day, and men, women, and children flocked to his demonstrations.


Peppermill wrote:

Thanks, Melissa.  I'll take a look tomorrow.  I feel as if I am dipping into a history of science exercise.

Found this on a U of Penn site today: 

 

"William Godwin knew [Sir Humphry] Davy well, and in the early 1800s the scientist was a frequent guest at his home. How well Mary in her childhood would have understood Davy's prominence is not known, but as a family name his scientific advances could not but attract her later attention. The same can be said for the youthful Shelley, who was fascinated with chemical experimentation and a keen student of modern science. It is safe to say that from 1805 to 1825 there was no greater scientist practicing in England."

 

That site has a number of fascinating links on Frankenstein, including early reviewsand  biographical information.  (Access is denied to current reviews.) I haven't figured out yet how to use the entries comparing editions.

 

 

 

 

 

"Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it." ~~G.K. Chesterton
Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: FRANKENSTEIN: Week 1, Chapters 2-4

[ Edited ]

 


Peppermill wrote:

Melissa_W wrote:

Here are the Wikipedia pages for natural philosophy and natural history.  They are the forerunners of physics and biology.


Peppermill wrote [edited]:

 

Can anyone comment on what Shelley means by the terms "natural history" and "natural philosophy" within the scope of Frankenstein?  I haven't been able to figure out the scope and differences of the terms as used in this context.



Thanks, Melissa.  I'll take a look tomorrow.  I feel as if I am dipping into a history of science exercise.

Found this on a U of Penn site today: 

 

"William Godwin knew [Sir Humphry] Davy well, and in the early 1800s the scientist was a frequent guest at his home. How well Mary in her childhood would have understood Davy's prominence is not known, but as a family name his scientific advances could not but attract her later attention. The same can be said for the youthful Shelley, who was fascinated with chemical experimentation and a keen student of modern science. It is safe to say that from 1805 to 1825 there was no greater scientist practicing in England."

 

That site has a number of fascinating links on Frankenstein, including early reviewsand  biographical information.  (Access is denied to current reviews.) I haven't figured out yet how to use the entries comparing editions.

 

Thanks, Laurel.  I haven't explored all of it, so if you find some particular "goodies", please so bring them to our attention.

 

 

I do not recall the picture to which you refer.  However, here is a link to my favorite of Lavosier and his wife.


Another view.  At the Met -- can be zoomed and scanned in detail.

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy