RISS 검색 - 국내학술지논문 상세보기

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This essay argues that Frankenstein and the French Revolution correspondingly present the limitations of evolution and revolution, both of which are grounded in the Enlightenment belief in the capacity of reason.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France focus on individual scientific and collective political experiments on better kinds of creatures and societies, respectively. The Republic of Geneva, the hometown of Victor Frankenstein in Shelley’s novel, plays the role of connecting Shelley’s work to Burke’s in terms of the fictional realization of a political entity other than a monarchy. As part of fulfilling the infinite progress of human history, the French Revolution planned to establish a republican government and it succeeded until the emergence of Napoleon.
Then, Geneva seems to perfect an ideal political model of republicanism free from tyranny and despotism. The creation of a new species and the formation of a new government reflect utopian projects to bring bliss to humankind.
However, both the individual and collective approaches to utopian projects have monstrous results. Monstrosity hinges both upon Shelley’s and Burke’s critique of failed Enlightenment projects made manifest in the violation of nature, which occurred in the French Revolution and in Victor’s effort to procreate with no female engagement. What’s worse, Victor’s creature acts as the catalyst to reveal the apogee of social injustice prevalent in Geneva, as shown in Justine’s trial. In particular, her innocence is sacrificed for the sake of one of the privileged members of Geneva, namely, Victor Frankenstein. For this reason, the Republic of Geneva apparently demonstrates the limits of its founding principle of republicanism; it remains a partial achievement. Despite Shelley’s sympathetic treatment of the monster, both Shelley and Burke share conservatism that is critical of radical attempts to reform society on account of mere reason. Therefore, Shelley critiques Victor’s transgression of nature and for the most part agrees with Burke’s interpretation of the French Revolution as a monstrous tragic-comedy. Insofar as the theories of enlightenment, evolution, and revolution do not sufficiently acknowledge their limitations and self-destructiveness, each ultimately undermines the values that led to its inception and its ensuing development. Shelley’s novel and Burke’s work are two examples that demonstrate the very possibility and limits of the Enlightenment’s utopian projects on the basis of human rationality; both of them bear witness to the critical spirit integral to enlightenment in Kant’s terms.

번역하기

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Page, Michael R., "The Literary Imagination from Erasmus Darwin to H. G. Wells: Science, Evolution, and Ecology" Ashgate 71-110, 2012

2 Philp, Mark., "The Enlightenment World" Routledge 457-472, 2004

3 Williams, Howard., "The Enlightenment World" Routledge 635-647, 2004

4 Ferguson, Frances., "The Enlightenment World" Routledge 610-620, 2004

5 Brooks, Peter., "The Endurance of Frankenstein: Essays on Mary Shelley’s Novel" U of California P 205-220, 1974

6 Sterrenburg, Lee., "The Endurance of Frankenstein: Essays on Mary Shelley’s Novel" U of California P 143-171, 1974

7 Mellor, Anne K., "The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley" Cambridge UP 9-25, 2003

8 Bromwich, David., "The Cambridge Companion to British Literature of the French Revolution in the 1790s" Cambridge UP 16-30, 2011

9 팡리, "The Artistic Failure of Victor Frankenstein: Galatea Rejected, Prometheus as a Misfit, and Mary Shelley’s Critique of Romantic Hellenism" 영미문학연구회 23 (23): 139-158, 2012

10 Burke, Edmund., "Reflections on the Revolution in France and on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London Relative to That Event Intended to Have Been Sent to a Gentleman in Paris" Penguin 1986