Search This Blog

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Ties Seen and Felt

Finding romanticism in music and art isn’t terribly hard to do. Criteria simply seems to be that the composer sing from the heart or paint with soul. However the idea of taking something, an emotion, that's inside a human and projecting it outwards is defied by form and structure. At least, something that comes from an individual is not always going to easily fall into a structure that already exists. This is why romantic ideas are so easy and yet so hard to pinpoint; originally, it was not so. "Romanticism, in the original application of the word, means what is peculiar to the Middle Ages... In Antiquity, body and soul maintained a steady equilibrium; in the Middle Ages, the soul outbalanced the body." (Niecks) While this presents an interesting idea, he goes on to refute the claim saying that most of modern romanticism strays from the concepts inherent to medievalism and some even run opposite. However, it's possible for individuals to express themselves in a romantic fashion through a form or structure. Take for example Beethoven's third "Eroica" Symphony. At the time, his contemporaries were writing symphonies in the standard classical form. Beethoven took the standard symphonic form and essentially broke all the rules by extending it and making harmony and rhythm more complex. Granted, the piece doesn't fit exactly into the standard classical symphony form but the piece is still considered a symphony. In fact, Beethoven's original intentions were to dedicate his third symphony to Napolean Bonaparte. The idea of dedication touches on programmatic music which we discussed in class, another facet of romantic music. To delve into our class readings for a moment, the only piece that was clearly unconventional was Blake's "Marriage of Heaven and Hell." The majority of the smaller works fit into the category of a "poem." The question that plagues me now is whether classicism exists in romanticism or romanticism exists in classicism. In order to answer the question, one must decide on a standard. Classicism came first so its only natural to consider it the standard. Romanticism seemed to come along and expand upon it. However, romantic ideas stem from the soul which could ultimately make it the standard for considering and classifying ideas simply because the individual creating the art knows best how it should be perceived. But let's not pretend that ideas categorized as classic can't also come from the soul. In fact, composers such as J.S. Bach and Josquin Des Prez were very capable of expressing emotion and they did it through structure and standards that had come before them. (So could romantic idea and feeling perhaps be the standard of the composer and classic structure be the standard of a discipline? After all, the only difference between classic and romantic music is that the aim of the idea of romantic music is to evoke emotion, whereas the aim of classical is to be structured and correct. Individuals such as J.S. and Des Prez just so happened to be flexible enough to fit their art into a mold, it happened by chance but considering the time period was fortunate for them) Artists were also very capable of achieving higher meaning; one such artist being Louis David with a painting entitled "The Oath of the Horatii." Completed in 1784, the painting depicts three Horatii men swearing an oath of allegiance to their swords and Rome. The men are to avenge the honor of their sister. There is nothing abstract about the painting. The color scheme is normal, the most intense color being the characteristic Roman red. The men in the scene have little to no emotion on their faces. Three swear allegiance and the fourth simply holds the swords to signify the strength of the men and their country. The women in the background seemingly weep for the soldiers and their possible doom. However even with all of this standard depiction the painting speaks loudly about patriotism, honor, and grief. All three are fairly subjective emotions but still, the painting conveys them to the viewer. This is romantic idea being present in classic art, especially when the time period is taken into consideration. Since 1784 is just five years before the start of the French Revolution the painting takes on another meaning when placed in historical context. Viewers would've been instilled with a sense of patriotism and duty. (Antal) I feel that throughout the debate between romanticism or classicism, the real answer is finding one in the other and really almost without distinction. One need only know what to be searching for. The article by Liebich highlights many classical composers and then gives a romantic idea about them. For example, Mozart is described in an interesting manner. Liebich uses romantic language to persuade the reader that Mozart's music is in fact romantic. "Spring with its mercurial new skies" compares Nature to Mozart's music. Here we see a romantic idea: taking something and comparing it to Nature. But really, we encounter the same idea in literature. Again, poems, prose, and even an essay can all express a huge amount of emotion but it's up to the author whether or not they wish to fall into the classification. Niecks also brings up a point that most romantics, when expressing themselves the way they wish, simply do not fall into a category.

William Blake believed that nothing was truly original because no matter what an author wrote, it was still in the English language and was confined to the borders of the English language and the methods in which humans have grown comfortable thinking in. If Blake was right, and I think he's got a good point, then instead of forever attempting and failing to create new things why not mix what we have? It seems to be a step backward in the creativity spectrum but musical fusion has been growing over the past decades; for example, the fusion of latin music and jazz or folk tunes written into symphonic compositions. Instead of seeking something totally new and original, composers like Bela Bartok have fused two familiar things and made them something new. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

In the end romanticism can be tallied up to those individuals who felt so compelled to write in such a manner as to upset precedent.

Works Cited

Antal, Friedrich. “Reflections on Classicism and Romanticism.” The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 66.385 1935, pp. 159-168.

Liebich, Frank. “The Fusion of Classicism and Romanticism.” The Musical Times Vol. 68. 1010. 1927, pp. 311-313.

Niecks, Professor. “Romanticism in Music”. The Musical Times and Singing Class Circular. Vol. 40, No. 682. 1899, pp. 802- 805.

How to be a Romantic Poet

I found this article when googling the term, "Romantic Poet."

It's definitely something to look into, at least for a good laugh during finals.
:)

http://www.utne.com/archives/HowtoBeaRomanticPoet.aspx

The Consumption

“He who seeks revenge should dig two graves.” There were only two things that Heathcliff wanted from Catherine Earnshaw, absolute revenge and absolute love. The personalities of the two were at odd from their beginning yet like moths to a light they were constantly drawn to one another. Heathcliff’s thoughts were never far form Catherine; constantly thinking what he could do to spite her and yet what he could do to be with her. These thoughts turned into an all-consuming obsession that manifested to involve everyone in Wuthering Heights. This consumption would lead Heathcliff to do irrational, wild, disconnected acts of revenge and love. All in the name of Catherine Earnshaw.

Consumption does not arise out of nothing though. When Heathcliff was brought to Wuthering Heights, he had no companions except for Catherine or Cathy as the family called her. The two never wanted to be apart and this was when there love began to grow. For Heathcliff, Cathy was the only one of the Earnshaws that would even look him in his dark gypsy eyes. In his isolation, Cathy was the only one that would not only speak to him but she always wanted to be with him, playing or just sitting. For Heathcliff, this was his only light in life and it is easy to see why he was easily attached. It was not only love for Cathy Heathcliff had, but a need. He needed her when he was being persecuted from Hindley and the whole family. She licked his wounds and gave him courage to stay strong against attacks. In this type of relationship, Heathcliff found a dependency in Cathy and together they grew into a codependent one.

Though unhealthy, the relationship was flourishing for Heathcliff and Cathy; until the fateful day with of the dog bite. After being rushed into the Linton home, Heathcliff stood in the rain watching her in the house. She had left him. Heathcliff had always been in outsider and in that moment, he actually was from the one person that loved him. The was a turning point for Heathcliff and it was only worsened by her insulting him in the same way he had been by so many others. “Why, how very black and cross you look! and how - how funny and grim,” is the very first thing she says to him upon her return (Bronte 50). By teasing him for his dirty appearance, like everyone else at Wuthering Heights has done, she is sealing her fate as an enemy. At this point, Cathy had broken everything there was between her and Heathcliff. Heathcliff’s attitude of trust and love turned to frustration. Frustration because he had loved Cathy so and she had betrayed him; and with this frustration came anger. Healthcliff began to hate Cathy, hate her for what she had done to him and whom she had turned into. Thus revenge came in to Heathcliff’s life and filled the void.

While Heathcliff had been angry and had darkness in him before, this event certainly brought it out. Heathcliff started lashing out at everyone more than his usual nitpicking and instigator ways. From refusing to acknowledge or touch Cathy, throwing hot applesauce at Edgar or lashing out at Mrs. Dean, Heathcliff began to manifest his anger with Cathy into the rest of the family in ways he never had before. There were no more childish games of telling on telling to Mr. Earnshaw or showing bruises to get what he wanted. “Heathcliff mingles his threats of violence with a number of plausible arguments propounded in order to prove,” what he felt he was wronged for (Tytler 237). As it was a change for Heathcliff, so came a change in everyone else. Hindley had become the strict brash head of the household he had always wanted to be and with that power he could treat Cathy and especially Heathcliff any way he wanted. Cathy had gone onto a proper lady and with that came the expectations of one. Her childish wild and bratty ways were now the pretentious attitude and judgments of one trying to fit in. Yet Cathy was harboring secrets that would explode to be another great turning point for the lives of herself and Heathcliff.

“It would degrade me to marry Heathcliff now; so he shall never know how I love him,” (Bronte 86). With Heathcliff eavesdropping behind a door, Cathy told the secret that she had been holding; that she did in fact love Heathcliff. This was the moment that he had been waiting and hoping for. It could have been the end of their anger and revenge for each other and the taking back up of their romance. Yet Cathy could not marry Heathcliff because of her new found status. Nothing would be worse for Heathcliff. In an irrational emotional state, Heathcliff left. Emotions of rage and hurt took over and he left in the storming night weather. Heathcliff’s actions did not just affect him though; they sent Cathy into a downward spiral of rage. Rage in herself that was taken out on her new husband Edgar and Nelly. The two then began a new game of revenge, using jealousy as their weapon. The two used siblings Edgar and Isabella to hurt the other, making them think they were deeply in love and cared not for the other anymore. Anyone could see this though and Heathcliff finally goes on to say “You are welcome to torture me to death for your amusement, only allow me to amuse myself a little in the same style,” (Bronte 186). As they carried on this odd tryst, they ruined the lives of their spouses.

“Heathcliff is, in any case, remarkable in other contexts for his quickness, his articulation, and his sharp-wittedness, as he is for his preoccupation with reasons, causes, and proofs, especially legal ones, in the planning and shaping of his life as well as the lives of those in his care,” (Tytler 237).

Heathcliff would go on to destroy Isabella with hateful words, evil actions and admitting that he only married her to spite her brother, Edgar. His consumption with Cathy made him blind to the slow death he was causing his wife and his actions towards her grew more and more irrational. As Graeme Tytler says in the article, “The Parameters of Reason in Wuthering Heights” the two had “the minds of two seemingly all too confident of their reason or reasonableness,” yet that was the problem. Heathcliff and Cathy were so confident in their plans to punish each other and they thought them to be absolutely reasonable that they became blind (Tytler 235).

Eventually, their consumption would face its hardest test; the death of Cathy. While on her deathbed they continued to bicker and Cathy said she would come to haunt him forever, it was here that their love was brought back. After years of carrying on their affair of hatred and devotion, they found their way back to each other. While this seems like the perfect fairy tale ending, it is really just another twist in their irrationality. Heathcliff tried to fight with Cathy even on her death bed, daring her to come haunt her as she said she would. It is not till she actually dies that he comes to her coffin to see her one last time; to look at her the way he always wanted to, with love and devotion. His irrationality does not end with her death though. Upon nearing his own death, he builds himself and Cathy a joint coffin so that they can spend eternity together. He also asks Cathy’s grave to be furthered from Edgar’s.

Heathcliff’s consumption of love lead him to do irrational acts of vengeance and hate to his one true love, Cathy, as well as all the people that came into his life at Wuthering Heights. It was this obsessive consumption that lead to these acts and the end of everyone at Wuthering Heights in the end. “He who seeks revenge should dig two graves.” For Heathcliff, he did not dig two graves, but built one for two.

Works Cited

Phillips, James. "The Two Faces of Love in Wuthering Heights." Bronte Studies 32

(2007): 96-105. Print.

Tytler, Graeme. "Nelly, I am Heathcliff!": The Problem of "Identification" in

Wuthering Heights." Midwest Quarterly: A Journal of Contemporary Thought 47.2 (2006): 167-81. Print.

Tytler, Graeme. "The Parameters of Reason in Wuthering Heights." Bronte Studies 30

(2005): 231-42. Print.

A Romantic Persuasion


Charlotte Bronte once remarked in 1848 that Jane Austen was “a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers” (Tarlson, 14). Jane Austen has a reputation based on her propriety of being a good, genteel woman untainted by the social upheaval surrounding her. Indeed, there is not a single, direct mention of the Napoleonic wars in any of her novels besides the presence of soldiers and sailors. However, beneath this simple exterior lies an unexplored literary world, much like that of the secrets of the Victorian home found in Wuthering Heights. Austen was increasingly affected by the French and Industrial Revolutions, the ideas contained within of individuality and social change espoused by Romantic poets, which can be catalogued with each subsequent novel. In particular, Persuasion, her final novel, is filled with “emotion, passion, and the revolutionary ideas of the Romantics” both in terms of the themes mentioned above and structure (14).

The structure of Persuasion, resembles Romantic literature in a number of ways, and is not merely confined to themes. Unlike Austen’s previous works, the narration of the novel although remaining objective, follows Anne Elliot’s understanding of the events much like a stream of consciousness: “the only interpretation and penetration of character, motivation and behavior we are given are Anne’s” (Thomas, 901). For example, when Frederick Wentworth removes Anne’s nephew from jumping on her back, Anne assumes that “her conversation was the last of his wants” because Wentworth preoccupies himself with the child (80). Like Wuthering Heights’ Lockwood and Nelly and Frankenstein’s Walton and Victor, the reader is trapped in a character’s point of view. However, there are instances in all three texts where the object of the protagonist interrupts the prevailing perspective. The monster in Frankenstein is allowed to tell his version of previous events and, likewise, Wentworth’s view interrupts Anne’s point of view in his letter to her at the end of the novel and their ensuing walk to Camden Place. These texts’ “narrative mode[s] favor subjectivity of interpretation” rather than objective reason much like the Romantic Poets of the age (Thomas, 903). Austen complicates the matter of subjectivity even further in Persuasion: despite having an objective narration and a concentration on Anne’s misinterpretations of the objective narration, Austen also allows the reader to conjecture the meaning behind Wentworth’s statements and actions as well as Anne’s. This creates a “doubling of what is already double voiced” (Thomas, 902).

Doubling or mirroring is a constant theme throughout Persuasion and Romanticism, such as in Blake’s “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.” An inferior and exaggerated mirror of the main couple can be found in Captain Benwick and Louisa Musgrove; he is too much of the Byronic hero brooding over his fiancée’s death and she has too much superficiality. And yet, the two bond over Romantic poetry. Mirroring, a repetition and return, is also found in the locations: Ironically, neither Anne nor Wentworth are able to express their feelings in the country, “showing city politeness controlling natural feeling.” In Bath, the situation is reversed, “showing natural feeling manipulating city protocols to its own best ends” (Thomas, 914). Additionally, scenes from the beginning of the book are echoed in the end: Anne overhears Frederick’s conversation about firmness of character and persuasion to Louisa while on the walk to Winthrop. In the end of the novel, Frederick overhears Anne’s remarks about constancy to Captain Harville. Both characters speak in generalities; neither character intends for their conversation to be heard by the object of their affection. This type of plot device and the role of the third party as an indirect mirror of the object of their intention are a major occurrence in Coleridge’s conversational poems (Thomas, 909).

Anne’s speech on constancy should also be noted for it’s lyrical quality resembling an elegiac ode. Her speech exemplifies the definition of Romanticism: “A spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings recollected in tranquility.” She has experienced profound suffering and regret from having refused Wentworth’s proposal eight and a half years ago; she recalls these feelings on the matter and “elaborat[es] with passionate intensity the theme of surviving devastating loss in solitude… Wentworth, an enigmatic object for Anne, remains as remote and inscrutable as Keats’s Grecian urn” (Thomas, 917). Anne does not need an audience in Harville or Wentworth because her ode stands on its own and is only accidentally overheard. However, by speaking her feelings Anne is clearly able to see her own ideas about the world and others begin to respond to her ideas, a direct contrast to her earlier passive self; she is also able to reject the ideology of her aristocratic class and create happiness for herself on her own terms.

Like Byron’s “Manfred,” Anne is in pursuit of her happiness and an end to her regrets over a past love. (It can even be stated that Anne is a Byronic hero of sorts. She recognizes her moral capability, the regret over refusing Wentworth, has a passionate presence, and is self-critical and introspective.) With each subsequent meeting with Frederick, Anne comes to a better understanding of their relationship no matter how little or small, despite restrictive social intercourse. Anne, “achieves an insight, faces up to a tragic loss, comes to a moral decision, or resolves an emotional problem” with every encounter (Thomas, 900). However, this epiphany usually occurs in solitude, “recollected in tranquility.” In the incident where Wentworth removes her nephew from her back Anne states: “she was ashamed of herself, quite ashamed at being so nervous, so overcome by such a trifle; but so it was; and it required a long application of solitude and reflection to recover her” (81). A greater understanding occurs during Anne and Frederick’s meeting at the concert:

“She was thinking only of the last half hours, and as they past to their seats, her mind took a hasty range over it. His choice of subjects, his expressions, and still more his manner and look, had been such as she could see only one light. His opinion of Louisa Musgrove’s inferiority, an opinion which he had seemed solicitous to give, his wonder at Captain Benwick, his feelings as to a first, strong attachment, - sentences begun which he could not finish – his half averted eyes, and more than half expressive glance, - all, all declared that he had a heart returning to her at last; that anger, resentment, avoidance, were no more; and that they were succeeded, not merely by friendship and regard, but by the tenderness of the past; yes, some share of the tenderness of the past. She could not contemplate the change as implying less. – He must love her” (185-86).[1]

Manfred, similarly, comes to a greater understanding of his state with his subsequent meetings with the hunter, the witch, and eventually the abbot. For instance, when Manfred is dying he comes to the conclusion “‘tis not so difficult to die” due to the questions the abbot has about Manfred’s fate. Manfred’s and Anne’s conclusions to the meetings above are the result of imagination. Imagination is in reference to the ability to read into the situation, and come to a deduction whether completely wrong or right. Anne, for instance, often comes to the wrong conclusion in regards to Frederick’s actions, “the result of the ‘wild imagination’” (Thomas, 902).

As stated earlier, Persuasion centers on Anne’s quest for her object, Wentworth, which will supposedly bring her happiness. A Romantic shift occurs in Anne when she is able to physically express herself through the use of her imagination, such as with her the “constancy” speech. The more Anne begins to assert herself and her independence, the more progressive and happier she becomes. Her changes can be understood using the Hegelian dialectic, a key too in Blake’s “Marriage of Heaven and Hell”: the thesis – Anne’s passiveness, antithesis – her assertiveness, synthesis – “recognition of the value of her own ability to choose for herself” (Tarlson, 5). It is important to note that the antithesis stage coincidentally begins when Anne speaks about Benwick’s Romantic tastes in poetry of Byron and Scott: “Literature serves a very different purpose in Persuasion than in her other novels, because it is something to be considered, treasured and used as a moral and emotional guide… it necessitates her rejection of the social and familial pressures upon her in favor of an enlightened emotional life” (Tarlson, 12-13). Romantic literature, in particular, allows Anne to realize the amount of freedom she should be able to have in pursuit of her happiness. Anne rejected Wentworth because she was persuaded to believe that he would not be able to provide materially for her because he was not part of the aristocracy. However, when she accepts him the second time, she chooses him not because Wentworth is a different man, but because she has the courage to choose for herself without regard to the aristocratic notions of class (Tarlson). She has the ability to change herself and her situation for the better and takes advantage of it. As a woman, she is able to be both a rational and emotional creature, unlike Austen’s previous novels where sense reigns supreme over sensibility. Anne remains a fine example of asserting her liberality without being criticized, an empowering assertion for women contemporaries of Austen.

Austen, however, does criticize class in this novel through her characterizations of Sir Walter Elliot, Anne’s father, her sister Elizabeth, and her cousin. These people disparage those of lower rank even though they are impoverished themselves because they cannot spend within their limits. There is never an attempt to change their situation. Sir Walter, for instance, remarks of Anne when she wishes to meet Mrs. Smith, a widowed schoolfellow who lives in bad conditions: “everything that revolts other people, low company, paltry rooms, foul air, disgusting associations, are inviting to you” (125). Austen hints that if the aristocracy had the ability to change, they could rehabilitate these paltry conditions in England, a revolutionary idea that perhaps these people do not deserve their superior position in society. She also addresses the rise of the merchant class with characters such as the Crofts and other naval men. These self-made characters show the shifting power as a direct result of the Industrial Revolution (Tarlson, 11).

The lack of a mother figure in the text is also significant because without a role model for her daughter, society becomes the prominent guide. Austen infers that a reformation is needed because society at large cannot fulfill this role because of the focus on class distinction. As a mother, society fails because of the presence of Mrs. Smith’s situation. On the other hand, Anne is able to reject this notion because of society’s, and especially her family’s, indifference. Austen also fights the idea of the mother as a guiding influence that was so prominently idealized during the nineteenth century in portraying her closeness to her children as natural (Tarlson, 16). This reiterates Austen’s idea that an individual’s ability to grow as a person and interpret situations as she chooses is a result of rejecting a mother’s direct influence. Such a revolutionary idea is Romantic.

Persuasion is a Romantic text in theme and structure; it contains sensitivity to loss, solitude and estrangement, interest in memory (the long regret over a refused proposal), the complexity and understanding of the passage of time, recovery of the past, concern with the poor and marginalized figures, and the importance of feelings. All of these can be applicable to the influence of the Romantics. However, they may also be the influence of Austen’s personal life and not solely to her reading. So the question remains: Can Jane Austen can be construed as a Romantic? Based on the ideas presented in her final text and some similar issues pursued in her later works, the answer could be a yes. While her earlier works reject such overwhelming sensibility, the ability to change and adapt in accordance to the world was a revolutionary idea Austen aspired to herself. As a direct result, Persuasion is a revolutionary novel meant to instill the courage of individuality upon her readers, especially women, to pursue happiness without regard to class, reason, or propriety.

Works Cited:

Austen, Jane, and Susan Weisser. Persuasion. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2005. Print.

Tarlson, Claire. "Jane Austen, Persuasion, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Lethbridge Research Journal 1.1 (2006): 1-18. Web. 15 Dec 2009.

Thomas, Keith G. "Jane Austen and the Romantic Lyric: Persuasion and Coleridge's Conversatoin Poems." ELH 54.4 (1987): 893-924. Web. 15 Dec 2009.


[1] I chose this very long quote because it not only serves as an example of Anne’s understanding and increased knowledge, but also because it shows the narrative following Anne’s stream of consciousness and the immense feelings found in a Romantic text like Persuasion.

Shelley’s Depiction of Unattainable Love and Beauty, and Their Capability to Destroy

The true Romantic poet is one who is immensely enraptured by the world around him. Both the natural and the supernatural world are seen as unknown paradises which the poet longs to explore, and nature becomes such an inspiration as to enthrall as well as torture his ever-growing imagination. The vast knowledge and curiosity which exist within such brilliant minds allow an expanse of beauty to flow within them, springing from the external tumult brought on by their experiences. Although a life such as this may be wrought with beauty and rich with inspiration, it may also have the power to isolate, torture, haunt, and/or destroy he who lives it. Percey Shelley’s “Alastor; or, The Spirit of Solitude” shows the life of such a man, empty before nature’s grasp enthralled him, and Shelley’s views as expressed in “On Love” hold many evidences as to why the Poet in “Alastor; or, The Spirit of Solitude” may have so fallen into his despaired fate.
The young Poet in “Alastor; or, The Spirit of Solitude” is born and “by solemn vision, and bright silver dream,/His infancy was nurtured. Every sight/And sound from the vast earth and ambient air,/Sent to his heart its choicest impulses” (ln. 67-70). Even as a newborn, the majesties of the world begin to quench his thirst for life’s splendors. In most cases, an infant who is unable to speak can do nothing but easily take in the world around him, but the Poet mentioned here has “thirsting lips” (ln. 72) and greatly desires experience the moment he arrives on this earth. He soon “[leaves] his cold fireside and alienated home/To seek strange truths in undiscovered lands” (ln. 76-77). Although still a youth, a home that would seem to remain comfortable to him due to his age has instead become “alienated,” and thus, he from it. The dualism which exists here is the Romantic poet’s struggle between wanting a fulfilled life, and coming to realize that they may require complete isolation from what most see as ‘comfortable’ to obtain it. In Shelley’s “Preface” to the poem, he describes the Poet as being “a youth of uncorrupted feelings and adventurous genius led forth by an imagination inflamed and purified through familiarity with all that is excellent and majestic, to the contemplation of the universe3.” Shelley implies that the youth was awarded certain qualities at birth, such as “uncorrupted feelings and adventurous genius,” but makes the point that these qualities are later to be greatly enhanced by external forces existing in nature. The young boy is innocent and free of corruption, yet Shelley insists on the fact that he is to be “purified” still, through his connections with nature. In his article entitled “Alastor: The Spirit of Solitude,” Arthur E. Du Bois writes that this work is “a materialization of an ideal man, free, true, beautiful4.” Only through a pure and eternal union with nature can one’s imagination grow and experience all of which it is capable. Shelley stresses this point throughout the poem, and begins it with descriptions of nature as “our great Mother” (ln. 2), along with all of the glorious details of the earth, before he even introduces the Poet.
The poem begins by exalting everything in nature, “earth, ocean, air” (ln. 1), and describing that which is indescribable in the second stanza by addressing the supernatural “Mother of this unfathomable world!” (ln. 18). In its beginning, the poem reveals dark images of nature as they struggle alongside beauty. Trying to exist in a world which is so overwhelming it can be painful; the Poet forms a deep and melancholic connection with nature, and lusts after their union. The poem reads:

Mother of this unfathomable world!
Favour my solemn song, for I have loved
Thee ever, and thee only; I have watched
Thy shadow, and the darkness of thy steps,
And my heart ever gazes on the depth
Of thy deep mysteries. I have made my bed
In charnels and on coffins, where black death
Keeps record of the trophies won from thee (ln. 18-25)

He also claims that he has “mixed awful talk and asking looks,/With [his] most innocent love, until strange tears/Uniting with those breathless kisses, made/Such magic” (33-36). In Shelley’s essay “On Love,” he writes, “Thou demandest what is Love. It is that powerful attraction towards all we conceive, or fear, or hope beyond ourselves, when we find within our own thoughts the chasm of an insufficient void, and seek to awaken in all things that are, a community with what we experience within ourselves2.” The Poet so desperately thirsts for nature now, and knows only it to consume his life, but that beauty and inexpressible longing will soon be taken away.
The poem has been said to “lack in structural organization1,” but it could also be argued that some of these placements were done by Shelley on purpose, or to assign different a different significance or tone to events and thoughts as the poem moves forward. For example, as mentioned above, these sexual, dark, images of Mother Nature and death are detailed before the introduction of the Poet, which itself is written how a standard beginning to a poem may read. The first line of this introduction, which actually occurs in the third stanza, is, “There was a Poet whose untimely tomb…” Even though this sounds like the rightful beginning of the poem, it turns out to be a detailed description of the Poet’s death to come and the eternal loneliness that made up his life. “He lived, he died, he sung, in solitude” (ln. 60). Although this is not structurally sound in the plot, it has a specific purpose for having been placed there by Shelley. Before knowing that there is a specific “you” in this poem, the reader is introduced to the atmosphere and environment of the poem, through the beautifully imagery of the “sunset and its gorgeous ministers,/And solemn midnight’s tingling silentness” (ln. 6-7). An overwhelming amount of beautiful thoughts and images appear and are experienced in the poem right away, creating a descriptive scene in one’s imagination.
The invented union of the Poet, himself, with his supernatural Mother and lover soon fades and he creates within himself a different obsession, one that comes to him in the form of “a vision on his sleep/…a dream of hopes that never yet/Had flushed his cheek” (ln. 149-151). Prior to this vision, the Poet had fallen in love with nature’s unattainable glory, but was able to abandon this companionship in an effort to seek his true love. He once related the “Mother of this unfathomable world” to an “incommunicable dream” (ln. 39), but now seeks a different dream. He sees his true love in a beautiful vision where she takes the form of a philosopher, poet, and lover. The knowledgeable and wise characteristics of a philosopher, the wondrous nature of a poet, and the adoration of a lover came together before his eyes3. The speaker writes about the vision:

Suddenly she rose,
As if her heart impatiently endured
Its bursting burthen: at the sound he turned,
And saw by the warm light of their own life
Her glowing limbs beneath the sinuous veil
Of woven wind (ln. 172-176).

The Poet’s first view of this vision is described as being seen “by the warm light of their own life.” The Poet created in his dreams the perfect lover, the perfect ethereal embodiment of his desire. Their entities have become one, or were already joined and shall be forever bound. She is a mixture of intellect and absolute beauty, and he “images to himself the Being whom he loves” (Norton, p. 746). The vision is a part of him, but is soon to become only that which disappears and makes him insane with desperate longing.
The Poet holds another close companionship, an ironic attachment to solitude. The Spirit of Solitude, or Alastor, is a facet of the Poet, as is the vision. The Poet clings to his solitude and isolation, giving it a great level of importance and holding it to be the reason he is able to strive for more beauty, and live solely for nature. He is able to leave these obsessive behaviors behind, in a way, when he realizes that to fully experience, and to awaken the imagination with love, one mustn’t be alone. In Shelley’s essay, “On Love,” he writes on the true nature of love, and the comfort in having someone, “If we reason, we would be understood; if we imagine, we would that the airy children of our brain were born anew within another's; if we feel, we would that another's nerves should vibrate to our own2.”The Poet begins to deeply thirst for this connection now, realizing in a collapse of madness that his life of solitude did not bring him the truest of happiness, as he had previously believed.
Due to his intense and overwhelming desire to again see the vision without being interrupted, as he had been before when “sleep,/Like a dark flood suspended in its course,/Rolled back its impulse on his vacant brain” (ln. 189-191), Death becomes the new (although temporary) companion of his desire. He has gone through so many experiences and mental anguish by this time, that with the discovery of a kindred soul (or as Shelley writes in “On Love,” “a soul within our own soul that describes a circle around its proper Paradise, which pain and sorrow and evil dare not overleap2,”) he will do anything to experience it fully and revel in it. The Poet becomes lustful towards the idea of his own death because he craves the “joy” and “exultation” (ln. 200) of his experience with/in his vision. He laments over his lost love, as he exclaims,

Alas! Alas!
Were limbs, and breath, and being intertwined
Thus treacherously? Lost, lost, for ever lost,
In the wide pathless desart of dim sleep,
That beautiful shape! Does the dark gate of death
Conduct to thy mysterious paradise,
O sleep? (ln. 207-213).

His mourning and sadness becomes severe, and it is evident that the idea of suicide becomes his only path to happiness, as in death he will be forever with the one he loves, who embodies his own soul and body as well. His love begins to destroy him, and his once “sweet eyes” (ln. 80) become instead those from which “the infant would conceal/His troubled visage in his mother’s robe/In terror at the glare of those wild eyes” (ln. 262-264). His gradual deterioration and tortured response to the loss of his divine vision is described as such:

And now his limbs were lean; his scattered hair
Sered by autumn of strange suffering
Sung dirges in the wind; his listless hand
Hung like a dead bone within its withered skin;
Life, and the lustre that consumed it, shone
As in a furnace burning secretly
From his dark eyes alone (ln. 248-254).

Not only has the Poet’s youth dissipate rapidly, with the mention of his hand which “hung like a dead bone within its withered skin,” but his once adventurous and innocent spirit has been replaced with “strange suffering” “listless[ness],” seen “from his dark eyes alone.”
As the Poet continues on his quest, he addresses his “Vision and Love” as he braves a dangerous storm on the seas hoping to find his demise, saying, “I have beheld/The path of thy departure. Sleep and death/ Shall not divide us long!” (ln. 366-369). He awaits his imminent death, preparing himself for the final acceptance of his vision, while thriving on his ability to retain a great love and admiration for nature. Death, “whose sightless speed divides this sullen night,” (ln. 610) then literally storms upon him. In his destroyed and anguished state, the Poet is at once able to feel at peace through his encounter with the very death he had longed for. “Hope and despair,/The torturers, slept; no mortal pain or fear/Marred his repose” (ln. 639-641). In “Alastor; or, The Spirit of Solitude,” there exist some final thoughts on the life and death of the Poet:

All the shews o’ the world are frail and vain
To weep a loss that turns their lights to shade.
It is a woe “too deep for tears,” when all
Is reft at once, when some surpassing Spirit,
Whose light adorned the world around it, leaves
Those who remain behind, not sobs or groans,
The passionate tumult of a clinging hope;
But pale despair and cold tranquility,
Nature’s vast frame, the web of human things,
Birth and the grave, that are not as they were (ln. 711-720).

Mourning the loss of his vision caused such madness within the Poet, because it is “frail and vain/To weep a loss that turns…lights to shade.” His ventures finally returned him to solitude, leaving him nothing “but pale despair and cold tranquility.” This type of obsessive search for beauty, deep connections with nature, striving to be intertwined with another soul, and/or with one’s self, led the Poet to his “untimely tomb.” Shelley writes in “On Love,” “So soon as this want or power [i.e. love] is dead, man becomes the living sepulchre of himself, and what yet survives is the mere husk of what once he was2.” A man who is forever grasping onto that which he cannot hold, and that which is impossible to obtain, will become loveless and live a life of overwhelming senses enveloped by despair, ending in want and solitude.


References:
1. Gibson, Evan K. “Alastor: A Reinterpretation,” PMLA 1947. Vol. 62, No. 4., pp.
1022-1026.
2. Shelley, Percy. “On Love.”
3. Lynch, Deirdre S., and Jack Stillinger. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt, M.H. Abrams.
The Norton Anthology of English Literature: Eight Ed, W.W. Norton & Company,
New York. 2006.
4. Du Bois, Arthur E. “Alastor: The Spirit of Solitude,” JEGP 1936. Vol. 35, pp.
538-539.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Manfred released

The dramatic poem “Manfred” by Lord Byron was long working in my head. In some sense, it still works as I chose the poem for this post again. My attitude, however, has changed a bit, I am not longer desperately looking for answers where might be no answers; and I now can accept that I eventually will not find an answer to all of my questions. Though this is my ‘conclusion’ so far, I am nevertheless still interested in how other people interpret the poem, how they deal with all the issues coming up in "Manfred": yearning for knowledge, salvation, self-forgetfulness and being haunted by guilt and otherness. Therefore, I will have a closer look at Robert Schumann’s musical adaptation of this poem for orchestra and choir/solo. Does Schumann change the meaning of the poem; does he add something I have not thought about before? Does his musical adaptation do justice to the rough, sinister and sublime beauty and depth of the poem?


Byron’s “Manfred” was very popular in Germany in the Romantic Aera. Great Poets, novel writers and composers were inspired by its dark, sinister power. Goethe wrote that in this poem “we find the quintessence of the attitudes and passions of a remarkable talent born to suffer” (Tunbridge 548). Especially Schumann, the German Romantic composer, was interested in Byron’s poetry. As Manfred is a complex, melancholic character, Schumann was also seen as suffering from a “melancholy fate” (Tunbridge 560) and later madness; he was often even compared to the character of Manfred (Tunbridge 546). This connection between Schumann’s life and his work is arguable but seems to include at least a little truth.
As I cannot analyze every single piece of Schumann’s „Manfred“ (it would be far too much), I will concentrate on important moments in the overture and the last piece. I try to not writing too complicated by avoiding technical musical terms wherever possible and put more emphasis on the created mood.
The whole piece is loosely bound together, it even seems fragmented. It consists of an overture (half of the complete music), alternate dialogue and short instrumental parts, ensembles and vocal solos, a melodrama (Number 9), and interludes. The fragmented character of the piece symbolizes Manfred’s inner instability. Everything he longs for will not be fulfilled: he cannot die (except at the very end), he cannot forget, and Astarte neither forgives nor condemns him (cf. Byron I, 105). So he is incomplete, in a constant struggle to achieve what is missing.
From the very beginning, the overture presents this fragmentation and inner conflict. Contrary to former, classical overtures, this overture does not present (contrasting) themes but “a web of motivic particles brought into ever new relationships through the dual workings of developing variation” (Daverio 357). Again instability and incoherence.
The overture opens with three syncopated forward-pestering chords on a crescendo. However, as there is nothing before, any defining metre or term, the listener gets confused and hears the chords as on-beat: at this early moment, the confusion and ‘otherness’ is still hidden, not audible. The chords, two dominant-seventh framing a tonic harmony, also fulfil a special function: Dominant seventh always have a very open character and almost force a dissolution. But Schumann refuses this solution, he thus already in the first measure emphasizes that there will not be an easy solution. The non-solution of the chord creates a ‘floating’ atmosphere; the listener is stuck in the middle of nowhere as he/she does not know what will happen, in which direction the musical piece will go further. This feeling of insecurity, instability is even more cemented by the following fermata: instead of dissolution there is a silence full of suspense, an anticipation of the silence Manfred has to deal with when he meets the ghost of Astarte.
Suddenly, the tempo changes, and after a short movement upwards, a new motive is alternate presented by the violins and celli: a “painfully slow chromatic ascent” (Daverio 357), again off-beat. This motive has is more searching and insecure. At the same time, the woodwinds present another, even slower ascent on another part of the scale, working against the strings. The orchestra, often seen as a whole/ one body, is now departed and works contrapuntal. Thus the two different and yet similar motives present Manfred’s situation: he calls the spirits that they shall fulfil his wishes. He thinks that they have to follow him and sees himself as equal (“the lightning of my being, is as bright,/ Pervading, and far-darting as your own,” Byron I, 155f.), disregarding the fact that he is still human and mortal whereas the Spirits emphasize their immortality. Manfred so gets the feeling that the Spirits work against him.
The first ‘real’ theme (mm. 6-8, I call it theme as it again and again is presented through variations and development) shows up. It is quite vivid and this time clearly recognizable syncopated. The volume increases, finals in a forte and fast sixteenth-movement in the strings. Here, Manfred’s behaviour is presented: first calm, sad and desperate, he becomes angry and outraged when he realizes that the Spirits will not bring oblivion.
The next motive is often described as the “Astarte’s theme” (cf. Tunbridge 554). However, it is not a real theme, rather fragmentary elements, repeated and slightly altered. It develops and more and more loses its reference point. It is hard to define and assign musical centres; there is not really a clear indicator the listener could trust. Everything blurs. This motive indicates Astarte’s image twice: first, it emphasizes her ghostly character, clarifies that she is not really there but an illusion. The constant blurring refers to her anew disappearance. In number 2, the “appearance of a magic image”, this blurring is even more emphasized by ending this musical piece with a diminished dominant-seventh plus additional ninth. This chord is even more opened than the dominant-seventh from the beginning of the overture. As the chord lacks its basic tone, it is impossible to dissolve it without remembering or finding out its origin, its ‘past’. Manfred's past is also not accessable/ identifiable to the reader, the reader only gets indications on what has happened. He/she will never find it out completely. Manfred's present is coined by his former deeds, such as the dissolution of the chord can only be done by considering what has happened before. Presenting Astarte’s disappearance with this diminished chord '(remember: it is called diminished because of the missed basis tone), it also becomes clear that Manfred has lost his last bound to the earth/society after Astarte's death. Tunbridge mentions that at the moment of Astarte’s disappearance the timpani “beat out a funereal triplet rhythm” (Tunbridge 555). As a result, Manfred falls senseless, a condition almost death-like. In this part, Schumann presents one of the Romantic inventions, the removal from a clearly musical centre to broader harmonies, to present and comments on his character's situation and feeling.
The overture ends in its original key Eb-minor, a very uncommon key. Thus the overture keeps the tragic development of the poem and the unsatisfied feeling at the end as the reader does not know what happens to Manfred after his death. The minor-key appears as a sad, melancholic acceptance of these unanswered questions. It shows Manfred’s loneliness in its crucial-saddest beauty. The overture seems to already include Schumann’s complete interpretation of Byron’s poem. This interpretation is not far away from the ‘common’ reading of Manfred and his faith.

Before I will concentrate on the ending of the whole musical peace, I have to say a few words about Schumann’s work with Byron’s text. He retained 975 of the 1336 verses (translated into German). Most of the time, this trimming works, but a few things are missing or altered which slightly change the intensity of the original version. For example, there are only four Spirits instead of seven: earth, air, water and fire. The seventh spirit, in my opinion the most important one, is completely missing. The seventh spirit rules “the star which rules [Manfred’s] destiny”. He despises Manfred, calls him “worm” (Byron I, 125) and “Child of Clay” (Byron I, 131, I love this Blake reference!). And later, just this Spirit transforms into the shape of Astarte, thus creates an even deeper, spiritual connection between Manfred and Astarte. If Astarte really is a part of Manfred, it is not astonishing that he is now only a shadow of his self, lost in doubts, sense of guilt and yearning for knowledge. By waiving this connection, Schumann weakens the expressiveness of the poem.

The last musical piece in Schumann’s adaptation is called “Klostergesang”. A choir intonates the first line of the Requiem mass: “Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine” (Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord). The choir stops after this, and in the complete silence, Manfred says his last words: “’tis not so difficult to die” (Byron III, 151). A fermata, silence. Then the choir continues: “et lux perpetua luceat eis” (and let perpetual light shine upon them). The last scene begins in Eb-minor, thus creates a connection to the overture, but changes after Manfred’s death to “a triumphant” (Daverio 364) Eb-major. Triumph? This is questionable. Nevertheless, it indicates Manfred’s redemption or at least the hope that he will be redeemed. The Astarte-theme arises once more, but now Manfred is already dead. Daviero argues that the crucial point is that “Manfred’s redemption of the past occurs not in the here-and-now, but in the hereafter. […] Up to the end, Mafred is denied what he desperately seeks: solace in the present” (Daviero 364).

In his musical adaptation, Schumann shows a close understanding of the poem and does very well in showing Manfred’s character through music. Especially the overture is very well thought and arouses/depicts a lof of different emotions. However, I personally disagree with Schumann's overall solution of a redeemed Manfred, which contrary to the overture. Shall this show how hard it is to define Manfred's death? In my opinion, the last scene, the Requiem, makes the story too simple, weakens it. It is interesting: when I first read Manfred, I absolutely wanted to know what happens to him. Now I have an answer – but do not like it. This answer contradicts my understanding of the text.

References

Primary literature
Byron, Lord. "Manfred." The Norton anthology of English literature: The Romantic Period. Ed. Reidhead, Julia. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2006. 636-69.

Schumann, Robert: Manfred, op. 115.

Secondary sources
Daviero, John. Robert Schumann: herald of a 'new poetic age.' New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1997.

Tunbridge, Laura. "Schumann as Manfred." The Musical Quarterly 87.3 (2004). 546-69

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Victor’s Abortion of Romanticism and Revolution

“Invention, it must be humbly admitted, does not consist in creating out of void, but out of chaos; the materials must in the first place, be afforded: it can give form to dark, shapeless substances, but cannot bring into being the substance itself.”

-Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley

Grappling with identifying characteristics of Romantic literature, our class definitely gravitated towards ideas revolving around the difficulties of assigning origins and the importance of renewal, of re-envisioning, through decay. Throughout this course, a multitude of works emphasized the importance of regeneration, of cyclicality, as a means of cultivating a broader sense of meaning that emanates from within, external forces first being internalized before instilling said meaning. As a means of approaching this genre, my group earlier on in the semester argued the importance of the French Revolution as the Romantic “spark” that urged the reconsideration of change and the means through which it occurs, disillusionment the result for some. Nobody could escape the internalized revolutionary fervor that variably affected the context of all of our assigned Romantic works.

Yet, it is precisely this escape from revolution, change, regeneration—whichever word one prefers to communicate this idea—that a certain fictional Genevese scientist attempts and arguably achieves: Victor Frankenstein. As can be seen in Mary Shelley’s “hideous progeny” Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein’s refusal to adhere to his creation’s request for a female partner, though proving a moral struggle, challenges the importance of regeneration, openly defying this concern of the Romantics. And while readers may be tempted to isolate this refusal as a means for strengthening the argument that he stands as an “anti-Romantic,” Frankenstein’s creation of his monster certainly complicates and seeks to discredit any of his attempts to stop this cycle that he too is intimately involved. Keeping these complicating factors in mind, readers can still view Victor as an anti-Romantic literary figure—disastrous results occurring because of his refusal to allow for the possibility of monstrous regeneration: Revolution.

Neglecting to realize that his internalized ideas of life not only shape the physical, but also become the physical, Victor “fails to exercise such moral responsibility for the single life he creates because he regards creativity as an abstraction” (Hustis 853). Internal manifestations cannot be compartmentalized from what is presented to people in “reality;” all attempts of said divisions would certainly prove futile. Victor’s lack of creative responsibility becomes explicitly stated itself when Victor exclaims, “Wretched devil! You reproach me with your creation; come on then, that I may extinguish the spark which I so negligently bestowed” (125-126). The physical reality of Victor’s internalized obsession—the generation of life—points to the careless manner it was carried out within his imagination; Victor pays hardly any attention to detail as can seen in the monster’s sloppily sutured appearance.

His impatience was to cost him dear, for the less than perfect end-product would, in appearance at least, emerge as nothing less than a monster, an outcast from any natural species of being (Smith 53).

After cursing the monster upon their encounter while on an excursion to the valley of Chamounix, Frankenstein, though initially resistant, agrees to listen to his creature’s story, the monster’s attempt at persuading Victor to comply with its request: the creation of a female partner. “If you will comply with my conditions, I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your friends” (125). After a few considerations, Victor finally decides to hear the monster’s tale of mental exhaustion and physical exclusion: “For the first time, also, I felt what the duties of a creator towards his creature were…to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness” (128). The fact that Victor experiences these feelings of creative responsibility for the “first time” after all that has happened to his monster highlights Victor’s lack of personal responsibility from the moment he decided on his project; these feelings came far too late.

Frankenstein’s pity and compassion are purely intellectual responses to his creature’s helplessness and misery and thus cannot withstand the physical reality of the monster as a ‘filthy mass that move[s] and talk[s]’ (Hustis 848).

Yet, this shortcoming of accountability will later be the inspiration and foundation for Frankenstein’s eventual refusal to create “one as deformed and horrible as [the monster]” (168).

As the only person capable of bestowing happiness on his creation, Victor hesitantly listens to the monster’s need for a female partner, a request it considers “reasonable and moderate” (170); this description of its demand exposes the disconnect between the monster and Victor’s line of reasoning. On the other hand, Victor’s acknowledgment that the monster’s mate may too become a malevolent force reveals his growing sensitization to the destructive potentials of his mind, the growth of hesitancy when approaching change. Nonetheless, Victor complies with the monster’s demands, his promise weighing on his mind “like Dante’s iron cowl on the heads of the hellish hypocrites” (173). And while he attempts to mend and free his spirit while held prisoner by this burdensome promise, Victor simply cannot rid himself of the unbreakable link to the beast; his inability to cope with the cycle he so negligently started the moment his obsession with the creation of the monster began—not when the life physically enters the monster—drives him to make a costly decision.

As Frankenstein sits down to reflect one evening after laboriously working on the female creature, he suddenly has an epiphany as reasons for not completing his work flood his mind. Of the scenarios Victor paints in his mind, his reasoning that the female “might refuse to comply with a compact made before her creation” (190) not only provides the strongest argument for the abandonment of this new monster, but also points to Victor’s urge for mental fortifications against foreign invasions i.e. the monster’s persuasive skills that stirred his emotions, compelling him to create yet another creature. No longer will what remains of Victor’s mental integrity be compromised and subjected by external manifestations of his mind. He also considers the possibility of procreation between the monsters and their spread of horror among mankind. All of these potential threats culminate into a refusal to permit life: an abortion.

Victor Frankenstein [struggles] with the ethical consequences of an “unwanted pregnancy” of sorts, particularly when he undertakes and then abandons the creation of a female mate for his monster (Hustis 846).

By firmly deciding to abandon his project because the “hour of [his] weakness is past” (192), Victor enrages the monster and thus brings an end to any degree of anticipation or sense of possibility for both physical and spiritual regeneration.

This refusal to fulfill his promise points directly to Victor’s unwillingness to bring about any more change regardless of the ideal situation it could potentially bring about; he firmly resists the beauty, no matter how destructive, in the breakdown. Had everything gone according to the monster’s plan, he and his new mate would have quit the world of men and potentially lived “happily ever after,” leaving Victor the opportunity to reclaim what life remained, potential happiness. On the other hand, had one of Victor’s many predictions occurred, humanity could have been literally and figuratively swallowed by his monsters: “I shuddered to think that future ages might curse me as their pest, whose selfishness had not hesitated to buy its own peace at the price perhaps of the existence of the whole human race” (190). Instead of risking either, instead of allowing for change to occur, Victor aborts the project all together so that the “stability” of his situation will take its toll (I chose to scare quote stability here because Victor’s unwillingness to be moved nonetheless results in turmoil).

Through his abortion of the female monster, Victor arguably suspends the master/slave relationship that had characterized his relationship with the monster as can be seen by the fact that the monster’s existence consumes and controls Victor’s mind. Watching the possibility of its future happiness quickly slip away, the monster desperately exclaims, “You are my creator, but I am your master; -obey!” (192) Yet, Victor firmly denies this order. And while this denial doesn’t necessarily reverse their relationship—Victor now the master and monster the slave—it certainly places Victor in a position that permits resolution, no matter how disastrous it may turn out: "I had before regarded my promise with a gloomy despair, as a thing that, with whatever consequences, must be fulfilled; but I now felt as if a film had been taken from before my eyes, and that I, for the first time, saw clearly" (195).

Once again the explicit mentioning of the “first time” proves important, for it does not indicate the beginning of progression, of revolution. Instead it marks the moment that any potential for change becomes suspended, denied; Victor will suffer whatever consequences this decision brings about. From this point in the narrative, one may argue that Victor’s continual, obsessive attempts to rid himself of the monster and its deadly burdens indicate a complete loss of control to his creation. On the contrary, these attempts simply act as coping mechanisms that distract readers from the fact that Victor has brought motion he recklessly started to an abrupt stop. Victor’s mental state now remains static upon the destruction of the creature that he naively created in a period “animated by an almost supernatural enthusiasm” (79), radical disenchantment.

Because Victor does not allow for potential regeneration with his defiant refusal to create his monster’s mate—however catastrophic or ideal the results—he in return is denied entrance into the cycle of life, denied the ability to decay and be reabsorbed. Kept figuratively and literally preserved in a state of icy suspension, Victor’s life comes to an end in the Arctic Circle near the North Pole.

Much how Frankenstein creates the monster from the remnants of once-living beings, so too do people experience and create revolution from the lingering remnants of politically, socially, and economically held beliefs—the reorganization and recycling of ideas spurring new, sometimes-hideous thoughts and actions. As Mary Shelley states in her 1831 introduction to Frankenstein, “Every thing must have a beginning…and that beginning must be linked to something that went before” (356). With this in mind, Victor should not be considered the origin for the monster, but merely a stepping-stone towards something monstrous, and it is his realization of this role as a step towards something potentially greater—though initially realized in the monster—that now frightens him. This fearful resistance drives Victor to abandon his promise to the monster that in return permits Victor’s removal from a potentially monstrous cycle, an anti-Romantic move on the protagonist’s part. Once caught in the whirlwind of revolution, people cannot simply elude its events or escape the emotions spurred; they must choose how to internalize their feelings and shape reality even if it stares back with “yellow, watery, but speculative eyes” (357). Victor resists the process of shaping reality when he aborts his second monster and brings about a definite ending: the challenging of the pervasive, uninterrupted nature of Romanticism and Revolution.

Sources:

Hustis, Harriet. "Responsible Creativity and the "Modernity" of Mary Shelley's Prometheus." Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900. 43.4 (2003): 845-858. Print.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, David Lorne Macdonald, and Kathleen Dorothy Scherf. Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus. Broadview literary texts. Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press, 1999.

Smith, Crosbie. “Frankenstein and Natural Magic.” Frankenstein, Creation and Monstrosity. Ed. Stephen Bann. London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 1994. 39-59