Satanic Allusions in Frankenstein: Challenging Religious Authority in Paradise Lost, Lecture notes of Religion

Download Satanic Allusions in Frankenstein: Challenging Religious Authority in Paradise Lost and more Lecture notes Religion in PDF only on Docsity! INNERVATE Leading student work in English studies, Volume 9 (2016-2017), pp. 138-142 What is the effect of Satanic allusion in Frankenstein? Victoria Lorriman Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is an imaginative rewrite of Paradise Lost by John Milton. Shelley read Milton’s epic poem between 1815 and 1816,1 responding to it during a period in which rebellion against authority took many forms, one of which is within its literary symbolism. Ruben van Luijk identifies the Romantic re-presentation of Milton’s Satan as a symbol of opposition to authority, by arguing that Satanic allusion is ‘the embodiment of the revolutionary standing up against arbitrary and despotic power’.2 In Frankenstein, Satanic allusions adhere to van Luijk’s statement of their function in Romantic texts by influencing the characterisation of Victor and the Creature so that these characters represent Satan’s, as well as their own, challenge to figures of religious authority. Furthermore, Shelley’s allusions illuminate the ambiguity with which Milton represents Satan’s opposition to God’s power. Jonathon Shears disagrees with this proposal, stating that Miltonic allusion does not ‘extend ambiguities inherent in [Paradise Lost]’.3 In contrast, Lucy Newlyn argues that Paradise Lost is a ‘model of an ambivalence which is amplified by the Romantic reader’. 4 An examination of the effect of Shelley’s Satanic allusions, some of which are subtle and not explicitly intentional, substantiates Newlyn’s viewpoint because the allusions are a register of ambivalent challenges to representations of religious authority. Even when Shelley assigns the Creature the benevolence and dutifulness of Milton’s son, the Creature is a questionable figure of obedience to divinely ordained authority. Shelley places Frankenstein in dialogue with the Romantic reading of Satan as a symbol of opposition to authority by clearly alluding to moments in Paradise Lost that represent the challenge of the individual to arbitrarily-established religious authority. The Creature reads ‘Paradise Lost’5 and considers ‘Satan as the fitter emblem of [his] condition’ (p.105) and the poem as ‘the picture of an omnipotent God warring with his creatures’, a situation with ‘similarity […] to [his] own’ (pp.104-105). Victor is likened to Milton’s God as he is the Creature’s ‘natural lord and king’ (p.77) which echoes God’s status as ‘the king of heaven’ (II.229). The Creature frequently addresses Victor with imperatives, such as ‘Do your duty towards me’ (p.77) and ‘This being you must create’ (p.118), which, by virtue of their form as commands, challenge Victor’s God-like authority that was arbitrarily established when he became the Creature’s creator. Likewise, while the epigraph of Frankenstein, ‘Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay/To mould me man?’ (p.1), is a quotation from Milton’s Adam,6 its emphasis on individualism in conflict with the will of religious authority relates not only to the Creature, but also to Satan, which links the two characters. Satan opposes the deputation of the Son, who represents arbitrarily-established religious authority as he becomes a ‘Lord’ by whom ‘All knees in heaven’ (V.608) must ‘abide’ (V.609), with, like Adam, a rhetorical question: ‘Will ye submit your necks, and choose to bend/The supple knee?’ (V.787-788). Milton creates a dichotomy between the will of the angels and divinely ordained authority by grouping the angels in the collective second person plural pronoun, ‘you’, while immediately answering the question with ‘Ye will not’ (V.788); the stressed metrical beats emphasise the choice of the individual. Satan’s questioning represents a strong challenge to religious authority because his discourse aligns the acceptance of the Son’s authority with self-abasement, thus persuading the angels towards valuing individualism. Milton objectifies those who accept religious authority, by referring to them in synecdoche, as ‘necks’ and ‘knee[s]’, ‘possessed’ (V.790) and 1 Lisa Vargo, ‘Contextualising Sources’, in The Cambridge Companion to Frankenstein, ed. by Andrew Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), Ebook, Cambridge Core, pp.26-40 (p.36). 2 Ruben van Luijk, ‘The Romantic Rehabilitation of Satan’, in Children of Lucifer: the Origins of Modern Religious Satanism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), Ebook, Oxford Scholarship Online, Chapter 4, p.77. 3 Jonathon Shears, The Romantic Legacy of Paradise Lost: Reading Against the Grain (Surrey: Ashgate, 2009), p.6. 4 Lucy Newlyn, Paradise Lost, and the Romantic Reader (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), p.13. 5 Mary Shelley, Frankenstein: 1818 Text, ed. by Marilyn Butler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p.104. All further quotations from this text are taken from this edition. 6 John Milton, Paradise Lost, ed. by Stephen Orgel and Jonathan Goldberg (Oxford: Oxford University, 2004), X.743-744. All further quotations from this text are taken from this edition. What is the effect of Satanic allusion in Frankenstein? 139 INNERVATE Leading student work in English studies, Volume 9 (2016-2017), pp. 138-142 practising ‘prostration vile’ (V.782). By attributing the Satanic characteristic of individual opposition to religious authority to the Creature using explicit allusion, Shelley draws attention to its presence in Paradise Lost. Shelley’s Satanic allusion does not always oppose religious authority. Although not an allusion that is clearly marked as intentional, the moment at which Victor destroys the female creature echoes Uriel’s perception of Satan. Victor interprets the Creature’s expression through an echo of Uriel’s perspective of Satan as a figure of evil intent, which fortifies, rather than challenges, the authoritative interpretation of Satan as the agent of evil in Christian doctrine. While Victor ‘look[s] on’ (p.139) the Creature from a distance, just as Uriel’s eye ‘pursues [Satan]’ (IV.125) from afar on mount Niphates, he interprets the Creature’s ‘countenance’ as the ‘utmost extent of malice and treachery’ (p.139). The superlative ‘utmost’ suggests that the Creature’s expression displays the highest degree of evil intent and deceitfulness, which echoes the considerable amount of ‘Deep malice to conceal, couched with revenge’ (IV.123) that Uriel attributes Satan. Shelley’s reading of Uriel’s perception of Satan adheres to the view of Satan in Christian doctrine, which Milton also examines. Neil Forsyth recognises that Milton alludes to the Biblical passage, ‘How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer’ (Isaiah 14:12),7 which is used by representatives of the Christian Church to classify Satan as the doer of evil. Forsyth argues that Isaiah 14:12 is ‘important for the identification of the devil as the agent of evil in history’.8 Isaiah 14:12 is understood by religious authority to connect Satan with the inherent inclination to do evil. Milton associates his Satan with the Satan of Christian tradition by alluding to Isaiah 14:12. For instance, upon perceiving Satan, Beelzebub remarks, ‘O how fallen’ (I.84) and Milton implicitly alludes to Satan’s prelapsarian name, Lucifer: ‘Satan, so call him now, his former name/Is heard no more’ (V.658-659). While reinforcing the authority of the interpretation of Satan in Christian tradition, Shelley’s echo of Uriel’s perception of Satan as the agent of evil provides Victor with a reason to destroy the female creature. Victor fears that completing construction of the being could cause ‘a race of devils’ (p.138) to threaten humankind’s existence. Shelley’s reference to the Satan of Christian tradition, the devil, indicates that Victor’s concern originates in a fear of releasing an evil agent. The reading that Victor and Uriel perceive the Creature and Satan respectively as the Satan of Christian tradition is strengthened by Shelley’s echo of the theme of Satan’s malicious countenance, as seen by Uriel, even though Shelley does not explicitly indicate that the theme is a Satanic allusion. As Victor judges the Creature based on his ‘countenance’ (p.139), Satan’s ‘visage’ (IV.116) influences Uriel to interpret Satan as the embodiment of evil intention and deceitfulness. Milton’s semantic field of dishonesty establishes Satan as deceptive; his expression ‘betrayed/Him counterfeit’ (IV.116-117), he is an ‘Artificer of fraud’ (IV.121) and ‘practice[s] falsehood under saintly show’ (IV.122). Moreover, Satan’s ‘gestures fierce’ (IV.128) and ‘mad demeanour’ (IV.129) indicate evil. Similarly, the Creature’s ‘ghastly grin’ (p.138), as seen by Victor, anticipates the Creature’s malicious countenance after having murdered Elizabeth: ‘A grin was on the face of the monster; he seemed to jeer’ (p.166). However, in contrast to the Satan of Christian tradition and Milton, here the Creature is not deceptive. Rather, Shelley suggests that the representation of the Creature in Victor’s narrative is deceitful, because it is a misperception. Hence, Shelley challenges religious authority by questioning the reading of Satan in Christian doctrine. The Creature’s ‘ghastly grin’ (p.138) also alludes to his ‘grin’ at his creation: ‘His jaws opened, and he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled his cheeks’ (p.40). Shelley associates the Creature with innocence by demonstrating his inability to communicate, a behaviour shared by new-born babies. Victor dismisses the Creature’s attempt to communicate as it is useless, being ‘muttered’ and ‘inarticulate’. Shelley’s self-allusion to Victor’s misunderstanding of the Creature’s intentions and innocence renders the perception of the Creature as the Satan of Christian tradition ambiguous. Reflecting upon Uriel’s interpretation of Satan with Shelley’s idea of misinterpretation in mind illuminates criticisms of Uriel’s perspective. Milton terms Uriel’s perception ‘disfigured’ (IV.127), in other words, distorted. Indeed, Satan is a figure of ambivalence, a flawed character of emotional complexity, rather than evil intent specifically. His mind is disorderly, as he experiences ‘distempers’ (IV.115), ‘perturbation’ (IV.120) but also ‘outward calm’ (IV.120). The reading of Satan as a misunderstood character, which is revealed through Shelley’s echo of Uriel’s misperception of Satan, challenges yet also affirms the authoritative interpretation of Satan as the agent of evil in Christian doctrine in both Frankenstein and Paradise Lost. The ambiguity with which Milton challenges religious authority reflects a tension surrounding the oppression of unorthodox religious thought. Milton’s Satan is not a figure that accuses representations of established authority of suppressing unorthodox religious ideas. Rather, despite that 7 The Holy Bible: King James Version (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), Isaiah 12:14, p.337. 8 Neil Forsyth, ‘Satan’, in The Cambridge Companion to Paradise Lost, ed. by Louis Schwartz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), Ebook, Cambridge Core, pp.17-28 (p.20).