A
major concern with the concept of the Great Chain of Being is how we as humans
establish our dominance over other species. Can we really place ourselves over Trembley’s polyp or
planarians if they can regenerate and we cannot? This concern also manifests itself in the relationship
between Frankenstein and his creation.
Their first meeting since Ingolstadt highlights this tension between
master and subject.
Frankenstein
repeatedly refers to his monster as a “daemon,” something sub-human and
evil. When they first encounter
each other near Mont Blanc, Victor tells his monster to “begone, vile insect”
(125), indicating that he thinks of the creature as no higher on the Chain of
Being than lowly insects. But
despite this opinion, the monster tells Frankenstein, “Remember, thou hast made
me more powerful than thyself; my height is superior to thine; my joints more
supple” (126). Like the polyp, the
monster possesses super-human qualities but Victor still places him among the
insects and below humans on the Great Chain.
Surprisingly,
the monster accepts this position of inferiority. He tells Victor, “I am thy creature, and I will be even mild
and docile to my natural lord and king” (126). It seems as though Victor would be the opposite of his
monster’s “natural lord and king” for two reasons. First, there is nothing natural about their relationship;
Frankenstein created the monster through wholly unnatural means. Second, the monster’s greater physical
abilities and apparently equal mental capacity should place him above
Frankenstein, not below him. The
factor that might elevate Frankenstein above his monster is the process of
creation, but even this does not seem sufficient; not all offspring are inferior
to their parents, especially in evolutionary terms.
Like
Trembley’s polyp, this relationship forces humans to question their place in
nature. Is it fair for the monster
to call Frankenstein his “lord and king,” or should the roles be reversed? Is there any reason to put one being
over another in the first place?
Oof... this is my second blog response (not sure if that's taboo or not), but I couldn't resist tackling this one as well! I disagree that the monster accepts his position of inferiority, mostly because of the revenge on Victor, which he so willingly seeks. After the monster strangles William, he explains how he will exert power over Victor: "I exclaimed, 'I, too, can create desolation; my enemy is not impregnable; this death will carry despair to him, and a thousand other miseries shall torment and destroy him" (167). Here, I think that the monster is acting like the "lord and king" over Victor. But rather than conclude that the monster is above Victor on the Great Chain of Being (or that Victor is above the monster), I feel as though the most appropriate way to describe their relationship is that each constantly uses his own form of power over the other in this cyclical motion-- and that perhaps they circle each other so much that they become a centrifuge of being. Which leads me to this: sometimes I wonder, despite their physical differences, if they are even separate beings at all!
ReplyDeleteThis idea is probed further on page 124 where Victor as the narrator states "Alas! why does man boast of sensibilities superior to those apparent in the brute; it only renders them more necessary beings. If out impulses were confined to hunger, thirst, and desire, we might be nearly free; but now we are moved by every wind that blows, and word or scene that may convey us"(124) This is yet another register of the argument against the great chain of being. That humans have a superior ability of contemplation, but it does not lead to a preferable life.
ReplyDelete