Three melodies of "Frankenstein": concordia discors

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru//

Three melodies of “Frankenstein”: concordia discors

T. N. Potnitseva

Славнозвісний роман Мері Шеллі, як і сама письменниця, опинилися в епіцентрі найгостріших та найактуальніших дискусій часу на онтологічні, соціально-політичні та моральні проблеми. Духовні та сімейні зв'язки М. Шеллі визначили її «межову позицію» по відношенню як до її відомих батьків, так і до її не менш відомого романтичного кола. Саме їй, більшою мірою, ніж Шеллі та Байрону, було призначено судьбою надати оцінку ідеалам Годвіна і Мері Волстонкрафт, які було сприйнято критично новою генерацією політиків, філософів та письменників. Зустріч/зіткнення різноманітних точок зору на сутність природи людини та на шляхи до його (і усього людства) щастя втілено у специфічній наративній формі роману - надзвичайно адекватній його задуму. Йдеться про поліфонію, переплетення, взаємодію різних голосів.

Фокусуючись на моральних аспектах проблеми вченого та його відкриття, М. Шеллі полемізує з просвітницькою “наукою про щастя”, ставлячи питання про перспективу цього щастя завдяки набуттю знань та про тотожність поняття “знання і доброчесність”. Уся ця полеміка направлена і у бік романтизму.

Ключові слова: Просвітництво, романтизм, поліфонія, зустріч/зіткнення, світосприйняття, моральність.

Знаменитый роман Мэри Шелли, как и сама писательница, оказались в эпицентре самых острых и актуальных дискуссий своего времени на онтологические, социально-политические и нравственные проблемы. Духовные и семейные связи М. Шелли определили ее «пограничную позицию» по отношению как к известным родителям, так и к ее не менее известному романтическому кругу. Именно ей, в большей мере, чем Шелли и Байрону, было определено судьбой дать оценку идеалам Годвина и Мэри Уолстонкрафт, которые были восприняты критично новой генерацией политиков, философов и писателей. Встреча/столкновение разнообразных точек зрения на сущность природы человека и пути к его (и всего человечества) счастью воплощена в специфичной наративной форме романа - чрезвычайно адекватной его замыслу. Речь идет о полифонии, переплетении, взаимодействии разных голосов.

Сосредоточиваясь на нравственных аспектах проблемы ученого и его открытия, М. Шелли полемизирует с просветительской “наукой о счастье” и с идеей тождественности понятия “знание и добродетель”. Вся эта полемика направлена и в сторону романтизма.

Ключевые слова: Просвещение, романтизм, полифония, встреча/столкновение, мировосприятие, нравственность.

The famous novel by Mary Shelley as well as the writer herself, happened to be in the epicentre of the most urgent and topical discussions of the time on ontological, social - political and ethical problems. Spiritual and family ties defined M.Shelly's “border position” to the previous Enlightenment century of her famous parents and to the time of her no less famous Romantic circle. Namely she, more than Shelley or Byron, was destined to comprehend and evaluate the ideals of Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft, which were perceived critically by a new generation of politicians, philosophers and writers.

The encounter of different points of view on the essence of a human being and the way for him (as well as for the whole mankind) to be happy is embodied in a novel specific form of narration - amazingly adequate to its idea. That is polyphony, an intertwining, and interaction of different voices.

Focusing on moral aspects of the problem of a scientist and his discovery, M. Shelley polemicizes with the Enlightenment “science of happiness”, calling in question the prospects of happiness by obtaining knowledge, the very idea of knowledge and virtue identity. But this controversy is directed towards Romanticism as well.

Keywords: Enlightenment, romanticism, polyphony, encounter, world perception, morality

shelley science happiness

The year 2018 marks the 200th anniversary of a novel that had a lasting impact on literary fantasy, but also on thinking about ethics and science. The fact that Mary thought of more than a mere scary story when she anonymously published her novel “Frankenstein” in 1818 is illustrated by the alternative title - “The Modern Prometheus”.

The famous novel by Mary Shelley as well as the writer herself happened to be in the epicentre of the most urgent and topical discussions of the time on ontological, social - political and ethical problems. Spiritual and family ties defined M.Shelly's “border position” to the previous Enlightenment century of her famous parents and to the time of her no less famous Romantic circle. Namely she, more than Shelley or Byron, was destined to comprehend and evaluate the ideals of Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft, which were perceived critically by a new generation of politicians, philosophers and writers.

The encounter of different points of view on the essence of a human being and the way for him (as well as for the whole mankind) to be happy is embodied in a novel specific form of narration - amazingly adequate to its idea. That is polyphony, an intertwining, and interaction of different voices.

The epistolary form (Walton's “melody”) with which the story about Frankenstein begins corresponds with the Enlightenment literature and the very man of Enlightenment. Thus is Walton - a preamble for the story and the image of Frankenstein - in his striving for the summit of knowledge and for universal (but somehow abstract) happiness in the world. But this Enlightenment background is penetrated from the very beginning with tragic Romantic notes. First of all due to associations with Coleridge's “The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner”. Walton's strategy (as further Frankenstein's and Demon's) is “to kill no albatross”. But the ideals of “The Age of Reason” came in confrontation with a new reality and a new world perception revealing the tragic discrepancy between person's dreams and actual life, person's potential and impossibility of its realization. The confrontation of ideologies, views of the two literary and philosophical epochs defined the tragedy of the three characters of the novel. The “voice”, “melody” of each of them reduplicates and enforces the “voice”, “melody” of the other and by that reveal a complicated way of M.Shelly's own reflections.

The feeling that the destiny of one character is played over in the destiny of the other doesn't leave both Frankenstein and Demon. The later says that he is “the second “I” of Frankenstein”. In spite of the variability in the melodies of Frankenstein, Walton and Demon one can hear the same themes in endless repetitions, refrains, emotional roll-cans. Thus, the Frankenstein's monologue-lament over the Clerval's body repeats literally Demon's weeping-lament when he confessing to himself that he is a murderer and outcast. The emotional outpouring of all the participants of Frankenstein story shows quite obviously that in the tortures of their soul an analytical-rational (why so?) component is joined with sensual- emotional one. They all experience an irrepressible desire to revenge, rage towards their enemy and simultaneously pity for oneself and for one's neighbor.

All of M. Shelley's characters - Frankenstein, Walton, Demon, - change their world perception in the process of testing the fruit of knowledge in different spheres of their contact with the outer world: science, metaphysics, social relations, natural phenomena etc. The experience of each of them symbolizes different variants of development of Enlightenment- Romantic idea about potential of a man's mind. M.Shelley's Modern Prometheus is surely controversial to Goethe's Prometheus who is satisfied with the beings he created like himself (“Здесь я людей ваяю/И в них - мой образ, / Мне подобное племя...”, - translated by D. Nedovich). Prometheus of the beginning of the XIXth century - Frankenstein - realizes the Romantic discrepancy between what he wanted to create and what he had in fact, he witnesses the discrepancy between dream and reality. The result of this experience is the fact that everyone becomes a victim of one's own persuasions. But the quest to achieve the ideal was not in vain. The three heroes obtained a new understanding of the reality in its diversity and ambiguity. And more, especially that concerns Frankenstein and Walton, - the necessity to predict the consequences of grandiose scientific discoveries for men.

Focusing on moral aspects of the problem of a scientist and his discovery, M. Shelley polemicizes with the Enlightenment “science of happiness”, calling in question the prospects of happiness by obtaining knowledge, the very idea of knowledge and virtue identity. But this controversy is directed towards Romanticism as well.

As a challenge to her Romantic circle, Shelley, first of all, and his idealistic, abstract philosophy, M. Shelley makes Walton to take a decision to turn his ship home. The life and happiness of a concrete man seems to her more important and topical than an abstract, Utopian idea about grandiose scientific discoveries which are ruinous for a man now, at the moment.

Walton “kills now albatross”, he didn't dare to step over the trait beyond. But what is more important for a man and mankind? Prudence and compassion with those who need them now or aspiration to the dream, realization of which is vague and improbable in future? The answer to this question is problematized in the “melodies” of the three characters. And most probably, M. Shelley herself had no answer to it. Her polemical and pulsating way of thinking reveals its changeable, inconstant, dynamic character. It is meaningful that Shelley poem “Mutability” appears in the text as a tuning fork defining the rhythm of interrelations between heroes and the very essence of their perception of the events around. This changeability, the responsiveness of a man's soul and thought in his search of answers to cardinal questions - is the highest truth of being, which allows to see a beauty of a moment. One of this “beautiful moments” is the intersection of the three characters' destinies in the final scene of Frankenstein's death. That death of the main character - a Modern Prometheus - may be considered as a Victory. Because Walton didn't choose the road of those “others, more happy” who had to follow the road of Frankenstein till the end. It is quite possible that Walton's choice was for Mary Shelley herself the embodiment of that “proper measure” which helps to distinguish day from night.

References

Потницева Т. М. Мэри Уолстонкрафт

Шелли: “Последняя из славного

поколения...”. - Днепропетровск: Изд- во ДНУ, 2008. - С. 128.

Струкова Т. Г. Мэри Шелли,

или Незнакомая знаменитость /

Т Г. Струкова. - Воронеж: Воронежский университет, 2001. - 43 с.

Шелли Мэри. Франкенштейн.

Последний человек / М. Шелли. - М. : Ладомир, Наука, 2010. - 667 с.

Shelley Mary. Frankenstein or The Modem Prometheus / М. Шелли. ed. by

M. K. Joseph. - Oxford, N.-Y. : Oxford Univ. Press. 1980. - 244 p.

The Mary Shelley Reader / Ed. Betty T. Bennett and Charles E. Robinson. - N.- Y, Oxford : Oxford Univ. Press, 1990. - 336 p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru