Fire from the sky: Frankenstein and Prometheus 🔥

Observations on the origins of ecocriticism within Mary Shelley and Percy Shelley's works in the Romantic era

Prometheus Carrying Fire, by Jan Cossiers (1600-1671).

_{It has been a long time since I began to think about this. Prometheus is known in Greek mythology as one of the great Titans. According to the myth, this Titan is involved in creating men from clay, later stealing fire from the gods, and giving it to mankind (Hesiod, 730-700 BC, lines 507-544). His name appears in the subtitle of one of the most famous works of Gothic fiction, Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus, 1818, by British author Mary Shelley, considered by some critics the first text of science fiction in the English language (Aldiss, 1995, p. 78). The myth of Prometheus is also featured in the non-fiction text Vindication for a Natural Diet, 1813. This one is a manifest written by Percy Shelley, Mary's husband, and it parallels her novel. This text is an attempt to understand how both texts relate to the myth of Prometheus, the ideas of corrupted humanity and an early form of ecological criticism, or as we know it today: ecocriticism. Ecocriticism explores the notion that literature can influence human beliefs and ideas about nature, its preservation and exploitation. Throughout the imagery of Prometheus’ story, Mary and Percy Shelley establish a critique of meat consumption in the Romantic Era, which could be considered a preceding pattern to the ideas of ecocriticism today.}

_{The Romantic Era, or Romanticism, is understood as the times that designed foundations for early modern culture, spanning its existence between 1800 and 1850 (Morrow, 2011. p. 39). In this period, artistic production spawned works highlighting conflicts and questions about freedom and nature. Current philosophical thinking brough up new challenges in the horizon of thinkers, especially when people got in contact with new scientific discoveries. It seems that what was often attributed to the divine started to be replaced with science and the scientific method. The studies on ecocriticism appeared in late 1970 (Gladwin, 2017) with a strong focus on Romanticism since this period is precisely the one when writers began to portray the contradictions of acknowledging changes in nature as the responsibility of human society and its progress. In her essay about Romanticism and Ecocriticism, Kate Rigby points out how Romantic ecology, in literature, is essentially modern, for they explore the subject of nature under the lights of technological progress. This would be the mathematization of life and the transformation of human life and landscapes at that time. She also says that:}

_{“The issue here is not the validity and value of the scientific method per se, but rather the social context of its emergence, in which the discursive framing of the scientific project, namely as a quest for human mastery over a deanimated Nature devoid of ethical considerability, served historically to justify the treatment of the earth and its ‘natural resources’ as freely available to be appropriated, traded and made-over by merchants and manufacturers: here, the liberty of human property owners is to be enlarged at the expense of the colonization, commodification and exploitation of those (ever expanding) portions of nature they claimed as theirs.” (Rigby, 2013. p. 64)}

_{Connecting Prometheus and the monster: fire from the sky}

_{We can see these subjects in Mary Shelley’s first novel. In Frankenstein, the scientist Viktor Frankenstein assembles the body parts of deceased people and animals to create a new life form. The product of his experiment is a sapient creature worldly known today as Frankenstein’s monster (Dimopoulos & etc, 2005, p.11). In the Greek story, Prometheus is punished by Zeus for giving fire to men. In Mary’s novel, Viktor departs in search of his creature in the Arctic and dies trying to find and kill the monster. Here, Viktor represents a new version of Prometheus. He regrets his creation and the atrocities it has done with the gift of life, like the original Prometheus’ fire, and refuses any glory regarding his accomplishments as a creator (Levine, 1979, p. 21). It is important to mention how fire and electricity are historically connected since bolts are known as the fire that comes from the sky.  The fire in this story is shown in the use of electricity to power the monster's life, with the principles of galvanism, a technique that uses electricity to stimulate muscle contraction and it was largely disseminated in the Romantic Era when it became popular.}

_{Frankenstein is essentially a story of revenge, where we follow the monster’s search for his father’s love. But, surprisingly, the monster is vegetarian. “I do not destroy the lamb and the kid, to glut my appetite; acorns and berries afford me sufficient nourishment” (M. Shelley, 1818, p. 103). This raises the first clue to connect Frankenstein with Percy Shelley’s vindication/manifest.}

_{Vegetarianism before vegetarianism}

_{Percy Shelley’s manifest brings the idea of a “natural diet” to attention. In his Vindication for a Natural Diet, he forms a case for what today we call a vegetarian diet. In his argument, he cites the symbology of the Promethean myth, alleging that fire, as a technology for humankind, served culinary purposes to men; only after mastering fire, the human race could consume meat (P. Shelley, 1813, p.11). In this essay, Percy calls attention to how wicked is the idea of slaughtering animals, exposing the contrasts between a civilised meatless diet and the standard omnivorous eating habits - he says that the animals’ slaughtering became invisible for those who live urban lives. Here, he indicates how urbanization collaborates with the dehumanization of life. In Mary’s story, Viktor Frankenstein’s younger brother, who appears to be just a boy, is confronted with the creature who he accuses of wanting to eat his flesh. His speech can be seen as a direct manifestation of the fear of being killed and eaten. This reaction is often posed as a representation of the monstrosity of eating meat (Petsche, 2014, p. 2). Whilst vegetarian, the monster kills, but never eats his victims. His journey is a story of vengeance towards his creator.} 

_{“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 remaining friends” (M. Shelley, 1818, p. 68).} 

_{In his manifesto, Percy Shelley tries to prove that eating meat is unnatural and that all human diseases, including the ones with social origins, could be cured if men stopped consuming meat. I think that in this excerpt he goes straightforward to an ecological criticism approach:}

_{“How can the advantages of intellect and civilization, be reconciled with the liberty and pure pleasures of natural life? How can we take the benefits, and reject the evils of the system, which is now interwoven with all the fibres of our being? - I believe that abstinence from animal food and spirituous liquors, would in a great measure capacitate us for the solution of this important question. […] All the exertions of man, from that moment, may be considered as tending to the clear profit of his species. No sane mind in a sane body resolves upon a real crime. It is a man of violent passions, blood-shot eyes, and swollen veins, that alone can grasp the knife of murder.” (Percy Shelley, 1813. p. 2).}

_{With the idea of man as the murderer, Percy articulates the notion of humanity being capable of making decisions, not as a mere result of its natural instincts, but as beings capable of rational thinking. In Mary’s novel, we see this same principle developed in the monster’s capacity for judgment. It could also be said that it is contradictory since the creature is still a murderer, but like any rational being, the monster is a complex individual. Following the myth of Prometheus, the gift of fire can be seen as a curse – for its use allows humans to eat meat, in Percy’s view – as much as the symbol of knowledge – for the image of the scientist creating a new form of life, in Mary’s book.} 

_{So, using Promethean symbology, both texts expose similar ideas regarding the monstrosity of meat consumption, which is part of ecocriticism. Both texts raise meat consumption as some sort of corruption of men's nature. In Mary’s fictional text, this is represented at the beginning of the story by the break of the monster’s gentle nature, who becomes corrupted by his creator, Viktor, who refuses to help. “Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel […] Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous” (M. Shelley, chapter 10). In parallel, Percy also talks about the figure of Adam in his manifest. “The allegory of Adam and Eve eating of the tree of evil, and entailing upon their posterity the wrath of God […] admits of no other explanation than the disease and crime that have flowed from unnatural diet” (P. Shelley, p. 9). It is not surprising to see these references in both texts, since theorists often relate Hesiod’s Theogony with the Bible.} 

_{Regardless of belonging to different genres, Mary and Percy Shelley’s words share the Prometheus myth as an allegory for human corruption. It is interesting to observe how far the years have passed and we are still talking about the same topics that motivated romantics to bring so much of their life activism into literature. No wonder some people say that we never got over the Romantic ideals. Now, more than ever, we see so many of their worries coming to life in full force.}

_{Meat consumption is just one of them and I hope to talk more about others soon in this newsletter.} 

Interesting related content

• A User’s Guide to Frankenstein, by MoMa

  Everything I "Learned" About Mary Shelley

_{Cited works}

• _{Hesiod. The Homeric Hymns and Homerica with an English Translation by Hugh G. Evelyn-White. Theogony. Cambridge, MA.,Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1914. Source: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0130%3Acard%3D507}

• _{The Detached Retina: Aspects of SF and Fantasy by Brian Aldiss (1995), p. 78https://www.google.com.br/books/edition/The_Detached_Retina/N1WWSRVeOC8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover}

• _{Alexandra Dimopoulos;Stuart Fischoff;  François Nguyen; Rachel Gordon (2005-08-25). "The Psychological Appeal of Movie Monsters" (PDF). Journal of Media Psychology. 10 (3). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-08-19. Retrieved 2007-07-11.}

• _{Gladwin, Derek. Ecocriticism. Oxford Library. 10.1093/OBO/9780190221911-0014}

  _{https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780190221911/obo-9780190221911-0014.xml - Retrieved in 2023.}

• _{Jackson Petche. An Already Alienated Animality: Frankenstein as a Gothic Narrative of Carnivorism. https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.7227/GS.16.1.8?journalCode=gothic}

• _{Morrow, John. (2011). Romanticism and political thought in the early nineteenth century. The Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Political Thought. p. 39–76. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521430562.004} 

• _{The ambiguous heritage of Frankestein. FROM The Endurance of Frankenstein: Essays on Mary Shelley's Novel – p.62}

• _{Rigby, Kate.Romanticism and Ecocriticism. 2014.
  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199742929.013.003}

---

Ps: this text was originally an essay for one of my classes in English Literature, at university. So it is minimally peer-reviewed!

---

I’ve had fun. But that’s all, folks!
See you in the next ✴️

Vanessa Guedes.
(instagram) (blue sky) (twitter) (site)

🔭