Civilization v. Barbarism
The presence of science and power, and seemingly of civility, in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus are masking the underlying trait of barbarism. Victor and Titus are both characterized as well to do and powerful men in their own societies, however they break several norms of civilization thus becoming barbaric in nature. These man are disruptive of nature and of the social order, therefore creating a blatant juxtaposition of civility and barbarism which shapes the course of each work of literature.
The contrast of civility and barbarism is quite obvious in Titus Andronicus. First and foremost it is apparent that the Gothic and Roman ways of life are glaringly different. Titus’s brother Marcus displays that the Romans represent civility in comparison to the Goths and their way of life: “Thou art a Roman, be not barbarous” (Shakespeare 1.1.378). To be “Roman” is to be of status and stature and thus of refined behavior. The word “Roman” is being used as a synonym for “civilized” in this case. This proclamation further extrapolates that The Roman Empire has the permanence, the organization, and the direction that the Goths, in the Roman opinion of course.
Roman civilization is more reputable and far more established then the Gothic culture at this time. Because of this Roman superiority is used as an excuse of behavior and action due to the fact that this notion of civility somehow correlates with just action. As the play progresses the question of true civility is more and more convoluted. Horrific events unfold at the hand of “justice” and “fairness.” The most blatant example of this is the murder of Alarbus and captivity of his mother, Tamora. “Give us the proudest prisone...
... middle of paper ...
... to deteriorate and so does his mind. His civility through science and rational thought is losing its steam. He, along with mankind, becomes blinded by their prejudice for something that is different thus degrading their civility even more.
Titus Andronicus and Frankenstein both possess a fatal flaw: mistaken civility due to superiority. Prestige, power, education, and status control the characters and cause them to look down on those who are different or alternative to their personal understanding. Because of this disregard for what is a societal norm and therefore civil individuals become barbaric in nature. This loss of reliability through mistaken civil identity is ultimately the downfall and succession to barbarism. Therefore, through knowledge and influence Victor and Titus use their authority to create a world in which barbarism is disguised as civility.
When you hear the word “Frankenstein”, the first thing that comes to mind is a creepy, zombie-like monster; but this is not exactly what the story is all about. The monster is not actually named Frankenstein; it’s the creator of the monster whose name is Victor Frankenstein. Because of Victor’s interest in natural science and creation of life, he decided to study relentlessly and create his own human out of something inanimate. Once brought to life though, the creature ends up being more of a curse than an amazing invention. Victor then spends the rest of his life in fear and grief to try and put an end to the monster he created. The novel Frankenstein shows remarkable and deliberate connection with the myth of Prometheus from the cover page to the creation scene and is tied in through the rest of the book. (Whisenant)Victor Frankenstein can be called a modern-day Prometheus because of his creation of a being, their love for human kind, and their fate at the end.
...for success, he robs his audience of the right to make certain determinations about characters such as Tarquin Superbus and Romulus because of his bias toward the motivation behind their actions. Livy’s The Rise of Rome was a grand effort and an amazing undertaking. Cataloguing the years of Roman history consolidated rumor and legend into fact, creating a model for Rome to follow. Livy’s only error in this vast undertaking was in imprinting his own conception of morality and justice onto his work, an error that pulls the reader away from active thought and engaging debate. In doing so, Livy may have helped solidify a better Rome, but it would have been a Rome with less of a conception of why certain things are just, and more of a flat, basely concluded concept of justice.
Mary Shelley’s novel arises several questions relevant to the present day. A question that arises from the novel is whether man is born evil or made evil from his life experiences. The debate on whether how far man should pursue knowledge exists today as well as other questions challenged in the novel therefore “Frankenstein” is a popular novel at present as much as it was in the past.
On that first fateful day, when Romulus struck down his own brother Remus, the cauldron of Rome was forged in blood and betrayal. The seeds on the Palatine hill cultured one of the most potent and stretching empires of human history. Though this civilization seemingly wielded the bolts of Zeus, they were infested with violence, vanity, and deception. Yet, one man—or seemingly “un”-man—outshone and out-graced his surroundings and everyone within it. He brought Rome several victories and rescued his beloved country from an early exodus, thus providing her a second beginning. This man was Marcus Furius Camillus, and against a logical and emotional mind, he was oft less than loved and celebrated. At times he was disregarded, insulted and even exiled—irrevocably an unwarranted method to reward Rome’s “Second Founder.” This contrast of character between hero and people was perhaps too drastic and too grand. The people were not yet ready to see Marcus Furius Camillus as a model of behavior to be emulated—to be reproduced. Hence, much of Livy’s Book 5 provides a foundation for the Roman people to imitate and assimilate a contrasting, honest, and strong behavior and temperament
Livius, Titus. The Early History of Rome. Trans. Aubrey De Sélincourt. London: Penguin Group, 2002. N. pag. Print.
Tacitus tells us in the introduction to his Annales that his intent is to “relate a little about Augustus, Tiberius, et cetera” and to in fact do so “sine ira et studio” -- without bitterness or bias.1 Experience, however, tells us that this aim is rarely executed, and that we must be all the more suspicious when it is stated outright. Throughout the Annales, Tacitus rather gives the impression that his lack of bias is evidenced by his evenhanded application of bitterness to all his subjects. But is this really the case? While Tacitus tends to apply his sarcastic wit universally – to barbarian and Roman alike – this is not necessarily evidence of lack of bias. Taking the destruction of Mona and Boudicca's revolt (roughly 14.28-37) as a case study, it is evident that through epic allusion, deliberate diction, and careful choice of episodes related, Tacitus reveals his opinion that the Roman war machine first makes rebels by unjust governance, and then punishes them.
In her novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley explores a wide range of themes concerning human nature through the thoughts and actions of two main characters and a host of others. Two themes are at the heart of the story, the most important being creation, but emphasis is also placed on alienation from society. These two themes are relevant even in today’s society as technology brings us ever closer to Frankenstein’s fictional achievement.
Frankenstein is among one of the most iconic novels written during the early 19th Century. This novel was written by a distinguished Mary Shelley and first published in the year 1818. Shelley’s story is considered to written before its time as it challenged many themes and ideas of humanism, natural science, ambition, abortion, etc. The novel itself sparked many controversies and debates as numerous different topics are challenged and discussed throughout the novel. Shelley flawlessly executes the story as she writes in a dramatic gothic drama tone and allows the reader to step into different views of the story by changing perspectives.
In the novel "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley, the relationship of external apperence and internal feelings are directly related. The creature is created and he is innocent, though he is seaverly deformed. His nature is to be good and kind, but society only views his external appereance which is grotesque. Human nature is to judge by external apperence. He is automatically ostracized and labeled as a monster because of his external apperence. He finnaly realized that no matter how elequintly he speaks and how kind he is, people will never be able to see past his external deformities. Children are fearful of him, Adults think he is dangerous, and his own creator abandons him in disgust. The creature is treated as a monster, therefore he begins to internalize societies view of him and act the like a monster.
The fact that Frankenstein’s creation turns on him and murders innocent people is never overlooked; it has been the subject of virtually every popularization of the novel. What is not often acknowledged is the fact that Frankenstein himself embodies some of the worst traits of humankind. He is self-centered, with little real love for those who care about him; he is prejudiced, inflexible and cannot forgive, even in death. While some of these traits could be forgivable, to own and flaunt them all should be enough to remind a careful reader that there are two "monsters" in Frankenstein.
Tragedy shows no discrimination and often strikes down on those undeserving of such turmoil. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, a creature more repulsive than one can imagine is brought to life by a young scientist. Although this creature is horrifying in sight, he is gentle by nature. Unfortunately, the softer side of the creature is repeatedly overlooked and the so called “monster” is driven to a breaking point. Even though the Creature committed many crimes, Mary Shelley’s Creature was the tragic hero of this story because of his efforts rescue the life of a young girl and helping destitute cottagers.
The idea of duality permeates the literary world. Certain contradictory commonplace themes exist throughout great works, creation versus destruction, light versus dark, love versus lust, to name a few, and this trend continues in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. The pivotal pair in this text however, is monotony versus individuality. The opposing entities of this pairing greatly contrast against each other in Frankenstein, but individuality proves more dominant of the two in this book.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a nineteenth century literary work that delves into the world of science and the plausible outcomes of morally insensitive technological research. Although the novel brings to the forefront several issues about knowledge and sublime nature, the novel mostly explores the psychological and physical journey of two complex characters. While each character exhibits several interesting traits that range from passive and contemplative to rash and impulsive, their most attractive quality is their monstrosity. Their monstrosities, however, differ in the way each of the character’s act and respond to their environment. Throughout Frankenstein, one assumes that Frankenstein’s creation is the true monster. While the creation’s actions are indeed monstrous, one must also realize that his creator, Victor Frankenstein is also a villain. His inconsiderate and selfish acts as well as his passion for science result in the death of his friend and family members and ultimately in his own demise.
Like all works that have been taught in English classes, Frankenstein has been explicated and analyzed by students and teachers alike for much of the twentieth and all of the twenty-first century. Academia is correct for doing so because Frankenstein can appeal to the interests of students. Students, teachers and experts in the areas of medicine, psychology, and sociology can relevantly analyze Frankenstein in their respective fields. However, Peter Brooks explains in “Godlike Science/Unhallowed Arts: Language and Monstrosity in Frankenstein” that Shelly had presented the problem of “Monsterism” through her language. According to Brooks, Monsterism is explicitly and implicitly addressed in Shelly’s language. While this may be correct, Brooks does it in such a way that requires vast knowledge of subjects that many readers may not be knowledgeable in. After summarizing and analyzing the positive and negative qualities of Brooks’ work, I will explain how the connection of many different fields of study in literature creates a better work.
Brachneos. “Frankenstein – a Literature Essay on Social Context Comments.” Writinghood . N.p., 3 Mar. 2011. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. .