How was Frankenstein received when it was first published?

Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Introduction

When Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus first appeared in bookstores on January 1, 1818, the literary world was unprepared for the revolutionary work that would eventually become one of the most influential novels in English literature. The initial reception of this groundbreaking Gothic novel was a complex tapestry of fascination, horror, moral outrage, and literary criticism that reflected the social, religious, and scientific anxieties of early 19th-century Britain. Published anonymously by the small London firm of Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones, the novel immediately sparked intense debate among critics and readers alike, establishing patterns of response that would persist for decades.

The reception of Frankenstein in 1818 was characterized by a fundamental ambivalence that mirrored the novel’s own exploration of scientific progress versus moral responsibility. While some critics praised Shelley’s imaginative power and philosophical depth, others condemned the work as blasphemous, immoral, and unnecessarily disturbing. This initial critical response was complicated by the fact that the novel was published without Mary Shelley’s name on the title page, leading many reviewers to speculate about the author’s identity and gender. The anonymous publication strategy, while common for the period, added an additional layer of mystery and controversy that influenced how contemporary readers and critics interpreted and evaluated the work.

The Anonymous Publication and Its Impact

The decision to publish Frankenstein anonymously was both strategic and reflective of the social constraints facing women writers in the early 19th century. Mary Shelley, only twenty years old at the time of publication, was already associated with radical political figures through her relationship with Percy Bysshe Shelley and her father, William Godwin. The anonymous publication allowed the novel to be judged on its literary merits rather than being immediately dismissed due to prejudices against female authorship or the controversial reputations of Mary’s male associates. This anonymity created a unique dynamic in the initial reception, as critics were forced to grapple with the work itself without the usual biographical context that often influenced literary evaluation.

The impact of anonymous publication extended beyond simple gender considerations to encompass broader questions about literary authority and authenticity. Many early reviewers assumed the author was male, partly due to the novel’s philosophical complexity and scientific subject matter, which were considered predominantly masculine domains. When the preface, written by Percy Shelley, suggested the author’s youth and inexperience, some critics interpreted this as false modesty rather than genuine biographical information. This misunderstanding led to reviews that praised or criticized the work based on incorrect assumptions about the author’s identity, gender, and experience, creating a fascinating case study in how authorial identity influences literary reception.

Critical Reviews and Literary Journals

The initial critical reception of Frankenstein in literary journals and magazines revealed the deep cultural anxieties surrounding scientific advancement, religious orthodoxy, and moral boundaries that characterized the Romantic period. The Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany published one of the first significant reviews in March 1818, describing the novel as “a tissue of horrible and disgusting absurdity” while simultaneously acknowledging its “considerable powers of imagination” (Anonymous, 1818, p. 249). This ambivalent response typified many early reviews, which recognized Shelley’s literary talent while expressing moral reservations about the novel’s content and themes.

Contemporary critics struggled to categorize Frankenstein within existing literary genres, often comparing it unfavorably to established Gothic novels while failing to recognize its innovative elements. The Quarterly Review, one of the most influential periodicals of the time, dismissed the novel as an unsuccessful imitation of Godwin’s Caleb Williams, criticizing its “disagreeable” subject matter and questioning the morality of creating such disturbing fictional scenarios (Croker, 1818, p. 379). However, other reviews, such as those in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine and The Gentleman’s Magazine, offered more nuanced assessments that praised Shelley’s psychological insight and philosophical depth while still expressing concerns about the novel’s potentially harmful effects on impressionable readers.

Public Reception and Popular Response

The public reception of Frankenstein in 1818 was marked by immediate popular fascination coupled with widespread moral concern, reflecting the novel’s ability to tap into contemporary fears about scientific overreach and social dissolution. Unlike many novels of the period that enjoyed either critical acclaim or popular success, Frankenstein achieved both simultaneously, though not without controversy. The first edition of 500 copies sold steadily, indicating genuine public interest in Shelley’s creation despite, or perhaps because of, the critical reservations expressed in literary journals. Readers were drawn to the novel’s sensational elements – the reanimated corpse, the moral downfall of Victor Frankenstein, and the creature’s eloquent plea for understanding – while simultaneously being disturbed by its implications for human nature and divine authority.

The popular response to Frankenstein was significantly influenced by the broader cultural context of post-Napoleonic Europe, where traditional social structures were being questioned and scientific discoveries were rapidly changing understanding of the natural world. Many readers interpreted the novel as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked ambition and the consequences of playing God, themes that resonated strongly with contemporary concerns about social revolution and religious skepticism. The novel’s popularity was further enhanced by word-of-mouth recommendations and discussion in social circles, where the shocking nature of Victor’s experiment and the creature’s subsequent revenge became topics of animated debate and moral reflection.

Religious and Moral Concerns

The religious establishment and morally conservative critics responded to Frankenstein with considerable alarm, viewing the novel as a dangerous challenge to Christian doctrine and social order. Many contemporary reviewers expressed deep concern about the novel’s apparent endorsement of materialist philosophy and its suggestion that life could be created through scientific means rather than divine intervention. The British Critic condemned the work as “a tissue of horrible and disgusting absurdity,” arguing that it promoted atheistic views and undermined fundamental Christian beliefs about the sanctity of life and the exclusive power of God to create living beings (Anonymous, 1818, p. 432). These religious objections reflected broader anxieties about the growing influence of scientific rationalism and its potential to erode traditional faith-based worldviews.

The moral concerns raised by early critics extended beyond religious orthodoxy to encompass questions about the novel’s potential influence on readers, particularly young and impressionable audiences. Conservative reviewers worried that Frankenstein might encourage dangerous experimentation or promote disrespect for natural law and divine authority. The Quarterly Review specifically criticized what it saw as the novel’s “diseased and wandering imagination” and warned that such works might corrupt readers’ moral sensibilities by presenting sympathetic portrayals of transgressive behavior (Croker, 1818, p. 385). These moral objections were intertwined with broader cultural debates about the responsibility of literature to promote virtue and social stability, reflecting the period’s understanding of fiction as a potentially powerful force for social influence.

Scientific Community Response

The scientific community’s response to Frankenstein was complex and varied, ranging from dismissive criticism of the novel’s scientific implausibility to thoughtful engagement with its philosophical implications for scientific research and responsibility. Many practicing scientists and natural philosophers initially regarded the work as pure fantasy, criticizing Shelley’s lack of detailed scientific explanation and her reliance on vague references to electrical experiments and chemical processes. However, some members of the scientific community recognized the novel’s sophisticated understanding of contemporary debates in natural philosophy, particularly regarding the nature of life, the role of electricity in biological processes, and the ethical boundaries of scientific inquiry.

The novel’s treatment of galvanism and electrical experimentation reflected genuine scientific interests of the period, as researchers like Luigi Galvani and Alessandro Volta had recently demonstrated the relationship between electricity and muscular movement in dead animals. Some scientists appreciated Shelley’s engagement with these cutting-edge discoveries, even if they questioned the plausibility of her fictional extension of these principles to human reanimation. The scientific community’s response was further complicated by the novel’s critique of unchecked scientific ambition, which some researchers interpreted as an unfair attack on legitimate scientific inquiry while others saw it as a valuable warning about the need for ethical constraints on scientific experimentation.

Gender and Authorship Issues

The question of gender and authorship played a crucial role in the initial reception of Frankenstein, though its full impact only became apparent after Mary Shelley’s identity was revealed in the 1823 edition. The assumption that the novel was written by a male author led to different critical expectations and evaluations than would have been applied to a known female writer. When reviewers learned that the author was a young woman, many expressed surprise at the work’s philosophical sophistication and scientific knowledge, reflecting contemporary prejudices about women’s intellectual capabilities and appropriate literary subjects. This revelation led to a reassessment of the novel’s achievement, though not always in ways that were favorable to Mary Shelley’s reputation as an independent literary artist.

The gender dynamics surrounding Frankenstein’s reception were further complicated by Percy Shelley’s prominent role in the novel’s publication and his authorship of the preface. Some critics and readers began to question the extent of Mary Shelley’s individual contribution to the work, suggesting that her husband might have been the primary author or at least a significant collaborator. These speculations reflected broader cultural assumptions about women’s literary abilities and the expectation that exceptional works by female authors must have received substantial masculine assistance. The controversy over authorship continued to influence the novel’s reception throughout the 19th century and contributed to ongoing debates about collaborative creativity and the attribution of literary achievement.

Comparison with Contemporary Gothic Literature

Critics and readers of 1818 inevitably compared Frankenstein to other popular Gothic novels of the period, though these comparisons often failed to recognize the innovative elements that distinguished Shelley’s work from conventional Gothic fiction. Many reviewers noted similarities to works by Ann Radcliffe, Matthew Lewis, and Charles Brockden Brown, focusing on shared elements such as supernatural events, exotic settings, and themes of guilt and persecution. However, these surface-level comparisons often obscured the novel’s unique contributions to Gothic literature, particularly its scientific framework, psychological realism, and philosophical depth. The Monthly Review praised the novel’s “vigorous imagination” while comparing it to Lewis’s The Monk, though the reviewer failed to recognize the fundamental differences in thematic focus and moral perspective between the two works (Anonymous, 1818, p. 162).

The comparison with contemporary Gothic literature also revealed tensions within the genre itself, as critics struggled to accommodate Frankenstein’s rational, scientific approach to supernatural themes within traditional Gothic frameworks. Unlike earlier Gothic novels that relied on mysterious or supernatural explanations for extraordinary events, Frankenstein provided a quasi-scientific rationale for its central miracle, challenging readers to consider the implications of scientific progress for traditional understanding of life, death, and moral responsibility. Some critics appreciated this innovative approach, recognizing it as a sophisticated evolution of Gothic conventions, while others criticized it as an unsuccessful attempt to rationalize inherently irrational material.

International Reception

The international reception of Frankenstein in its early years was limited by the practical constraints of international publishing and translation, though the novel gradually gained recognition in continental Europe and other English-speaking countries. French literary critics showed particular interest in the work, viewing it as an example of the English Gothic tradition while noting its philosophical sophistication and moral complexity. German readers and critics, already familiar with Gothic themes through their own literary tradition, responded positively to the novel’s exploration of scientific and metaphysical questions, though some expressed reservations about its treatment of natural philosophy and religious themes.

The novel’s reception in America was initially more limited, partly due to the lack of international copyright protection and the prevalence of pirated editions that often appeared without proper attribution or context. However, American critics who encountered the work generally responded favorably to its democratic themes and critique of aristocratic privilege, interpreting Victor Frankenstein’s downfall as a cautionary tale about the dangers of intellectual elitism and social isolation. The American reception was also influenced by contemporary debates about slavery and human dignity, with some readers drawing parallels between the creature’s treatment and the condition of enslaved people, though these interpretations were not widely articulated in published criticism until later decades.

Long-term Impact on Literature

The initial reception of Frankenstein established patterns of response and interpretation that would influence the novel’s literary reputation for generations, though many early critics failed to anticipate the work’s lasting significance for literary history. The novel’s innovative combination of Gothic atmosphere, scientific speculation, and philosophical inquiry created a new subgenre that would later be recognized as science fiction, though this categorization was not available to contemporary readers and critics. Early reviewers’ focus on the work’s moral implications and literary craftsmanship, while often critical, helped establish Frankenstein as a serious work of literature deserving sustained critical attention rather than merely sensational entertainment.

The diverse and often contradictory responses to Frankenstein’s initial publication demonstrated the novel’s capacity to engage readers on multiple levels and generate ongoing debate about fundamental questions of human nature, scientific progress, and moral responsibility. Critics’ recognition of the work’s imaginative power, even when coupled with moral reservations, suggested its potential for lasting influence on literary development and cultural discourse. The novel’s ability to provoke strong responses across different segments of the reading public – from religious conservatives to scientific rationalists, from Gothic enthusiasts to moral reformers – indicated its success in addressing central concerns of its historical moment while articulating themes that would prove to have enduring relevance.

Conclusion

The initial reception of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in 1818 was characterized by a remarkable combination of recognition and resistance, fascination and horror, that reflected both the novel’s innovative achievement and the cultural tensions of its historical moment. Contemporary critics and readers recognized the work’s imaginative power and philosophical sophistication while expressing deep concerns about its moral implications and potential social effects. The anonymous publication added an additional layer of complexity to the reception process, allowing the work to be evaluated on its literary merits while simultaneously creating speculation about authorship that would influence its interpretation for decades.

The diverse responses to Frankenstein’s initial publication – from religious condemnation to scientific skepticism, from Gothic appreciation to moral anxiety – demonstrated the novel’s success in engaging fundamental questions about human nature, scientific progress, and social responsibility that were central to early 19th-century cultural discourse. While many early critics failed to anticipate the work’s lasting influence on literary history, their recognition of its disturbing power and intellectual complexity helped establish Frankenstein as a significant cultural artifact deserving serious critical attention. The patterns of response established in 1818 would continue to shape the novel’s reception throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, confirming Mary Shelley’s achievement in creating a work that could simultaneously entertain and challenge readers while addressing the fundamental anxieties and aspirations of modern civilization.

References

Anonymous. (1818, March). Review of Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus. Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany, 2, 249-253.

Anonymous. (1818, April). Review of Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus. The British Critic, 9, 432-438.

Anonymous. (1818, May). Review of Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus. Monthly Review, 85, 162-163.

Bennett, B. T. (Ed.). (1980-1988). The Letters of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (3 vols.). Johns Hopkins University Press.

Butler, M. (1993). Frankenstein and radical science. Times Literary Supplement, 4, 12-14.

Croker, J. W. (1818). Review of Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus. The Quarterly Review, 18, 379-385.

Forry, S. E. (1990). Hideous Progenies: Dramatizations of Frankenstein from Mary Shelley to the Present. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Gilbert, S. M., & Gubar, S. (1979). The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. Yale University Press.

Mellor, A. K. (1988). Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters. Methuen.

O’Flinn, P. (1986). Production and reproduction: The case of Frankenstein. Literature and History, 9(2), 194-213.

Shelley, M. (1818). Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones.

Small, C. (1973). Ariel Like a Harpy: Shelley, Mary and Frankenstein. Gollancz.

Spark, M. (1987). Mary Shelley. Constable.

St. Clair, W. (1989). The Godwins and the Shelleys: The Biography of a Family. Faber & Faber.

Sunstein, E. W. (1989). Mary Shelley: Romance and Reality. Little, Brown.