How was science viewed during the time of Frankenstein‘s publication?

Martin Munyao Muinde
ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Abstract

The publication of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in 1818 occurred during a pivotal period in scientific history, marking the transition from Enlightenment rationalism to Romantic skepticism toward scientific progress. This essay examines the complex attitudes toward science during the early 19th century, exploring how contemporary scientific discoveries, philosophical movements, and social concerns shaped public perception of scientific endeavor. The analysis reveals that while science was celebrated for its potential to advance human knowledge and improve society, it was simultaneously viewed with suspicion and fear regarding its moral implications and potential for misuse.

Introduction

When Mary Shelley penned Frankenstein in 1816 and published it in 1818, the scientific landscape of Europe was undergoing revolutionary changes that would fundamentally alter humanity’s understanding of the natural world. The early 19th century represented a unique historical moment when scientific discovery was accelerating at an unprecedented pace, yet society grappled with the implications of these advances. The period witnessed groundbreaking developments in chemistry, biology, physics, and medicine, while simultaneously experiencing the rise of Romanticism as a counterbalance to Enlightenment rationalism.

The cultural and intellectual climate of this era was characterized by both excitement and apprehension about scientific progress. Scientists like Luigi Galvani and Alessandro Volta had demonstrated the mysterious power of electricity, while chemists such as Humphry Davy were isolating new elements and revealing the fundamental building blocks of matter. These discoveries captured the public imagination but also raised profound questions about the boundaries of human knowledge and the ethics of scientific experimentation. Shelley’s novel emerged from this complex milieu, reflecting contemporary anxieties about unchecked scientific ambition and the potential consequences of pushing beyond natural limits.

The Scientific Revolution Context

Enlightenment Legacy and Scientific Optimism

The scientific revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries had established a foundation of empirical methodology and rational inquiry that dominated intellectual thought leading up to Frankenstein‘s publication. The Enlightenment had promoted science as the key to human progress, with figures like Francis Bacon advocating for systematic experimentation and the accumulation of knowledge through observation (Dear, 2006). This period saw the emergence of scientific institutions, including the Royal Society of London and the French Academy of Sciences, which legitimized scientific inquiry as a professional endeavor worthy of public support and recognition.

By the early 1800s, this Enlightenment optimism about science had created a cultural climate where scientific discovery was viewed as inherently beneficial to humanity. The prevailing belief was that through careful study of natural phenomena, scientists could unlock the secrets of the universe and harness these discoveries to improve human life. This optimistic view of science was reflected in educational reforms that emphasized scientific literacy and the establishment of public lectures and demonstrations that made scientific knowledge accessible to broader audiences. The period’s scientific optimism was exemplified by the work of prominent figures like Alexander von Humboldt, whose comprehensive approach to natural philosophy embodied the era’s belief in the unity and comprehensibility of natural phenomena (Walls, 2009).

Emerging Skepticism and Romantic Reaction

However, the same period that celebrated scientific achievement also witnessed the emergence of Romantic philosophy, which began to question the supremacy of rational, scientific thinking. Romantic thinkers like William Blake, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and William Wordsworth argued that excessive focus on scientific rationalism risked diminishing human appreciation for beauty, imagination, and spiritual experience (Abrams, 1971). This Romantic critique suggested that science, while valuable, should not be pursued at the expense of emotional and aesthetic understanding of the world.

The Romantic movement’s skepticism toward science was not necessarily anti-scientific but rather concerned with maintaining balance between rational inquiry and other forms of human experience. Romantics feared that an exclusively scientific worldview would lead to a mechanistic understanding of nature that stripped away mystery, wonder, and the sacred. This tension between scientific rationalism and Romantic sensibility created a cultural dialogue about the proper role of science in society, with many intellectuals advocating for a more holistic approach to knowledge that integrated scientific understanding with artistic and spiritual insights. The influence of German Idealism, particularly the work of philosophers like Friedrich Schelling, further complicated the relationship between science and philosophy by suggesting that nature itself possessed an inherent purposiveness that purely mechanistic explanations could not capture (Richards, 2002).

Contemporary Scientific Discoveries

Galvanism and Electrical Experiments

The late 18th and early 19th centuries were marked by revolutionary discoveries in the field of electricity, which had profound implications for how people understood life itself. Luigi Galvani’s experiments with frog legs in the 1780s demonstrated that electrical stimulation could cause muscle contractions in dead tissue, leading to speculation about the relationship between electricity and vital force (Pera, 1992). These experiments suggested that electricity might be the animating principle of life, a concept that captured public imagination and influenced both scientific research and popular culture.

Alessandro Volta’s development of the electric battery in 1800 provided scientists with a reliable source of electrical current, enabling more sophisticated experiments and demonstrations. Public fascination with electrical phenomena was evident in the popularity of electrical demonstrations and the emergence of what might be called “electrical entertainment,” where audiences gathered to witness the seemingly magical effects of electrical stimulation. The connection between electricity and life became a central theme in scientific discourse, with researchers investigating whether electrical force could explain biological processes and even consciousness itself. This scientific context is crucial for understanding Shelley’s choice to have Victor Frankenstein use electrical methods to animate his creature, reflecting contemporary speculation about electricity as a life-giving force (Holmes, 2008).

Chemical Revolution and Material Analysis

The chemical revolution led by Antoine Lavoisier in the late 18th century had established chemistry as a rigorous science based on careful measurement and quantitative analysis. By the time of Frankenstein‘s publication, chemists like Humphry Davy were making spectacular discoveries, including the isolation of new elements such as sodium and potassium through electrochemical methods (Knight, 1992). These discoveries demonstrated that matter could be broken down into fundamental components and reassembled in new ways, suggesting that the natural world operated according to discoverable laws that humans could understand and manipulate.

The advancement of chemistry during this period contributed to a growing sense that scientists were approaching an understanding of the basic building blocks of reality. Davy’s work, in particular, demonstrated the power of scientific instrumentation and methodology to reveal hidden aspects of the natural world. His public lectures at the Royal Institution drew large audiences, including many women and members of the literary community, making him a celebrity scientist whose work influenced popular understanding of chemistry’s potential. The ability to isolate pure elements and create new compounds suggested that scientists might eventually gain the power to manipulate matter at will, a possibility that both excited and concerned contemporary observers. This chemical revolution provided the scientific backdrop for Shelley’s portrayal of Victor Frankenstein as a student of chemistry who discovers the secret of creating life through his understanding of material composition and transformation (Golinski, 1992).

Medical and Anatomical Knowledge

Advances in Anatomy and Physiology

The early 19th century witnessed significant advances in anatomical and physiological knowledge that expanded understanding of how living organisms functioned. The work of anatomists like Xavier Bichat, who developed tissue theory, and physiologists who investigated the functions of different organ systems, provided increasingly detailed knowledge of biological processes (Haigh, 1984). Medical schools across Europe were expanding their curricula to include systematic study of human anatomy, often requiring students to perform dissections on human corpses to gain firsthand knowledge of bodily structure.

This period also saw the emergence of comparative anatomy as a scientific discipline, with researchers like Georges Cuvier studying the similarities and differences between different species to understand the principles underlying biological organization. The growing sophistication of anatomical knowledge contributed to a sense that life itself might be understood in mechanical terms, as a complex but ultimately comprehensible system of interconnected parts. Medical practitioners began to view the human body as a machine whose functions could be analyzed and potentially repaired through scientific intervention. This mechanistic view of life provided both inspiration and concern for contemporary observers, who wondered whether complete understanding of biological processes might eventually lead to the artificial creation or manipulation of life itself.

Debates Over Vitalism and Materialism

The question of what distinguished living from non-living matter became a central concern in early 19th-century science, leading to heated debates between vitalists and materialists. Vitalists argued that living organisms possessed some special principle or force that could not be reduced to purely physical or chemical processes, while materialists contended that life could ultimately be explained in terms of the same laws that governed inanimate matter (Lenoir, 1982). This debate had profound implications for how people understood the nature of life and the possibility of creating or artificially manipulating living beings.

The vitalist-materialist controversy was not merely academic but reflected deeper concerns about the implications of scientific reductionism for human dignity and moral responsibility. If humans were merely complex machines operating according to physical laws, what did this mean for concepts of free will, moral responsibility, and the soul? The debate also had practical implications for medical practice, as different theories about the nature of life led to different approaches to treating disease and understanding health. Contemporary scientists like John Hunter and his student Edward Jenner were exploring the boundaries between life and death through their work with tissue transplantation and vaccination, raising questions about the malleability of living processes. These scientific and philosophical debates provided the intellectual context for Shelley’s exploration of the ethics and consequences of creating artificial life in Frankenstein (Jacyna, 1983).

Public Perception and Popular Science

Science Communication and Public Engagement

The early 19th century marked a significant expansion in public engagement with scientific ideas, facilitated by the growth of popular science publications, public lectures, and scientific demonstrations. Institutions like the Royal Institution in London, founded in 1799, explicitly aimed to make scientific knowledge accessible to general audiences through lectures and experimental demonstrations (James, 2007). Leading scientists of the day, including Humphry Davy and Michael Faraday, were skilled public speakers who could translate complex scientific concepts into entertaining and comprehensible presentations for diverse audiences.

The democratization of scientific knowledge during this period reflected broader social changes, including growing literacy rates, expanded printing capabilities, and increasing middle-class interest in education and self-improvement. Popular science magazines and books made scientific discoveries accessible to readers without formal scientific training, while public lectures provided opportunities for direct engagement with scientific ideas and practitioners. This expansion of scientific literacy created a more scientifically informed public that was capable of engaging with and critiquing scientific developments. However, it also meant that scientific ideas were subject to popular interpretation and speculation that sometimes diverged from rigorous scientific methodology. The public’s fascination with spectacular demonstrations and dramatic discoveries sometimes led to unrealistic expectations about what science could achieve, contributing to both excitement about scientific progress and anxiety about its potential consequences.

Scientific Societies and Institutional Development

The period surrounding Frankenstein‘s publication witnessed the establishment and expansion of numerous scientific societies and institutions that helped to professionalize scientific practice and establish standards for scientific research. The Royal Society of London, already well-established, continued to serve as a model for scientific organizations across Europe, while new specialized societies emerged to focus on particular areas of scientific inquiry (Miller, 1981). These institutions played crucial roles in validating scientific discoveries, facilitating communication between researchers, and establishing the social status of scientific practitioners.

The growth of scientific institutions reflected and contributed to changing perceptions of science as a legitimate and important form of professional activity. Scientists were increasingly viewed as experts whose specialized knowledge gave them authority to speak on matters related to their fields of study. However, this professionalization also created some distance between scientific practitioners and the general public, as scientific knowledge became more technical and specialized. The tension between scientific expertise and popular understanding created opportunities for misinterpretation and speculation about scientific capabilities and goals. The institutional development of science during this period established frameworks for scientific practice that emphasized methodological rigor and peer review, but it also created hierarchies and boundaries that could exclude alternative forms of knowledge and inquiry (Inkster, 1977).

Religious and Moral Considerations

Christianity and Natural Philosophy

The relationship between scientific inquiry and Christian theology during the early 19th century was complex and multifaceted, reflecting ongoing attempts to reconcile scientific discoveries with religious doctrine. Many prominent scientists of the period, including Humphry Davy and Michael Faraday, were devout Christians who viewed their scientific work as a way of understanding and celebrating God’s creation (Cantor, 1991). Natural theology, which sought to demonstrate God’s existence and attributes through study of the natural world, remained influential and provided a framework for viewing scientific discovery as complementary to religious faith rather than threatening to it.

However, certain scientific discoveries and theories began to challenge traditional Christian teachings about the nature of creation and humanity’s place in the natural order. The growing understanding of geological time scales, for example, raised questions about biblical chronology, while advances in comparative anatomy suggested evolutionary relationships between different species. These developments created tension between scientific evidence and religious doctrine that required careful navigation by both scientists and theologians. Many attempted to resolve these tensions through various forms of accommodation, arguing that scientific discoveries revealed the mechanisms through which God operated in the natural world rather than contradicting divine creation. The debate over the relationship between science and religion influenced public perception of scientific research, with some viewing science as a threat to moral order and others seeing it as a means of deepening spiritual understanding (Brooke, 1991).

Ethical Concerns About Scientific Progress

The rapid pace of scientific discovery in the early 19th century raised unprecedented ethical questions about the proper limits of scientific inquiry and the responsibilities of scientists toward society. The increasing power of scientific knowledge to manipulate natural processes led to concerns about potential misuse of scientific discoveries and the need for moral guidance in scientific research (Porter, 2000). These concerns were particularly acute in areas like medicine and chemistry, where scientific knowledge had obvious practical applications that could be used for either beneficial or harmful purposes.

Contemporary discussions about scientific ethics often focused on questions of hubris and the dangers of scientists overreaching their proper bounds by attempting to play God or interfere with natural processes beyond human understanding. The Romantic critique of scientific rationalism contributed to these ethical concerns by emphasizing the importance of emotional and spiritual dimensions of human experience that purely scientific approaches might neglect or undermine. Religious leaders and moral philosophers argued that scientific progress should be guided by ethical principles and social responsibility rather than pursued for its own sake. These ethical debates reflected broader anxieties about the rapid pace of social and technological change during the period and concerns about whether human moral development was keeping pace with scientific advancement. The ethical dimensions of scientific progress became central themes in literary works like Frankenstein, which explored the potential consequences of unchecked scientific ambition (Shapin, 2008).

Literary and Cultural Responses

Romantic Literature and Science

The Romantic movement in literature and arts provided a complex response to the scientific developments of the early 19th century, neither wholly rejecting nor completely embracing scientific rationalism but rather seeking to integrate scientific understanding with emotional, aesthetic, and spiritual insights (Levere, 1981). Romantic poets and writers often drew inspiration from scientific discoveries while simultaneously critiquing the limitations of purely rational approaches to understanding the world. This dual relationship with science is evident in the work of poets like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who was deeply interested in contemporary scientific theories but also concerned about the potential dehumanizing effects of mechanistic worldviews.

The Romantic emphasis on imagination, emotion, and individual experience provided a counterbalance to scientific objectivity and systematic methodology, suggesting that complete understanding of reality required multiple ways of knowing. Romantic writers often portrayed science as one important but limited approach to truth, valuable for understanding certain aspects of the natural world but insufficient for grasping the full richness of human experience. This perspective influenced how the reading public understood science, encouraging appreciation for scientific achievement while maintaining skepticism about claims that science could provide complete or final answers to fundamental questions about existence and meaning. The Romantic movement’s complex relationship with science helped to establish patterns of cultural response to scientific progress that emphasized both wonder at scientific achievement and concern about its potential consequences for human values and social relationships.

Gothic Literature and Scientific Horror

The Gothic literary tradition that flourished in the late 18th and early 19th centuries provided a particularly important framework for exploring anxieties about scientific progress and its potential dark consequences. Gothic novels typically featured themes of transgression, forbidden knowledge, and the unleashing of forces beyond human control, making them well-suited for examining fears about scientific overreach (Baldick, 1987). Writers in the Gothic tradition drew upon contemporary scientific discoveries to create narratives that explored the potential horror of scientific knowledge divorced from moral restraint or social responsibility.

The Gothic response to science was characterized by fascination with the liminal boundaries between life and death, natural and artificial, known and unknown, reflecting contemporary scientific investigations into these very boundaries. Gothic literature often portrayed scientists as tragic figures whose pursuit of knowledge led them to violate natural or moral laws with catastrophic consequences. This literary tradition provided a cultural space for working through anxieties about scientific progress while also celebrating the dramatic possibilities inherent in scientific discovery. The popularity of Gothic literature during this period suggests widespread public interest in exploring the darker implications of scientific advancement, even as society generally celebrated scientific progress. The Gothic tradition’s influence on Frankenstein is evident in Shelley’s portrayal of Victor Frankenstein as a scientist whose noble intentions lead to tragic consequences through his failure to consider the ethical implications of his research (Botting, 1996).

Conclusion

The period surrounding the publication of Frankenstein in 1818 was characterized by complex and often contradictory attitudes toward science that reflected the era’s position at the intersection of Enlightenment optimism and Romantic skepticism. While scientific discoveries in electricity, chemistry, and biology generated excitement about the potential for human progress through rational inquiry, these same advances raised profound questions about the proper limits of scientific investigation and the ethical responsibilities of scientists toward society. The cultural response to scientific progress during this period established patterns of both celebration and concern that continue to influence how societies engage with scientific advancement.

Mary Shelley’s novel emerged from and contributed to this complex cultural dialogue about science, capturing both the promise and the peril of scientific progress in ways that resonated with contemporary audiences and continue to speak to modern readers. The period’s scientific developments, philosophical debates, and cultural responses created a rich context for exploring fundamental questions about human nature, moral responsibility, and the proper relationship between knowledge and power. Understanding how science was viewed during the time of Frankenstein‘s publication provides valuable insight into both the historical development of scientific culture and the enduring human concerns about the implications of scientific progress for individual and social well-being.

The legacy of this period’s approach to science continues to influence contemporary debates about scientific ethics, public engagement with science, and the role of scientific knowledge in addressing social challenges. The tension between scientific optimism and concern about potential negative consequences remains a central feature of how societies navigate scientific and technological change, making the perspectives developed during Shelley’s era particularly relevant for understanding current discussions about emerging technologies and their implications for human flourishing.

References

Abrams, M. H. (1971). Natural supernaturalism: Tradition and revolution in Romantic literature. Norton.

Baldick, C. (1987). In Frankenstein’s shadow: Myth, monstrosity, and nineteenth-century writing. Oxford University Press.

Botting, F. (1996). Gothic. Routledge.

Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and religion: Some historical perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

Cantor, G. (1991). Michael Faraday: Sandemanian and scientist. Macmillan.

Dear, P. (2006). The intelligibility of nature: How science makes sense of the world. University of Chicago Press.

Golinski, J. (1992). Science as public culture: Chemistry and enlightenment in Britain, 1760-1820. Cambridge University Press.

Haigh, E. (1984). Xavier Bichat and the medical theory of the eighteenth century. Wellcome Institute.

Holmes, R. (2008). The age of wonder: How the Romantic generation discovered the beauty and terror of science. Pantheon Books.

Inkster, I. (1977). Scientific culture in the early industrial revolution. Annals of Science, 34(1), 1-32.

Jacyna, S. (1983). Immanence or transcendence: Theories of life and organization in Britain, 1790-1835. Isis, 74(3), 311-329.

James, F. (2007). The common purposes of life: Science and society at the Royal Institution. Ashgate.

Knight, D. (1992). Humphry Davy: Science and power. Cambridge University Press.

Lenoir, T. (1982). The strategy of life: Teleology and mechanics in nineteenth-century German biology. University of Chicago Press.

Levere, T. H. (1981). Poetry realized in nature: Samuel Taylor Coleridge and early nineteenth-century science. Cambridge University Press.

Miller, D. P. (1981). The revival of the physical sciences in Britain, 1815-1840. Osiris, 2, 107-134.

Pera, M. (1992). The ambiguous frog: The Galvani-Volta controversy on animal electricity. Princeton University Press.

Porter, R. (2000). Enlightenment: Britain and the creation of the modern world. Allen Lane.

Richards, R. J. (2002). The Romantic conception of life: Science and philosophy in the age of Goethe. University of Chicago Press.

Shapin, S. (2008). The scientific life: A moral history of a late modern vocation. University of Chicago Press.

Walls, L. D. (2009). The passage to cosmos: Alexander von Humboldt and the shaping of America. University of Chicago Press.