Humanities | Literature Social Sciences
VOL. 1.1 | Nov. 2020
The Nature (and Super-Nature) of the Bodysnatching Trope in Frankenstein Rianna Turner1 1
Yale University
Abstract Bodysnatching — the early 19th-century practice of removing corpses from their graves for use in medical schools — was not merely grave-robbing. One of the Gothic’s many topoi is the dissolution of supposedly diametric distinctions, including that between scientific and moral knowledge. In this paper, I argue that Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley engages with “bodysnatching” in Frankenstein to explore the tensions between the scientific and the philosophical, and ultimately constructs a tale in which the two intellectual spaces are deeply intertwined. Shelley rejects a binaristic vision of knowledge that establishes intellectual hierarchies. I engage with Victor Frankenstein’s academic preferences; his motivations for undergoing Creation, which reconciles both the philosophical and scientific; the monster’s body as a result of grave-digging/bodysnatching, and how this both emblematizes intellectual “stitching” and is an attempt by Shelley to question what determines humanity using bodily detritus; and a discussion of the structure of the novel itself, which stitches together narratives with one common thread: the fears and preoccupations of each protagonist.
INTRODUCTION “The human remains were primarily deposited in
of at least 28 trenches, filled with thousands of eighteenth
orderly trenches roughly 1 meter or so apart, dug adjacent to the
century bodily fragments discarded after their dissection by
walls inside the garden, with cultivation along the walls giving
young anatomists. More gruesome than the fragmented limbs,
the appearance of a normal herb garden,” the text reads. “At
however, is the means by which the college acquired the bodies.
least two individuals plus disarticulated bone were present in
For much of European history, the public considered
each trench. There were no fully articulated skeletons, nor was
the use of cadavers for scientific research morally reprehensible.
there any attempt to reinter complete individuals. Two of the
For the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, executed
pits contained burials of bones rather than bodies” (Murphy 31).
criminals supplied scientists’ needs, “with the proviso that the
While this quotation could easily have been excerpted from the
anatomists should treat them with respect, arrange their burial,
pages of a Gothic novel, the scene comes from fact, not fiction.
and attend Mass for the departed” (BMJ 379). Even then,
The passage, from a 2011 edition of the scientific journal
relatives of the executed would often incite mobs to regain their
Archaeology Ireland, describes the findings of a 1999
loved ones’ corpse — and these mobs weren’t the only barriers
excavation conducted near the old Anatomy School at Trinity
to scientific acquisition. Executioners sometimes sided with
College in Dublin. The unconventional burial ground consisted
mobs for personal gain, since they could be “entitled to the
YURJ | yurj.yale.edu
1
Humanities | Literature Social Sciences
VOL. 1.1 | Nov. 2020
criminal’s clothes as a perquisite,” (BMJ 379) and on some
Wollstonecraft Shelley wrote at the cusp of a century,
occasions, public hangings did not even succeed in killing the
while Europe contended with a major intellectual shift. In the
accused. “In 1587 a man hanged at St. Tomas Waterings was
late eighteenth century, during her early years, Enlightenment
transported to the Barber-Surgeons’ Hall in a chest; on its being
philosophy peaked in popularity. The Enlightenment, also
opened he was found to be alive” (BMJ 379). Not until the
referred to as the Age of Reason, was an outgrowth of the
Anatomy Act of 1832 was the use of cadavers by anatomists
scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
legalized on the island — and even then, the Act was “viewed
An increase of new tools for understanding the universe
with horror by most working men and women in Britain” (Knott
decoupled natural phenomena from theology and the cosmos,
2). But the British Parliament
undermined the historic intellectual
considered the Act necessary in
prioritization of classical philosophy,
order to subdue another eighteenth century
trend
of
bodysnatching. individuals,
who
immorality: Cash-strapped referred
to
themselves as “Resurrectionists” in an ironic nod to religiosity, raided graveyards to sell corpses to medical schools. Bodysnatching
is
essentially Gothic. Not only were references
to
legible
eighteenth
to
bodysnatching century
audiences interacting with Gothic literature, and not only was lurking in graveyards with the intention of farming
corpses
for
future
“This synecdoche illuminates Frankenstein’s conclusion following this experiment: a human is more than an organism, something which can be scientifically re-created. A human body does not beget a human soul — it is merely something snatched, attempting to emulate humanity.”
and Reason prevailed over revelation. Enlightenment
thinkers
sought
systematic knowledge of nature, and were
suspicious
prejudice,
myth
Wollstonecraft
of
superstition,
and
Shelley
miracles. writes
in
response to these ideas, aligning largely with the Romantic natural scientists and speculative philosophers of the early nineteenth century. In Dietrich
von
Engelhardt’s
“Natural
Philosophy
and
paper Natural
Science around 1800,” he writes that, while the eighteenth century “rejected the influence of philosophy and [advocated]
purely
empirical,
dismemberment the epitome of the grotesque. Bodysnatching,
specialized science,” Romantics and Idealists in the early
as a practice, emblematizes the tensions between moral and
nineteenth century “pleaded and argued for the unity of natural
scientific knowledge; a source of commentary for the canon.
phenomena and natural sciences, the responsibility of man for
The processes of exhumation and dissection that follow
nature, and the unity of nature and culture” (Engelhardt 14).
bodysnatching only further this comparison — the Gothic is
Wollstonecraft Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein — like
where authors go to expose, or unearth, societal tensions
her and her husband, the poet and philosopher Percy Shelley —
through grotesque means. In the 1818 Frankenstein; Or, the
is a Romantic. This is evident upon his arrival at the university
Modern Prometheus, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley engages with
of Ingolstadt, when his mention of Albertus Magnus and
the bodysnatching topos for this very reason.
Paraclesus is met with scorn from the natural philosophy professor M. Krempe, who Frankenstein refers to as “a little
YURJ | yurj.yale.edu
2
Humanities | Literature Social Sciences
VOL. 1.1 | Nov. 2020
squat man, with a gruff voice and repulsive countenance.”
reconcile the two canons of knowledge Enlightenment thinkers
Frankenstein retorts by noting his “contempt” for modern
perceive to be diametrically opposed. He describes his
natural philosophy’s apparent focus on “realities of little worth.”
preparatory anatomical study as “animated by an almost
Like the Romantics, Frankenstein sought a revival of classical
supernatural enthusiasm,” despite his learned disregard for the
philosophical thought; to him, there was little appeal to natural
horrors associated with superstitious thought.
discovery divorced from supernatural stakes. “It was very
I saw how the fine form of man was degraded and
different, when the masters of the science sought immortality
wasted; I beheld the corruption of death succeed to the blooming
and power,” Frankenstein recounts. “Such views, although
cheek of life; I saw how the worm inherited the wonders of the
futile, were grand: but now the scene was changed” (Shelley
eye and brain. I paused, examining and analyzing all the
Volume I, Chapter II). Frankenstein finally finds intellectual
minutiæ of causation, as exemplified in the change from life to
appeasement in M. Waldman, a natural philosophy professor
death, and death to life, until from the midst of this darkness a
who presents an attractive alternative to M. Krempe’s gruff,
sudden light broke in upon me—a light so brilliant and
repulsive Reason. While advising the young scholar, M.
wondrous, yet so simple, that while I became dizzy with the
Waldman says:
immensity of the prospect which it illustrated, I was surprised
But these philosophers, whose hands seem only made
that among so many men of genius, who had directed their
to dabble in dirt, and their eyes to pour over the microscope or
inquiries towards the same science, that I alone should be
crucible, have indeed performed miracles. They penetrate into
reserved to discover so astonishing a secret.
the recesses of nature, and show how she works in her hiding
Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman.
places. They ascend into the heavens; they have discovered how
The sun does not more certainly shine in the heavens, than that
the blood circulates, and the nature of the air we breathe. They
which I now affirm is true. Some miracle might have produced
have acquired new and almost unlimited powers; they can
it, yet the stages of the discovery were distinct and probable.
command the thunders of heaven, mimic the earthquake, and
(Shelley Volume I, Chapter III)
even mock the invisible world with its own shadows. (Shelley Volume I, Chapter II)
Again, in this passage, Shelley melds the language of the natural with the supernatural in order to dissolve the
M. Waldman offers Frankenstein a science with
boundary between these categories of thought. Assonance
supernatural underpinnings. To Waldman, an acquisition of
connects “worm,” an image associated with the natural world,
knowledge is an acquisition of power. The diction of the passage
with “wonders.” The sun does not shine in the sky, but in the
reflects its content in the juxtaposition of celestial terms with
“heavens.” Death is not figured as merely physical decay, but
scientific ones. “Microscope” appears alongside “miracles,” and
“corruption,” a word with primarily moral connotations. And
“nature” is personified with the female pronoun, like Mother
the process of academic analysis yields discovery in the form of
Nature or mother Mary. Ascending into the heavens is likened
a celestial light, indicating Frankenstein’s reception of a
to following the path of blood in the body, and to understand
“miracle.” Although it may be argued that humans often
weather is to “command” and “mock” it.
understand meaning via metaphor, it is telling that
Frankenstein’s intense desire for a philosophical
Frankenstein’s internal monologue is dominated by this
underpinning to his studies influences his ultimate “scientific”
natural:supernatural dichotomy. Wollstonecraft Shelley, by
project. By creating a human monster, Frankenstein attempts to
employing these particular comparisons, indicates that
YURJ | yurj.yale.edu
3
Humanities | Literature Social Sciences
VOL. 1.1 | Nov. 2020
Frankenstein understands the world through these dichotomies,
not mean it did; the perceived failure is merely the means by
and cannot separate these two intellectual spheres. The question
which Wollstonecraft Shelley poses the novel’s central question
Frankenstein is preoccupied by (“Whence, I often asked myself,
about one’s ability to successfully siphon knowledge or
did the principle of life proceed?”) indicates his concern with
categorize understanding. By giving the monster sentience and
the metaphysical implications of humanity as well as the
morality, she challenges Frankenstein’s “failure,” and once
physical ones. Frankenstein contends with this concern upon the
again presents an alternative to strict boundaries.
monster’s creation.
A discussion of the monster’s creation requires a
His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his
reintroduction of the Gothic bodysnatching trope. This paper
features as beautiful. Beautiful!—Great God! His yellow skin
has heretofore established that Frankenstein; Or, the Modern
scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his
Prometheus thematizes the tensions between moral and
hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly
scientific knowledge that the trope emblematizes; but Shelley
whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid
engages with bodysnatching on more explicit levels, as well. As
contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same
is evident in the previously quoted passage, the monster’s body
colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set, his
is a result of bodysnatching. Frankenstein “collected bones from
shrivelled complexion, and straight black lips.
charnel houses; and disturbed, with profane fingers, the
The different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature. (Shelley Volume I, Chapter IV)
tremendous secrets of the human frame,” rendering himself a Resurrectionist. He even hearkens to bodysnatching’s history
Until this scene, Frankenstein asserts that he pursues
when he describes his materials as derived from both the
the creation of a human monster — presumably, because he is
“dissecting room” and the “slaughter-house,” equating two
not interested in the scientific underpinnings of all life, but the
spaces with often separate moral connotations. The stitching of
life of creatures he understands as being governed by moral
the monster’s form from various bodies is a physical
codes and metaphysical motivations. Once the monster lives,
representation of Frankenstein’s attempt to draw together
however, Frankenstein ceases to describe the monster as human.
various bodies of knowledge, just as the project of creation itself
Instead, the monster is described in synecdoche — each
conceptually represents this attempt at reconciliation.
unseemly, previously human part representing a not-quite-
Finally, Shelley engages with bodysnatching in the
human whole. This synecdoche illuminates Frankenstein’s
structure of the text. Frankenstein; Or, the Modern Prometheus
conclusion following this experiment: a human is more than an
is not composed of a single narrative, or even a single form. The
organism, something which can be scientifically re-created. A
text is comprised of letters, recorded narratives, and re-tellings
human body does not beget a human soul — it is merely
from three separate narrators, with each narrator’s tale framing
something snatched, attempting to emulate humanity. This
the next — unfolding in layers of subjectivity. The form of the
conclusion may appear to return to Enlightenment intellectual
novel itself is “bodysnatched,” just like the form of the monster.
separatism. If Victor Frankenstein’s attempt to reconcile science
This comparison begs the question: What stitches these
and philosophy fails, if he cannot recreate a cohesive human life
seemingly disparate elements together? What connects Robert
with biological human parts, then separatism prevails. But
Walton’s letters to his sister, and the tragedy experienced by a
Wollstonecraft Shelley does not end her analysis there. Just
young scholar seeking intellectual stimulation? Why include
because Victor Frankenstein perceives his project as failed does
multiple chapters of first-person dialogue from the monster, in
YURJ | yurj.yale.edu
4
Humanities | Literature Social Sciences
VOL. 1.1 | Nov. 2020
the center of a seemingly-reliable narration? Is it simply by
mere scion of the evil principle, and at another as all that can be
chance that these stories interact — because Walton happens
conceived of noble and godlike. (Shelley Volume II, Chapter V)
upon Victor Frankenstein, and why not include the monster’s
The monster is forced to reconcile his learned
verbatim account if it is possible to recall? Or, is Wollstonecraft
conception of morality — associated with the humanity he was
Shelley inciting these questions to attract attention to the thread
constructed to emulate — with the reality he observes. It appears
that stitches these narratives together?
to the monster that, although humanity regards him as an
What Walton, Victor Frankenstein, and the
“other,” he is more devoted to moral goodness. This tension
monster share is a desire for knowledge and intellectual
between idealism and cynicism, the goodwill he attempts to
reconciliation. It has been established that Frankenstein, who
embody and the disgust he is confronted with in response, is
“ardently desired the acquisition of knowledge," struggles with
impossible for the monster to reconcile, engendering his
the delineation between ancient and modern conceptions of
primary internal conflict and inciting Frankenstein’s central
natural philosophy. Walton, in the first letter, expresses similar
trauma: his wife’s death. Shelley stitches together these three
motivations.
narratives with a single thematic thread, further emphasizing her
I may there discover the wondrous power which attracts
project of intellectual reconciliation.
the needle; and may regulate a thousand celestial observations,
Thus, the “bodysnatched” nature of the text directs
that require only this voyage to render their seeming
attention to the Frankenstein’s thematic underpinnings, which
eccentricities consistent for ever. I shall satiate my ardent
also reflect the moral and intellectual tensions indicated by the
curiosity with the sight of a part of the world never before
act of bodysnatching, itself. The novel’s protagonists seek a
visited, and may tread a land never before imprinted by the foot
reconciliation that can only be achieved by this kind of stitching,
of man. (Shelley Letter I)
by piecing together understandings unearthed from various
Walton pursues discovery, not for fame or money, but
graves. Ultimately, although Victor Frankenstein fails to
in order to understand the presence of heavenly bodies in the
appease his intellectual thirst, the monster fails to achieve his
natural world. Earth and heaven may be conceptualized as two
goals, and Walton’s frame is incomplete, the text indicates that
separate spaces, but Walton seeks to “render their seeming
the project of reconciling modes of understanding is successful.
eccentricities consistent.” And, like the other narrators, the
The disparate text, which merges various forms and voices,
monster is defined by his knowledge-seeking. When he
succeeds in telling a story. In its snatched nature, Wollstonecraft
becomes aware of language, he actively acquires it. When Felix
Shelley indicates that science and philosophy, morality and
tutored Safie, the monster borrowed their books for his own self-
Reason can exist in the same body. She poses the option, like
instruction, which “opened before [him] a wide field for wonder
the Romantics of her time, that philosophy is deeply intertwined
and delight” (Shelley Volume II, Chapter V). As the monster
in scientific pursuit; the two are not as diametrically opposed as
satiates his own need for knowledge, he encounters a need for
the culture argues. And, often, in order for a story to be novel,
reconciliation not unlike the need felt by Frankenstein and
both kinds of knowledge are necessary. However, the Gothic
Walton.
indicates that this combination may yield something gruesome. These wonderful narrations inspired me with strange
feelings. Was man, indeed, at once so powerful, so virtuous, and magnificent, yet so vicious and base? He appeared at one time a
YURJ | yurj.yale.edu
5
Humanities | Literature Social Sciences
VOL. 1.1 | Nov. 2020
ENDNOTES Bielawski, Tim. “(Dis)figuring the Dead: Embalming and Autopsy in ‘Absalom, Absalom!’” The Faulkner Journal, Col. 24, No. 2. 2009. pp. 29–54 “Bodies for Dissection.” The British Medical Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4522. 6 Sept. 1947. pp. 379–381 Engelhardt, Dietrich von. “Natural Philosophy and Natural Science around 1800.” Nuova Voltiana Studies on Volta and his Times. Universitá Degli Studi di Pavia, Hoepli. 2000. Knott, John. “Popular Attitudes to Death and Dissection in Early Nineteenth Century Britain: The Anatomy Act and the Poor.” Labour History, No. 49. Nov. 1985. pp. 1–18 Murphy, Claire. “What Can an Osteological Investigation Reveal about Medical Education in Eighteenth-Century Dublin?” Archaeology Ireland, Vol. 25, No. 3. 2011. pp. 30– 34 Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein; Or, the Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mayor, & Jones, 1818. Project Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/41445/41445-h/41445-h.htm. Accessed May 2020.
YURJ | yurj.yale.edu
6