Candide vs. Frankenstein on The Enlightenment
During the 17th century, an era known as The Scientific Revolution, brought about new knowledge that changed the way people viewed nature and the world around them. Philosophers, mathematicians, physicists, astronomers, and many others created a structure of natural laws that governed the entire universe. People were now becoming more interested in how things worked in the world and the reasons as to why they did. As a result of these new discoveries, the 18th century’s era of The Enlightenment became concerned with wanting to change the way that the people viewed science. Candide, the satirical novel written by Voltaire and published in 1759, highlighted some of the key ideas that were very essential to the Enlightenment. Voltaire argued that organized religious figures were corrupt, as their depicted actions were seen far from the righteous teachings of God. Optimism was rejected by Voltaire as he rather stressed that philosophy alone could become destructive and useless, therefore, people had to use their sense of reason to build on their own judgment. On the other hand, Mary Shelley a Romantic writer argued against the enlightenment. In her book Frankenstein, she focused on the belief that knowledge could lead to self-destruction – the search for the unknown was dangerous as some things were meant to remain unknown. It is because of this, that Shelley felt the need to restore the individual by bringing him back to nature and away from the scientific world. Although both stories hold strong arguments about The Enlightenment, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein could be seen as more convincing because it is more realistic unlike Voltaire’s extreme scenarios.
Through the use of characters, Voltaire argued that those who were found to be the more religious were the ones who caused the most suffering for others in the world. He criticized orthodox religion by depicting the most faithful as the most corrupt. For example, when Candid, the protagonist of the novel, reached Holland after much torment wondering through lands, he found himself asking a Protestant pastor for bread. The pastor, who had just finished orating about charity, denies Candide of bread and claimed that he didn’t “deserve to eat” because he was indifferent about whether or not he “believe[d] that the Pope [was] Anti-Christ” (Voltaire, 9). From this example, one would think that a pastor, Protestant or not, would find it right to help someone in need and help his fellow man. Yet, the concern for one’s beliefs were more important than that of helping the individual, which only goes on to stress that even the most faithful believers were flawed. When Candide came across Cunégonde’s brother, who was now a Jesuit, they had a dispute in regards to Candide wanting to marry the Jesuit’s sister. This Jesuit is seen as being more concerned with differences in social status than the fact that Candide rescued his sister. Candide responded with his claim that “all men are equal…” but the Jesuit exclaimed “We shall see about that, you dog!” and goes on to strike Candide in the face with his sword (Voltaire, 9). From this example, not only is the Jesuit’s inconsistencies of righteousness evident, but also his violent and un-Christian like response to the issue. It is clear, that Voltaire felt as though those who practice organized religion were more at fault than those who didn’t. Jacques, the Anabaptist, was an example of how good and kind those of unorthodox religions could be. He took care of Candid and Pangloss when they were both in need, and he was not concerned with the faith of either of the two – he was willing to help them regardless of this.
Religion, as it is depicted by Voltaire, seems to be the cause of a lot of the chaos and suffering that happened in the story. When shifting the focus over to the utopian city of Eldorado, a single religion seemed to bring peace and harmony amongst the people there. When asked about the religion of Eldorado, “The old man flushed again. ‘Can there be more than one religion? We have, I believe, the same religion as everyone else: we worship God from night till morning…We do not pray to him at all…We have nothing to ask of him…he has given us everything we need; we thank him unceasingly.’” (Voltaire, 47) From this dialogue, one can say that this perfect city lived in harmony as “everyone [there] is of the same mind” and not much can be disputed between the people if they were all unified in thought and faith. Also, the fact that these people had everything they needed from God that they no longer had anything to ask for, brings about the question of optimism. Pangloss held the belief that “private ills make up the general good, so that the greater the sum of private ills the better everything is” (Voltaire, 12) and because “everything is made to serve an end, everything is necessary for the best of ends” (Voltaire, 4). This philosophy is constantly questioned throughout the novel as Candide realized that much of the suffering that these characters were undergoing wasn’t bringing about any greater good for the society as a whole. Also, the fact that a perfect city like Eldorado could exists without any form of suffering, completely negated this form of thought. Cunégonde, the old lady, Candide, and even Pangloss, among other characters, underwent extreme constant and gruesome suffering, yet nothing was gained from it. Here, Voltaire was trying to stress the importance of not simply accepting philosophy alone as the only truth, but to also draw on one’s own experiences and judge for one’s self. His extreme and almost radical dilemmas make it difficult for the reader to fully come to terms with what Voltaire wanted to make a reality – a society that is able to practice reason without the restraints of organized religion or accepted philosophy. These essentials for the Enlightenment were constant throughout the novel, yet they weren’t easy to grasp in the midst of such extremes.
On the contrary, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein created a stronger argument on the Enlightenment as she focused on a more moderate stand point and on fewer extremes. Although her views were against the Enlightenment and were focused on Romanticism, her opposing views still gave a clear idea of the held values for this era. The Enlightenment was the time when education was encouraged and intellect was respected. The thirst for knowledge became inevitable in a light of many scientific findings. People wanted to almost in a sense become omniscient and unravel all the secrets of the world. Shelley’s concern with this was that people were now trying to become equals with God and have knowledge of everything that governed the universe. Yet, she believed that such a desire could become dangerous and result in the self-destruction of the individual. She felt as though the only way to return the individual to happiness was through the reattachment to nature. Through Victor, the protagonist, Shelley makes this argument. Victor once “ardently desired the acquisition of knowledge…” (Shelley, 46) for “the world was to [him] a secret which [he] desired to divine…it was the secrets of heaven and earth that [he] desired to learn” (Shelley, 38-39). Here, it is important to note that Victor doesn’t just have a mere thirst for knowledge, but a knowledge of things that only perhaps God, ‘the divine,’ holds. This, as previously mentioned, was seen as dangerous, as people were attempting to become godlike. Victor becomes dedicated solely to science in search for the secret of life and “[a]fter days and nights of incredible labour and fatigue, [he] succeeded…[and] became [himself] capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter” (Shelley, 53). Here, one can see how Victor has found the godlike power to create life. However, “beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled [his] heart” (Shelley, 58) as he realized that he had created a “miserable monster” (Shelley, 59). Almost too quickly does this exciting power of giving life vanish from Victor, once again emphasizing that this thirst for divine knowledge is far too dangerous for humans to tamper with. What was once his passion, now becomes his misery, “[e]ver since that fatal night…[he] had conceived a violent antipathy even to the name of natural philosophy” (Shelley, 68) the “chemical instruments….were to be afterwards used in putting [him] to a slow and cruel death” (Shelley, 69). The instruments which once helped him in his discoveries were now a means of torture for him. From this, one can say that Victor has grown to dislike science and anything related to it, as it reminds him of his unwanted creation that still brings him much pain, which he feels will soon cause his death. This pain arises not only from his creation, but from his neglect of nature. As the summer season passed “[he] was…engaged, heart and soul, in one pursuit. It was a most beautiful season; never did the fields bestow a more plentiful harvest, or the vines yield a more luxuriant vintage: but [his] eyes were insensible to the charms of nature” (Shelley, 56). Here, one sees Victor, as being detached from the real world as he is no longer sensible to the beauties that nature holds and he misses out on one of the most beautiful of seasons because of it. This in turn, stresses Shelley’s idea that knowledge derives people away from nature and so there is a need to shift this focus back, as nature restores balance. Throughout the book, Shelley makes it clear to the reader that nature serves as a healing for the human individual soul. The unpleasant results of the quest for knowledge are introduced in the beginning of the story, when Victor meets Robert Walton, a sailor who is also in search for knowledge of the unknown as he sails the North Pole. When describing Victor in a letter to his sister, Walton writes “no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature. The starry sky, the sea, and every sight afforded by these wonderful regions, seems still to have the power of elevating his soul from earth” (Shelley, 30). In this account, nature is seen as a good to humanity, as it holds the power to restore Victor and elevate his soul to the heavens. For Victor, who found himself “on the brink of destruction,” (Shelley, 26) such restoration becomes a necessity for the improvement and well-being of the individual. This form of restoration for the individual by nature is again seen later in the story when Victor is returning home after learning of the death of his brother William. When Victor reflects on the scenery he encounters on his way home – the mountains and the lake – he comments that “by degrees the calm and heavenly scene restored [him]...and when [he] could hardly see the dark mountains, [he] felt still more gloomily” (Shelley, 76). Again, the importance of nature for the restoration of the human soul is evident and even more stressed when Victor is described as more ‘gloomily’ when he begins to depart from it. This notion that individuals need to reconnect with nature, highlights once again Shelley’s opposing view on the need for knowledge, which was very prominent during the Enlightenment. Shelly uses Victor as a way to warn her audience of what could be of humanity if individuals seek unknown knowledge that is restricted to the divine and turn away from nature; hoping that like Robert Walton, one would give up the unmet dedication for this pursuit, in fear for loosing against the powers of nature.
Overall, is it evident that both works Candide and Frankenstein are true classics that form an argument based on the Enlightenment. While Voltaire uses more extreme measures to make his point and get his ideas across, one can see that Shelley’s use of more realistic and probable instances holds a stronger argument on the issue. Reasonably, it easier for someone to believe in an argument whose events are more probable than the other. Such is the case with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein over Voltaire’s satirical novel Candide.
No comments:
Post a Comment