Introduction
Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein* (1818), often subtitled *The Modern Prometheus*, draws heavily on the ancient Greek myth of Prometheus, a Titan who defied Zeus by creating humans and gifting them fire, only to suffer eternal punishment. This essay explores the thematic parallels between the Promethean myth and Shelley’s novel through a psychoanalytic lens, focusing on the concepts of creation, responsibility, and rebellion. By examining the psychological motivations of Victor Frankenstein and his creature, I argue that Shelley reinterprets the Promethean archetype to reflect deeper human anxieties about ambition, parental responsibility, and the unconscious drive for power. The analysis will consider key aspects of psychoanalytic theory, particularly those related to the ego, superego, and the consequences of repressed guilt, to illuminate how these themes resonate in both the myth and the novel.
Creation as an Act of Defiance
In the Promethean myth, creation is an act of rebellion against divine authority. Prometheus shapes humanity from clay, an act that mirrors Victor Frankenstein’s scientific endeavor to animate lifeless matter. Through a psychoanalytic lens, Victor’s ambition can be interpreted as an overreach of the ego, driven by an unconscious desire to rival divine power (Freud, 1923). His obsession with conquering death arguably reflects a narcissistic impulse to transcend human limitations, much like Prometheus’ defiance of Zeus. However, while Prometheus’ creation is an act of benevolence, Victor’s is marked by hubris and emotional detachment, evident in his immediate horror at the creature’s appearance (Shelley, 1818). This contrast highlights a critical divergence: Victor’s act of creation lacks the altruism of Prometheus, suggesting a deeper psychological flaw rooted in self-aggrandizement rather than care for his creation.
Responsibility and the Burden of Guilt
Psychoanalytic theory often links guilt to the superego, the internal moral compass that regulates behavior (Freud, 1923). In the myth, Prometheus accepts responsibility for his actions, enduring punishment without regret for the sake of humanity. Conversely, Victor shirks responsibility, abandoning his creature and thus unleashing chaos. This rejection can be seen as a manifestation of repressed guilt; Victor’s refusal to nurture his creation mirrors a failure to confront the moral implications of his actions. As Gilbert and Gubar (1979) suggest, Victor’s neglect reflects a patriarchal anxiety about creation without maternal involvement, further compounding his psychological turmoil. Indeed, the creature’s subsequent rage and demand for a companion reveal a yearning for connection, underscoring Victor’s failure as a ‘parent’ and his inability to reconcile with his superego’s demands.
Rebellion and the Unconscious Drive
Rebellion in both narratives emerges as a response to perceived injustice. The creature, like Prometheus, rebels against his creator’s authority, driven by rejection and isolation. From a psychoanalytic perspective, the creature embodies the id, the raw, unbridled force of instinctual desires seeking recognition (Freud, 1923). His violent acts, therefore, can be read as an expression of repressed anger towards Victor’s abandonment. This dynamic parallels Prometheus’ defiance of Zeus, though the creature’s rebellion is more personal, rooted in emotional neglect rather than ideological conflict. Furthermore, Victor’s own rebellion against natural limits mirrors an unconscious drive for omnipotence, yet his inability to control the consequences reveals the fragility of his psyche when confronted with the reality of his actions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Shelley’s *Frankenstein* reimagines the Promethean myth through a psychoanalytic framework, exposing complex interplays of creation, responsibility, and rebellion. Victor’s ego-driven ambition, marked by a refusal to accept responsibility, contrasts sharply with Prometheus’ altruistic sacrifice, while the creature’s rebellion reflects the destructive power of repressed emotions. This analysis not only deepens our understanding of Shelley’s critique of unchecked ambition but also highlights enduring human anxieties about the psychological consequences of defying natural and moral boundaries. The implications of this study suggest a need to further explore how psychoanalytic interpretations of myth can illuminate modern ethical dilemmas surrounding creation and innovation, particularly in scientific contexts.
References
- Freud, S. (1923) The Ego and the Id. Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag.
- Gilbert, S. M. and Gubar, S. (1979) The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. Yale University Press.
- Shelley, M. (1818) Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones.
