Introduction
This essay aims to compare and contrast the use of the supernatural in Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein* (1818) and Matthew Lewis’s *The Monk* (1796), two seminal Gothic novels that emerged during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The supernatural, a defining feature of Gothic literature, serves as a vehicle for exploring human fears, moral dilemmas, and the boundaries of rationality. While both texts utilise supernatural elements to evoke horror and interrogate societal norms, they diverge in their thematic purposes and stylistic approaches. This analysis will examine how *The Monk* employs the supernatural as a manifestation of moral corruption and divine retribution, contrasted with *Frankenstein*’s more ambiguous treatment of the supernatural as a product of scientific transgression. The essay will first explore the role of the supernatural in each text individually before drawing comparisons and contrasts in their narrative functions and implications. Through this, it seeks to illuminate how these works reflect broader cultural anxieties of their time.
The Supernatural as Moral Corruption in The Monk
In *The Monk*, Matthew Lewis employs the supernatural to underscore themes of moral decay and the seductive power of evil. The novel’s central character, Ambrosio, a once-virtuous monk, becomes ensnared by temptation, largely facilitated by supernatural forces. The demon Matilda, who initially appears as a mortal woman, reveals herself as a servant of Satan, manipulating Ambrosio into committing heinous acts, including murder and incest (Lewis, 1796). Here, the supernatural is overtly diabolical; it serves as both a literal and metaphorical representation of sin. The appearance of ghosts, such as that of Elvira, further reinforces this moral framework, acting as harbingers of guilt and divine judgment (Botting, 1996). These spectral manifestations evoke horror not merely through their otherworldly nature but through their role as reminders of Ambrosio’s transgressions.
Moreover, Lewis uses the supernatural to critique institutional hypocrisy, particularly within the Catholic Church. The Bleeding Nun, a ghostly figure who haunts Raymond, embodies a history of suppressed violence and unresolved sin, reflecting the corrupting influence of unchecked power (Botting, 1996). This suggests that the supernatural in The Monk is not merely a plot device but a critical lens through which to view human frailty and societal flaws. Indeed, the explicitness of supernatural intervention—culminating in Ambrosio’s damnation by Satan himself—grounds the novel in a traditional, religious worldview where evil is externalised and ultimately punished. This reliance on conventional moral binaries arguably limits the text’s critical depth, as it offers little ambiguity regarding the nature of good and evil (Miles, 2002).
The Supernatural as Scientific Transgression in Frankenstein
Contrastingly, Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein* presents a more nuanced and secular approach to the supernatural, aligning it with the hubris of scientific ambition rather than divine retribution. Victor Frankenstein’s creation of the Creature—often referred to as a ‘monster’—blurs the boundary between the natural and the supernatural, as it defies the laws of life and death through human endeavour (Shelley, 1818). Unlike the overtly demonic forces in *The Monk*, the supernatural in *Frankenstein* is ambiguous; the Creature is not inherently evil but becomes monstrous through rejection and isolation (Baldick, 1987). This ambiguity challenges the reader to question whether the true horror lies in the unnatural act of creation or in society’s failure to accept the consequences of such an act.
Furthermore, Shelley’s use of the supernatural engages with Enlightenment anxieties about the limits of reason and the dangers of unchecked innovation. Victor’s transgression is not punished by a divine entity but by the natural consequences of his actions—grief, loss, and destruction (Levine, 1973). The supernatural, therefore, functions as a metaphor for the unknown, highlighting the tension between human aspiration and ethical responsibility. Unlike Lewis’s reliance on spectral apparitions, Shelley’s horror emerges from the psychological and emotional turmoil of both creator and creation, rendering the supernatural a more internalised and complex phenomenon (Baldick, 1987). This arguably positions Frankenstein as a more progressive text, as it invites critical reflection on the moral implications of scientific advancement rather than reinforcing a preordained moral order.
Comparing Thematic Functions and Stylistic Approaches
While both *Frankenstein* and *The Monk* utilise the supernatural to evoke horror and explore transgression, their thematic functions differ significantly. In *The Monk*, the supernatural operates within a religious framework, serving as a tool for moral instruction and divine justice. Ghosts and demons are external forces that punish human failing, reflecting the cultural anxieties of the late eighteenth century about sin and redemption (Miles, 2002). Conversely, *Frankenstein* situates the supernatural within a secular context, using it to critique the Enlightenment ideal of rational progress. The horror stems not from divine wrath but from human responsibility—or the lack thereof—mirroring early nineteenth-century concerns about industrialisation and scientific overreach (Levine, 1973).
Stylistically, Lewis’s approach is sensationalist, with graphic depictions of supernatural encounters—such as the Bleeding Nun’s chilling appearances—designed to shock and titillate (Botting, 1996). This explicitness contrasts with Shelley’s more restrained and psychological treatment of the supernatural. In Frankenstein, the horror is often implied rather than shown, as seen in Victor’s obsessive dread and the Creature’s tragic isolation (Shelley, 1818). This difference highlights contrasting authorial intentions: Lewis seeks to provoke visceral fear, while Shelley encourages intellectual and emotional engagement with complex ethical dilemmas.
Contrasting Cultural Reflections
Another point of divergence lies in how each text reflects its cultural context through the supernatural. *The Monk* engages with contemporary fears of Catholic superstition and corruption, using the supernatural to critique institutional authority in a post-Revolutionary Europe wary of old hierarchies (Miles, 2002). By contrast, *Frankenstein* responds to the Romantic era’s fascination with individuality and the sublime, employing the supernatural to explore the limits of human creativity and the alienation it can engender (Baldick, 1987). This distinction underscores how the supernatural serves as a malleable trope in Gothic literature, adapting to specific historical and philosophical concerns.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both *Frankenstein* and *The Monk* harness the supernatural to evoke horror and interrogate human nature, their approaches and implications are markedly different. Lewis’s *The Monk* employs the supernatural as a clear symbol of moral corruption and divine retribution, reflecting a traditional religious worldview with limited critical ambiguity. Shelley’s *Frankenstein*, however, presents a more secular and nuanced depiction, using the supernatural to explore the ethical dilemmas of scientific ambition and societal rejection. These differences highlight broader shifts in cultural anxieties—from fears of sin and institutional decay in the late eighteenth century to concerns about individuality and technological overreach in the early nineteenth. Ultimately, both texts demonstrate the versatility of the supernatural as a Gothic motif, though Shelley’s text arguably offers greater depth for critical engagement. This comparison not only illuminates the distinct narrative strategies of each author but also underscores the evolving role of the supernatural in reflecting human fears and aspirations.
References
- Baldick, C. (1987) In Frankenstein’s Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity, and Nineteenth-Century Writing. Oxford University Press.
- Botting, F. (1996) Gothic. Routledge.
- Levine, G. (1973) The Realistic Imagination: English Fiction from Frankenstein to Lady Chatterley. University of Chicago Press.
- Lewis, M. G. (1796) The Monk. Oxford University Press (modern edition, 2008).
- Miles, R. (2002) Gothic Writing 1750–1820: A Genealogy. Manchester University Press.
- Shelley, M. (1818) Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Penguin Classics (modern edition, 2003).
