First, I will share with you 2 paragraphs in the book from which my question originates:
"IT is with considerable difficulty that I remember the original æra of my being: all the events of that period appear confused and indistinct. A strange multiplicity of sensations seized me, and I saw, felt, heard, and smelt, at the same time; and it was, indeed, a long time before I learned to distinguish between the operations of my various senses. By degrees, I remember, a stronger light pressed upon my nerves, so that I was obliged to shut my eyes. Darkness then came over me, and troubled me; but hardly had I felt this, when, by opening my eyes, as I now suppose, the light poured in upon me again. I walked, and, I believe, descended; but I presently found a great alteration in my sensations. Before, dark and opaque bodies had surrounded me, impervious to my touch or sight; but I now found that I could wander on at liberty, with no obstacles which I could not either surmount or avoid.
Shelley, Mary (2013-01-19). Frankenstein (The Original 1818 'Uncensored' Edition) (Kindle Locations 1190-1196). E-artnow. Kindle Edition.
***************************************…
Recall that the creature was formed from the parts of several (many?) persons. During one section, which I've quoted above, I'm having trouble analyzing because of my lack of knowledge into the Romantic period and Shelly's views- not to mention of friend of mine argues the opposite point. I'm curious what people here have to say. But first, allow me to exchange my ideas and thought processes with all of you.
My personal intuition is that the passage is a case of the creature reflecting on his creation in the lab (not a past life), using heavy symbolism and visual imagery to compare it to how a child might feel when born (Darkness, followed by light- dark and opaque bodies being doctors and nurses as they hover around a newborn and handle it).
Additionally, with the given time period, fancies of demons and spirits as agents of causation were beginning to end (and would be more prominent in the Victorian Era), and so I think Shelly's metaphysical views might be such that she would more quickly believe a new soul was created than an old one re-incarnated (speculation on my part). Of course, in a nature vs. Nurture argument one might argue that the creature did bad deeds because of having been sewn from criminal parts. But, I think it was his experiences after creation which led to his behavior rather than that from which he was made. This is supported by popular thought among Romantic period poets, which strongly believed in the personal experience of individuals having the greatest impact on one's actions.
Читать далее: In Mary Shelly's, Frankenstein, did the creature have a pre-existing life?