Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

In the novel Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelley, we see a rare, but apparent, use of providence inside the story. The article “invisible hand”: Patlock, Milton, and the critique of Providence in Frankenstein was written by D. S. Neff, from the university of Alabama. The article compares the character of Frankenstein, the creature, with the main character from Patlock’s book, Peter Wilkins. The article also points out the use of providence and the “invisible hands”, its ties to Milton’s paradise lost and how they all connect together.

The article shows a comparison between Frankenstein and Robert Patlock’s character, Peter Wilkins, and the concept of the invisible hand of providence from the poem Paradise lost. Percy Shelly, the husband of the author of Frankenstein, was the first to read Robert Patlock’s novel and later shared with Mary, who began writing her own novel a short time later. The first appearance of the term “invisible hand” came from Percy’s addition to Mary’s draft of the novel. However the idea is possibly from Milton’s poem Paradise lost or the story of Peter Wilkins. They use the invisible hand to describe how the wood, always being replenished by creature, was seen by the De Lacy family. It is not known who the second mention of the term came from or why. However the authors feels, both Mary and Percy thought the use of the term to describe the creature was important enough to use more than once.

In the novel Frankenstein, the creature also has the opportunity to read paradise lost, the origin of the idea of invisible hands. The article also makes note of the “striking parallels” between the character, Peter Wilkins, from Milton’s novel, and the Creature. Some of these similarities include, parental neglect...

... middle of paper ...

...ture is not relying on providence to guide him through his life, as he makes no mention of it. He blames Victor Frankenstein for his problems but at the same time does not believe that Frankenstein should be the guide of his life either.

The ideas portrayed in the article do have proper evidence but other facts in the novel were overlooked. The author emphasizes too much on the idea of providence in this novel and emphasized too greatly on the times it was apparent. Peter Wilkins and the Creature had very similar lives, and perhaps this is where the Creatures character came from, but they did not align in terms of providence. The Creature also did read Paradise Lost, and very well may have understood the idea of providence clearly, however he knew he was different from the rest of humans. Therefore, why would he live his life through a god he had no connection to?