[General] It was very different, when the masters of the science sought immortality and power

Hi,

The following extract is from Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. I'd like to know what the "it" and "such views" refer to. Does the "it" refer to modern natural philosophy, or the circumstances in general? Does "such views" refer to the view that modern natural philosophy was not contemptible when scientists were seeking immortality?


Besides, I had a contempt for the uses of modern natural philosophy. It was very different, when the masters of the science sought immortality and power; such views, although futile, were grand: but now the scene was changed. The ambition of the enquirer seemed to limit itself to the annihilation of those visions on which my interest in science was chiefly founded. I was required to exchange chimeras of boundless grandeur for realities of little worth.

raymondaliasapollyon said:

Hi,

The following extract is from Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. I'd like to know what the "it" and "such views" refer to. Does the "it" refer to modern natural philosophy, or the circumstances in general? Does "such views" refer to the view that modern natural philosophy was not contemptible when scientists were seeking immortality?


Besides, I had a contempt for the uses of modern natural philosophy. It was very different, when the masters of the science sought immortality and power; such views, although futile, were grand: but now the scene was changed. The ambition of the enquirer seemed to limit itself to the annihilation of those visions on which my interest in science was chiefly founded. I was required to exchange chimeras of boundless grandeur for realities of little worth.

Click to expand...

As you suggest, I understand "It" to mean the circumstances in general. I think "such views" refers to the views of scientists seeking immortality. The narrator doesn't approve of Dr. Frankenstein's "modern natural philosophy."

Would it better if "views" were replaced by "moves," and "it was very different, when" by "except when"?

raymondaliasapollyon said:

Would it better if "views" were replaced by "moves," and "it was very different, when" by "except when"?

Click to expand...

"Such views" could be replaced by "views evidencing a seeking of immortality & power" and "It was very different when" by "Things were very different when."

Do you know what "the science" in "the masters of the science sought immortality and power" refers to?

raymondaliasapollyon said:

Would it better if "views" were replaced by "moves," and "it was very different, when" by "except when"?

Click to expand...

Not to me- it is the thinking and beliefs that are wrong before any actions are taken.

Tdol said:

Not to me- it is the thinking and beliefs that are wrong before any actions are taken.

Click to expand...

The problem is "such views" does not have an explicit referent.

raymondaliasapollyon said:

The problem is "such views" does not have an explicit referent.

Click to expand...

It refers to the views of modern natural philosophers, the scientists who seek immortality. The narrator finds their views distasteful or repugnant.

Does "the science" in the quoted passage refer to modern natural philosophy or alchemy?

raymondaliasapollyon said:

The problem is "such views" does not have an explicit referent.

Click to expand...

Without an explicit reference, then I would assume it meant the current state of science. If it referred to when science got it wrong, as it did with eugenics, then it should specify it.

Tdol said:

Without an explicit reference, then I would assume it meant the current state of science. If it referred to when science got it wrong, as it did with eugenics, then it should specify it.

Click to expand...

Did masters of "modern natural philosophy" seek immortality?

Charlie Bernstein said:

It refers to the views of modern natural philosophers, the scientists who seek immortality. The narrator finds their views distasteful or repugnant.

Click to expand...

But it seems more probable that medieval alchemists, rather than modern natural philosophers, sought immortality. I really suspect that's an error on Shelley's part.

The order in which the information is presented in the original is confusing to me. I'd have expected the passage to begin with a description of what medieval alchemists used to pursue, followed by the claim that things were different now, and finally a description of what modern scientists aimed to do. Do you find the following version more clearly organized?

Besides, I had a contempt for the uses of modern natural philosophy. In the heyday of alchemy, the masters sought immortality and power; their goals, although futile, were grand. But now it was different. The ambition of the enquirer seemed to limit itself to the annihilation of those visions on which my interest in science was chiefly founded. I was required to exchange chimeras of boundless grandeur for realities of little worth.

raymondaliasapollyon said:

But it seems more probable that medieval alchemists, rather than modern natural philosophers, sought immortality. I really suspect that's an error on Shelley's part. . . .

Click to expand...

Keep in mind a few things:
So the line makes sense. The narrator's complaint isn't about ancient alchemists. It's about dangerous kooks of the narrator's day.

I think, in the book, modern natural philosophy is equated with the modern science of that time. Did scientists in that era seek immortality?

Even assuming that "the science" refers to modern natural philosophy, the real puzzle about the original is the placement of "It was very different, when . . ." In the sense of "things were different," it is felicitous only when a state of affairs has already been mentioned to provide a basis for comparison. We say, for example, "John loves dogs very much. But things were different when he was a young boy. He used to believe dogs were vicious animals." The underlined sentence is the basis for comparison, without which "things were different" would make no sense.

What is the basis for comparison in Mary Shelley's original?

raymondaliasapollyon said:

I think, in the book, modern natural philosophy is equated with the modern science of that time.

Sure, that would work. It would just mean the narrator is suspicious of contemporary scientists in general.

Did scientists in that era seek immortality?

You'll have to do some research there.

Even assuming that "the science" refers to modern natural philosophy, the real puzzle about the original is the placement of "It was very different, when . . ." In the sense of "things were different," it is felicitous only when a state of affairs has already been mentioned to provide a basis for comparison. We say, for example, "John loves dogs very much. But things were different when he was a young boy. He used to believe dogs were vicious animals." The underlined sentence is the basis for comparison, without which "things were different" would make no sense.

It makes sense to me. Life was different then. The world was different then. Things were different then. It was different then.

I don't see a need to try to read more into it than that.

What is the basis for comparison in Mary Shelley's original?

I don't know.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, these are minor points. I don't think the exact meaning of this passage will change your understanding or enjoyment of the book.

raymondaliasapollyon said:

I think, in the book, modern natural philosophy is equated with the modern science of that time. Did scientists in that era seek immortality?

Click to expand...

It's a work of fiction.

"Things were different" or "It was different" makes sense only when a state of affairs has been mentioned as a prerequisite for its use.

In the original, the only possible prerequisite for "it was very different" is "I had a contempt for the uses of modern natural philosophy." If so, the "it was very different, when . . ." serves as an escape clause, as it were, to "I had a contempt for the uses of modern natural philosophy." In other words, it means the narrator had no contempt for modern natural philosophy when its practicioners were seeking immortality.

All other interpretations are bizarre as far as the placement of "It was very different, when . . ." is concerned.

raymondaliasapollyon said:

Did masters of "modern natural philosophy" seek immortality?

Click to expand...

Unlikely- they should have known the limits of science. Frankenstein was trying to rewrite the laws of science.

raymondaliasapollyon said:

"Things were different" or "It was different" makes sense only when a state of affairs has been mentioned as a prerequisite for its use.

In the original, the only possible prerequisite for "it was very different" is "I had a contempt for the uses of modern natural philosophy." If so, the "it was very different, when . . ." serves as an escape clause, as it were, to "I had a contempt for the uses of modern natural philosophy." In other words, it means the narrator had no contempt for modern natural philosophy when its practicioners were seeking immortality.

All other interpretations are bizarre as far as the placement of "It was very different, when . . ." is concerned.

Click to expand...

I'm reading it as "The situation was very different, when." It then goes on to describe that situation.

But I'm not insisting that I'm reading it right. You've gotten a lot of smart, reasonable interpretations from the crew here to pick from. As mentioned above, written English was more convoluted then — the more convoluted, the better. When Robert Louis Stevenson came along, he got terrible reviews for writing too clearly and (gasp) getting to the point too quickly. Where were the three pages describing what the squire was wearing? Gone! Yet he dared call himself a writer!

What seemed elegant and sophisticated then is often simply confusing or ambiguous now. That's part of the fun of reading it.