IMAGINING INJUSTICE: CYCLES OF REVENGE AND THE NEED FOR

RECONCILIATION IN REGARD TO MARY SHELLEYS FRANKENSTEIN (1818)

AND WILLIAM SHAKESPEARES THE TEMPEST (1611)

Western literature since the time of the Greeks has been fascinated and enthralled with the
idea of revenge. 1 Its an idea central to our conception of an old-testament God and the Bible
insists upon a brutal payment for sin, in which wrongs must be met with exact revenge in the
form of Eye for eye, tooth for tooth2. Its a primeval instinct which rises up from the
darkest depths of human nature and which revels in blood thirsty vindictiveness. By the time
of the English Renaissance however, beginning in the reign of Elizabeth I, the question of the
morality of revenge and taking retribution into ones own hands was being open questioned
and challenged by those who argued that the quest for justice within the bounds of state law
was incompatible with individual quests for revenge. Francis Bacon, for instance, an
influential contemporary of Shakespeare, in an essay entitled Of Revenge (1625) terms
revenge a kind of wild justice which the more mans nature runs to, the more ought law to
weed it out. In addition, although one might count oneself even with another in taking
revenge, Bacon adds in passing it over he is superior; for it is a princes part to pardon.
These humanistic sentiments neatly correspond to similar ones found towards the end of
William Shakespeares late play The Tempest (1611) in which a sort of just revenge is
achieved by the main protagonist in the play through abandoning his vengeance in favour of
forgiveness and reconciliation.

Mary Shelleys Gothic novel Frankenstein written in 1818 however lies on the other end of
Word Count: 266
1

Cf: Medea by Euripides and Agamemnon by Aeschylus are two such works which deal in detail with
revenge and its repercussions
2

(Exodus 21:24)

the spectrum as it explores the devastation and destruction wrought by the need for a revenge
which cannot be restrained and which only begets more suffering ultimately achieving a
mutual annihilation of its two central characters, Victor Frankenstein and his unnamed
monstrous creation. This cautionary tale is intimately concerned with transgressions; with
what happens to mankind when it traverses natural, man-made and scientific boundaries. As
such, Shelley suggests a critique of the gothic implications of the distinctly masculine
Romantic imagination, of a humanism grown monstrous as a result of excessive and
exclusive aspirations to power (Botting 93) and, as the title indicates, she demonstrates how
nature takes its revenge on those who see themselves as modern Prometheans. Both literary
works then, although from vastly different eras and social contexts explore the theme of
revenge, and where it can lead desperate characters with grandiose delusions of grandeur
and a sense of narcissistic injury (Marsh 64), yet both ultimately resolve their plots in
sharply contrasting ways. Moreover, revenge is presented in both works not simply as a
theme but also as an overriding emotion and obsessive passion which shapes the way its
central characters speak and act, thereby revealing aspects of the characters identity, as well
as determining the plots as they hurtle towards their resolution. What is, perhaps, especially
important is the way both texts end and the meaning the reader derives from the results of
revenge which each author shows us. Shakespeare conveys how revenge needs to be
supplanted by Christian forgiveness and genuine reconciliation; whereas Shelley provides a
warning by showing what happens when these Christian values are absent or impossible in an
Age of Enlightenment when man hubristically adopts the role of the great Creator. The aim
of this essay is to lay the difference and similarities between two texts in their treatment of
revenge and to explore the causes and results of this wild justice.

Word Count: 584

Diverse characters in both texts are compelled to need revenge for a variety of perceived and
real grievances. From the moment of The Tempests opening, Prospero is exclusively
dedicated to his plan of revenge in punishing his false brother (I.ii.92), the Machiavellian
Antonio, who callously usurped Prosperos position as Duke of Milan. Antonio, whom
Prospero deeply lovd (I.ii.69) is immediately cast as the villain and indeed he is presented
to the audience even before we encounter Prospero in Act I as an angry, quick-tempered and
unpleasant character who threatens the boatswain Hang, Cur, you whoreson insolent /
Noisemaker (I.i.46-47). The second scene sharply contrasts with the opening tempestuous
one and it is here that we learn from Prospero in a long expository dialogue with his daughter
Miranda that he is a victim of Foul-play (I.ii.62). As the exposition continues, the audience
learns that Prospero has engineered the storm in order to shipwreck his brother and Alonso
the King of Naples who was also involved in the plot to usurp Prospero onto the island in
order to exact some form of retribution from them. Shakespeare, therefore, from the outset ha
clearly demarcates his characters drawing our sympathy for some and our suspicion or
antipathy for others. As John Kerrigan notes in Revenge Tragedy The avenger, isolated
and vulnerable, can achieve heroic grandeur by coming to personify nemesis, and therefore,
audience members also join in on this heroic grandeur by siding with the avenger and
coming to identify with him (Kerrigan 3). As a result of the antagonist Antonios crime
against Prospero, the world is out of order, as intimated by the chaotic opening scene set upon
a ship which one can metaphorically read as representing the Ship of State and the scales of
justice have been set gravely askew. Prosperos quest in this play is therefore to retrieve this
absent justice, have his titles restored, and return in triumph to Milan. In pursuit of this quest,
Prospero acts for the first four Acts of the play like a classic dramatic revenger and indeed
the structures and dynamics of revenge tragedy are active right to the end (Kerrigan 213).
Word Count: 941

In fact, the plays parallels to revenge tragedy structure lead Kerrigan to conclude that The
Tempest is ultimately a work which is as much a revenge play as it is a late romance
(Kerrigan 144).

Later in the play Prospero sends his servant, the spirit Ariel, to confront Antonio, Alonso and
his own brother Sebastian, and he challenges them with their previous injustice. Ariel, who
willingly performs all Prosperos commands, confronts these three Men of Sin (III.iii.53)
disguised as a Harpy, a monstrous mythological bird of prey, and he gives a terrifying speech
of accusation and judgment; vengeance and justice;
remember
(For thats my business with you) that you three
From Milan did supplant good Prospero;
Exposed unto the sea, which hath requite it,
Him and his innocent child; for which foul deed
The powres, delaying, not forgetting, have
Incensed the seas and shores, yea, all the creatures,
Against your peace. (III.iii.68-75)
Ariel reveals why they have been shipwrecked upon the island and why they are damned to
Lingering perdition (III.iii.77) which will be worse than any Death/Can be (III.iii.77-78).
Although Ariels speech threatens of future retribution, ultimately however, such terrifying
confrontations, threats and fairy pinchings that Prospero inflicts upon his enemies prove to
be proportioned punishments.rather than taunting preparations for a bloodbath (Kerrigan
215).
Word Count: 1156

In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein we have a similar situation where characters feel absolute
injustice, isolation and abandonment. In chapter five, Victor gives birth to the creature or the
miserable monster (F 45). From the creatures birth, the reader is able to imagine how
abnormal it is by the descriptions such as its yellow skin, watery eyes, shriveled
complexion and black lips (F 44), and we learn how the deeply disturbed Victor runs
away. From this moment in the novel emotions of anger, hatred and a need for revenge drive
the plot of the novel. The monster becomes full of rage after being rejected by first his creator
and then human society. He comes to realise that All men hate the wretched; how then must
I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! (F 86) Yet he seeks out his creator to
plead with him to do his duty (F 86) towards him and comply with his conditions
promising in return to leave mankind at peace. The ultimatum he gives is chilling and yet he
is as good as his word for the rest of the narrative, if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death,
until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends (F 86). The creature in some
important sense is like Prospero; he is left to die and abandoned, and just as Prospero has his
magical powers, the creature has superhuman strength and stature in opposition to his
adversaries.

Crucially, Caliban and Frankensteins creature both try to right the injustices of their
situations by going outside the law; they step outside of societal norms and natural laws.
Furthermore, both Calibans and the creatures sense of self are defined by the injustice they
feel and therefore revenge gives them a purpose in the two texts. Caliban confirms his belief
of having a claim to the land his mother left him with when stating, This islands mine by
Sycorax my mother (I.ii.332). When Prospero first arrived to the island, he used Calibans
innocence and naivety to exploit his knowledge of the land. The native states that Prospero
Word Count: 1509

stroks and made much of him (I.ii.334) before he dared to sty him In this hard Rock,
whiles you do keep from me / The rest oth Island (I.ii.341-342) which he considers
rightfully his. Calibans speeches convey a strong sense of hate and ironically he
acknowledges that Prospero taught me Language, and my Profit ont / Is I know how to
curse(I.ii.361-362). Calibans feelings are remarkably similar to those of the filthy
daemon (F 64) who Victor gives life to, particularly their shared sense of rejection and
abandonment, which serve as their motivation to wreak vengeance upon their sworn enemies.
Like Frankensteins creature, Caliban, who Prospero labels a borne Devil (IV.i.188) shows
the reader his intelligence, and presents his simple plan for revenge. However, he develops
his plan in more detail when he includes stealing the books Prospero uses. The creature had a
unique and interesting plan, which involves giving Victor time to deliver upon his demands.
But a highly remarkable factor is that he constantly shadows Victor. Perhaps this underlines
the mental pressure lying on Victor. Both of these characters confirm to the idea of wild
justice suggested by Bacon.

As Victor Frankensteins desire for revenge becomes uncontrollable his character unravels
and his language descends into the ravings of a madman (F 69). He is so unhinged by the
murders of his family members and the execution of Justine for which he feels ultimately
responsible so that after he feels he bore a hell within me (F 75), and when he reflects on
the creatures crimes his hatred and revenge burst all bounds of moderation (F 79) Shelley
portrays Victor as an emotionally unstable character given to extremes who after the murder
of Justine becomes primarily defined by hatred and the thirst for revenge. On encountering
the monster in chapter ten Victor vents his vengeful fury in histrionic utterances, do you not

Word Count: 1822

fear the fierce vengeance of my arm on your miserable head? Begone vile insect!.....oh! that
I could, with the extinction of your miserable existence, restore those victims whom you have
so diabolically murdered! (F 86) The exclamations and adjectives here convey Victors wild
passions and the plaintive oh! evokes the depths of his sorrow. Unwilling to listen to the
creature, Victor informs his creation that they are sworn enemies and that there can be no
community between them (F 87) . He continues to use derogatory terms such as fiend to
describe his foe and castigates him as an abhorred monster before his uncontrollable rage
was without bounds (F 86) and he springs upon the wretched devil in a scene which
foreshadows the psychotic anger which fuels Victors quest for revenge across the polar
landscapes at the novels resolution.

After the creature gives Victor the ultimatum that he must create a female-companion or else
he will work at your destructionuntil I desolate your heart, so that you shall curse the hour
of your birth (F 132) Victor still hesitates to compromise, though he is promised that if he
consents neither you nor any human being shall ever see us again (F 132). In return the
creature kills Clerval in revenge precipitating Victors mental breakdown as well as chillingly
taunting him of his plans to be with you on your wedding-night( F 154), Victor
misinterprets this warning egotistically thinking the threat is directed at his own existence
rather than being for his betrothed and therefore corresponding exactly to the coordinates of
revenge in an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. After Elizabeths death, Victor is left with
nothing except the need for either his or the monsters annihilation. At the end of the novel
Victor is driven to the very extremes outside normal human society, rationality and justice
with the frozen barren polar landscape reflecting how lifeless Victor feels inside. He has but

Word Count: 2146

one resource left, a compulsion akin to the Freudian notion of Thanatos3, the death drive; I
devote myself, either in my life or death, to his destruction (F 185)
For Prospero in The Tempest, the need for reconciliation is stronger than the need for
revenge. The spell of the masque he performs in Act IV for Ferdinand and his daughter
Miranda is broken when Ariel reminds Prospero that the beast Caliban and his confederates /
against my life are coming to get revenge. (IV.i.140-141) Reminded of this and at such a
joyous time causes Prospero to fly into a fury; he curses Caliban as a devil, a born devil, on
whose nature / Nurture can never stick and he resolves to Plague them all/ even to roaring
(IV.i.192). At this point in the play Prospero has at his mercy all my enemies (IV.i.261)
and his plans have been almost perfectly achieved; its within his power to crush his enemies
and fulfill his need for revenge. Ariel reports to his Master that his adversaries are confind
together all prisoners, sir (V.i.7-9) Alonso, Antonio and the rest of the party are almost
out of their minds with Sorrow and dismay (V.i.14) but chief among them is The good old
lord Gonzalo (V.i.15) for whom Prospero owes his life. Ariel then turns to his master and
says lines which startle and stun Prospero and which enact a turning point in the play. Up
until this point the drama had followed quiet closely the conventions of traditional revenge
tragedies but Ariels words generate a change of heart on the part of the protagonist and the
need for vengeance is dissipated. Ariel informs how he would be filled with compassion and
sympathy for the group were he human and these words, in turn, remind Prospero of what it
means to be human. Perhaps Prospero had forgotten how to be human abandoned on the
island brooding over his sense of injustice. Prospero, however, at this moment realises that
hatred and revenge are futile and that it would be virtuous and merciful to release his
Word Count: 2495

Sigmund Freud Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920)

prisoners They being penitent. Shakespeare here suggests that Reason is nobler than
fury as it is one of the main faculties which distinguish humans from the rest of nature and
allows us to judge the correctness of our actions. Ultimately it is the non-human being Ariels
entreaty to his masters humanity which sways his intent. Even Though with their high
wrongs he remains stuck to th quick, (V.i.24) Prospero in some sense realises that in
showing clemency and freeing his enemies he will in doing so will also be free and able to
turn his thoughts towards nobler matters. With one large act of forgiveness, the need for a
large act of revenge is nullified, and order restored at the plays denouement, as Prospero
himself reasons in the epilogue, I have my dukedom got/And pardoned the deceiver (6-7).
The world is again as it should be and justice achieved without the shedding of a drop of
blood.
Could the Creature's murderous rampage have been prevented if he had been treated with
love instead of hate by Victor and if Victor had complied with the Creature's request to make
him a female companion? Arguably, in ignoring the creatures request, Victor has a
substantial reason, because he does not wish to be responsible for a new species which could
threaten the safety and security of humanity and he seems unable to trust the creature after its
earlier rampages and destruction of innocent life. On the other hand, by refusing the
creatures request Victor invites his wrath and urge for retribution. Ultimately, unlike
Prospero, Victor is unyielding, entrapped by his misery, and unable to use his reason. Both he
and the monster he creates become mirrors of each other, each psychologically damaged and
distorted by their situations, isolated and unable to imagine a resolution other than the
destruction of the other.
Thus, both texts conclude with a highly significant, profound moral at the resolution of their
narratives. Shakespeares The Tempest can be interpreted as having a radically Christian
Word Count: 2830

subtext in highlighting the importance of forgiveness towards even our fiercest foes, and it
shows how the power of compassion brings relief from the need for revenge. Both Mirandas
happiness and Prosperos loyal assistant Ariel serve as reminders to Prospero of his lost
humanity, and refocus his priorities. Shelleys Frankenstein presents the reader with a
disturbing cautionary tale where the foundation of beliefs upon religion are no longer
applicable having been replaced by hubristic faith in science. The novel warns the Age of
Enlightenment that there are forces in nature which can become uncontrollable including
certain human passions. Victor in seeking to destroy the creature destroys himself, having
nothing else to live for. Ultimately Shelley demonstrates how we can become consumed by
our passions and how revenge is ultimately an act of self-violence driven by our deepest and
darkest desires.

Total Word Count 2970

Bibliography
Allen, Stephen. Mary Shelleys Frankenstein is a Cautionary Tale on the Monstrosity of
which Humans are Capable. Oxford Royal Academy, 22 January, 2014. Web.
16 Apr 2016 https://www.oxford-royale.co.uk/articles/shelley- frankenstein.html
Bacon, Francis. On Revenge. Authorama (Public Domain Books) November 2003. Web.
23 Apr 2016. < http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/revenge/revenge.html>
Bloom, Harold, ed. Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Blooms Modern Critical Views, BLC
Blooms Literary Criticism, Infobase Publishing, New York, 2009. Print.
Bond, Chris. Frankenstein: Is it Really About the Dangers of Science? The English
Review 20.1 (Sept 2009): 28+. Artemis Literary Sources. Web. 12 Apr 2016.
< file:///C:/Users/paul/Downloads/Lit%20Crit%20on%20Frankenstein.html>
Botting, Fred. Gothic: The New Critical Idiom, London/New York: Routledge, 1996. Print.
Charry, Brinda. The Tempest: Language and Writing. Bloomsbury Arden Shakespeare, 2013.
Print.
Kerrigan, John. Revenge Tragedy: Aeschylus to Armageddon. Oxford, Clarendon
Press. 1996.
Keyishian, Harry. "Vindictiveness and the Search for Glory in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein."
The American Journal of Psychoanalysis 49:3 (1989): 201-10.
Marsh, Nicholas. Mary Shelley: Frankenstein (Analysing Texts). Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Print.
Shakespeare, William. The Tempest: Oxford School Shakespeare Series. OUP Oxford. 2010.
Print.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. (Barnes & Noble Leatherbound Classic Collection), Barnes&
Noble Inc, New York, 2012. Print.