Discussions
Colonel Chabert
In Colonel Chabert, the idea of an individual was regarded as higher than the individual himself. Whether politically driven or not, the existence of a mythos around Colonel Chabert�s life and death served to enlighten the present generation as to the good old days and eased the way of a scheming woman and her titled lover into society, legitimacy and wealth. After the French Revolution and Napoleon, the accumulation of money again defined the individual. In Colonel Chabert�s case, his highly individual stance and death raised public opinion in favor of him and his widow, who profited by being able to join society as an �individual� with both money and a new titled lover. Unfortunately, a live Colonel Chabert would change the perception of the tired war hero, the old generation. Political winds dictated that the days of Empire stay dormant; only nostalgia, not fervor, was acceptable. There was a legitimate fear of Bonapartists and the reappearance of an old hero was not quite an acceptable parallel for those in power. The conception of the individual had turned away from the heroic iconoclast to family values and social standing.
St. Augustine and Rousseau
The Confessions of St. Augustine and Rousseau were both written as a means to impart life experiences to their respective readers. St. Augustine, as a Christian penitent, would naturally expect an ecclesiastical or sympathetic religious audience. He aimed to confess both to his readers and to God; in one sense, he was a teacher, a leader, and a man earning his sainthood, but he was also the sinful atonee. At one point, he mentions that he had �wandered, O my God, too much astray from Thee� (St. Augustine 35). He speaks with an air of devout self-chastisement, sometimes apologizing for his immaturity, and at others, lamenting the hard paths he had chosen. He is a preacher here, and his audience is his flock, needing guidance so as not to stray. His words are chosen as to inspire. Rousseau, on the other hand, needed no pious humility for his confession � he wanted to show to all what it was to be �the likeness of a man in all the truth of nature, and that man myself� (Rousseau 1). He did not ask for forgiveness, for most of his faults were not faults at all, but what made him �not made like any of those who are in existence� (1). He tells a picaresque tale with a proud air, as if to suggest that everything that had happened to him had made him the person he had become. Rousseau addresses the thinking man, the people who need to be shown the truth about the world that can only be reached by analyzing life and self-experiences on their own merits. That is his intention � however, it comes across as a self-glorification rather than a guide to life and devotion, as Augustine�s Confessions do.
Maimon and Humboldt
The Enlightenment fostered an innate belief in the ability of any man to think, and by some metaphysical means, endure knowledge and truth. While most philosophers (and indeed, Maimon himself) believed that educating oneself meant growing individually in the company of other enlightened individuals, the idea of a liberated man and his own intellectual growth need not lie solely on the physical journey � to meet at a crossroads, so to speak. To Humboldt, it is less reliant on seeking higher levels of intellect in others; indeed, to him, it is on one�s very neighbors, no matter their condition, whereupon our thinking is developed. The �coherent whole�, as is Maimon�s slightly contradictory philosophy, is entirely consistent with the Enlightenment wave. Progress, to either, did not mean that any philosophy was wholly contradictory; Humboldt perfectly accepts that a physical journey cannot compare with indirect experiences, and Maimon doesn�t entirely reject the notion of intellectual salvation in his otherwise stalwart brethren (the rabbis, the Lithuanians). It was a journey, nonetheless, as no one could progress without moving in some plane. The Enlightenment ideal of curiosity and broadening of one�s horizons needed the journey as a model � it was a common thread in the closely competing philosophies of change.
Shelley
In Frankenstein, Shelley�s portrayal of science can hardly be described as positive. Her stance seems to liken science as bad for the soul � Victor Frankenstein is never happy when working on science. He is only happy when he is living the Romantic ideal, traveling and pursuing friendship with his loved ones. Shelley characterizes Victor Frankenstein as a realist of sorts. At Ingolstadt, he finds himself disillusioned with science, as �it was very different, when [scientists] sought immortality and power; such views, although futile, were grand: but now the scene was changed� (pg. 75). There is no Romantic glory in ordinary science, no visionary goals, Shelley (through Frankenstein) seems to suggest. Frankenstein goes on: �I was required to exchange chimeras of boundless grandeur for realities of little worth� (75). However, Shelley also pushes forward another idea, that science can be lifted up and immortalized as any other passion: overwhelming, dangerous, and sometimes, heartwrenching. Frankenstein truly wants to be a man of science, reaching for immortality with his study of life. He is passionate: �My ardour was indeed the astonishment of the students; and my proficiency, that of the masters� (79). It is overwhelming, as his scientific work takes his health. It is dangerous, for his passion unleashes a creature not akin to the world, and finally, it is heartwrenching, as his scientific masterpiece, his monster, kills for want of love. Shelley does not punish curiosity, in science or elsewhere. Frankenstein remarks that �how many things are we upon the brink of becoming acquainted, if cowardice or carelessness did not restrain our inquiries� (79). Shelley is not, as some have suggested, reacting against Enlightenment; she is merely amending it with Romantic ideals, and warning against the pitfalls of ordinary science. Her hero, Frankenstein, loses all in his zealous scientific quest, yet he remains a Romantic hero.