To what extent does a Hegelian analysis of master-slave relations in The Tempest and

'Frankenstein' allow us to understand the underlying power dynamics in play in both texts?

Both William Shakespeare's 'The Tempest' (1611) and Mary Shelley's later gothic masterpiece
'Frankenstein' written over two hundred years later in 1818, offer powerful and profound critiques
of authority and dissections of the vicissitudes of power and its need to use and subjugate others.
Both works do this through memorable representations of relationships which have at their heart a
master slave dialectic in which the fight for recognition and domination reveals the instability of
the binary opposites on which power depends, leading ultimately to the deconstruction or negation
of respective positions. Georg Hegel, the famous German philosopher, writing in the years just
preceding the publication of Shelleys masterpiece, is credited for being one of the most incisive
analysts of power relations and one of the most famous chapters of his Phenomenology of Spirit
(1807) is the one on lordship and bondage in which Hegel explores conceptually how a master's
self-consciousness and a slave's self-consciousness are formed as a process of being dialectically
informed. Hegel outlines in his theory that in any understanding of who we are, is always involved
anothers understanding of who we are, so that if we have the self-consciousness of person A, this
self-consciousness is a mirror of what it sees outside itself, as defined by person B; and similarly
person B's self-consciousness is a mirror of what it sees outside itself, that is, a mirror of person B.
Consequently, self-definition is only possible through being defined by another. Crucially there is no
equality in the master-slave dialectic, for as Hegel highlights: as extremes they are opposed to one
another, one being only recognized - the other only recognizing. In effect, self-consciousness
develops after the two enter into a relationship and this relationship is always a struggle for
recognition and what Hegel terms pure prestige. As the relationship now becomes based on
rivalry and the desire for domination, the dialectic becomes defined as a struggle to the death until
one party imposes its will and power on the other, thereby establishing the hierarchy of the
master/slave. The final stage of the theory is the stage of inversion/reversal for just as the master
Word Count: 354

becomes dependant on the slave for his prestige, the slave gains self-knowledge and satisfaction
from their work. Hegel's theory has had an enormous influence on Western thought over the last two
hundred years, especially in the sphere of the social sciences, influencing Simone de Beauvoirs
seminal feminist work 'The Second Sex' (1949), Franz Fanon's 'White Skin, Black Masks' (1952), a
sociological study of the psychology of the racism and dehumanization inherent in situations of
colonial domination, as well as having a huge influence on Karl Marx's conception of class struggle.
However, Hegels theory is also useful for readers in understanding literary texts throughout history
which are concerned with power, slavery and struggle; the nature of authority, domination and
submission. The two texts selected for analysis in this essay exemplify the nature of the masterslave dialectic and offer us poetic and vividly realised renderings of this essential struggle at the
heart of man and history.

Shelleys hideous progeny, the highly Gothic Frankenstein was completed only years after
Hegel had worked out the dialectic. Shelleys novel, according to Henry Raphael Garvin
dramatises for us not merely one specific manifestation of the master/slave dialectic but rather the
operations of the dialectic itself. (Garvin 42) Shelley presents us with the figure of Victor
Frankenstein, an inflexible, power-crazed and egotistical image of the master who can only view his
creation, manufactured to bring fame and glory to its creator, as an objectified slave. Yet Shelley
also gives a voice to this Other who we come to empathise with and understand as we follow its
passage from initial birth and subsequent trials, through its groping movements into consciousness
and selfhood through language and education. Constant throughout the creatures quest are its
attempts to seek acceptance, validation and recognition as a sentient being whose heart was
fashioned to be susceptible of love and sympathy (F 204). The creatures struggle however is futile
and Shelley reveals not only the anguish of the Other (Garvin 42) as he comes to abhor himself
and his miserable existence but also the reasons why the struggles of the Other toward liberation
Word Count: 703

end in failure (Garvin 42) The problem as Garvin points out is that the creature is totally dependent
on Victors help and furthermore as an outcast in need of acceptance he continues throughout the
novel to look beyond himself for an identity and therefore remains dependent upon his creator.
(Garvin 42) When the creature finally meets his creator, he demands that Victor listens to his story,
understand his plight and ultimately either give him the self he lacks or give him an Other of his
own, so that he can form a relationship based on equality and love thereby becoming autonomous
from his creator. Victor however steadfastly refuses these demands and the creature is therefore
forced to rebel, desperately attempting to shift the power relationship in his favour through
murderous acts which he acknowledges leave him in torture such as you cannot imagine (F 204).
These desperate acts one can interpret as ploys to win Victors acknowledgement of his existence,
and are the anguished cry of protest against an indifferent creator. (Gavin 43)

William Shakespeare's 'The Tempest' is first recorded as being performed at White Hall Palace for
royal representatives including King James I, the patron of Shakespeare's company 'The King's Men'
on 'Hallomas Nyght', 1 November 1611. There is also a record of it being performed at court in
White Hall during the marriage celebrations of James Is daughter Elizabeth, the future Winter
Queen of Bohemia, in 1613 which suggests that it was a well-received play at court. At the heart of
this dialogic and polyphonic drama lies the powerful figure of Prospero, who many later
commentators have seen as a figure who poetically resembles the great playwright himself. Critics
such as Brinda Charry have argued that Shakespeare may well have intended 'The Tempest' to be his
farewell to the theatre (Charry 2). Importantly, The Tempest was written at a stage of time when
Britain began to see itself as an Empire with colonies abroad and ideas about colonial contact are
infused throughout the play. Shakespeare, who had started off in the 1590's writing history plays had
by the time he composed 'The Tempest' become extremely interested in the ethics of power, good
governance and correct relations between masters and servants. The play as performed before the
Word Count: 1081

court of King James I is a richly allegorical one, open to a wide range of interpretations and it is
playfully subtle and remarkably protean in its representations of power. Post-colonial critics in more
recent times have demonstrated how the play is constructed around a series of binary oppositions
which are rather more unstable and unsavoury than they at first appear with the oppositions between
Prospero and his slaves Ariel and Caliban, civilization and savagery, master and slave being most
prominent (Charry 128). The two characters of Arial and Caliban, two of Shakespeare's most
fantastic and original creations, are the two inhabitants of the unnamed island on which the play is
set, before the European characters, Prospero and Miranda, being first among them, arrive. It is
through Ariel and Caliban and their differing relationships with Prospero that we best see the
dialectic at work for once in contact with the former Duke of Milan they are quickly turned into
slaves at the whim of their master's commands and fancies.

Shakespeare's portrayal of Caliban and Arial is deliberate and illuminating as he pointedly contrasts
their differing attitudes towards their servile status in relation to Prospero. When the audience first
encounter Ariel, he greets his master in grandiloquently stately terms, "All hail, great Master, grave
Sir, hail"(I.ii.189) before eagerly listing his abilities and all he is willing to do for Prospero. In
effect, we immediately notice how willing the indentured Ariel is to answer thy best Pleasure
(I.ii.190) and perform to point (I.ii.194) his masters commands. Prospero appears initially to be a
kind and sympathetic master, until the moment when it becomes clear that he realizes Ariel would
prefer not to have any master at all. Ariel recalls that he has been promised liberty, yet Prospero
who depends to a remarkable degree on Ariels magic, reacts angrily by accusing the spirit of
dishonesty, Thou liest, Malignant Thing. (I.ii.256) He reminds Ariel how he had freed him from
imprisonment by Sycorax and only becomes agreeable again after Ariel admits his submissive role
I will be correspondent to command / And do my Spryting gently (I.ii.256). Crucially for this
relationship, both Master and slave recognize their co-dependency. Prospero usually utilises the
Word Count: 1448

term "servant" for Ariel whereas he labels Caliban his "slave", a division enacted not only by the
difference in their labours but also by the fact that freedom is repeatedly promised to Ariel unlike
Caliban who is usually promised torture for his ingratitude. From the very beginning Prospero
recognises the value of Ariel's service. As a result this spirit is happy to represent his masters
interests and comply with his orders.

Although Ariel achieves recognition for his work throughout the play by his master Prospero and
ultimately achieves the liberty he so craves, Victor Frankensteins desire for fame and glory for his
own work comes to naught. As such, Victor is the archetypal frustrated creator who works in
isolation, a slave to his egotistical desires. Victor is first presented to the reader as the privileged and
pampered son of a well-respected magistrate, one of the most distinguished (F 19) members of
the Genovese Republic and therefore part of the aristocratic master-class. In his youth he exhibits all
the optimism and ardour (F 24) of someone who expects to succeed in life and his thirst for
acquiring knowledge is boundless, The world was to me a secret which I desired to divine". (F 30)
Despite being from the higher echelons of society however, Victor becomes engrossed in alchemy
and reckless experimentation at the university of Ingolstadt seeking instead to create a new
species that would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would
owe their being to me. (F 43) Such hubristic intentions can be interpreted as stemming from the
arrogance and vanity typical of those who seek to master, and Victor especially sees his destiny as
mastering death and thus succeeding in life. Much of Victors subsequent actions in the novel can be
traced back to the repulsion and repugnance with which he greets his creations awakening in
chapter five after the spark (F 44) of electrical current is infused into the creatures being. Rather
than succeeding to create something beautiful however Victor realises on the completion of his
project the utter failure of his enterprise for he has created something monstrous; something that
will bring infamy rather than fame. As the novel progresses and Victor becomes torn by remorse,
Word Count: 1823

horror and despair (F 70) by the knowledge of what his curiosity and lawless devices (F 63) have
unleashed, his feelings become unhinged and he wishes to extinguish life rather than create it.
Victor cannot speak of his accomplished work nor find the recognition he so craves for his toil,
unlike Ariel in The Tempest, but must sublimate within himself the knowledge of the enormity of
what he has created and rather than being a renowned master of science recognised by his exploits
he must become an inherent slave living in daily fear of the monsters wrath.

Caliban is the character who is most obviously enslaved in The Tempest, being referred to in the
dramatis personae as a salvage and deformed slave. Similar to the creature in Frankenstein, he
will not accept the wretched position he finds himself in, instead railing against the injustice he
suffers, for Caliban previously used to be free and master of the island on which the play is set.
Prospero at first sought Calibans friendship, gave him education, taught him language and only
afterwards enslaved him. The methods Prospero employed are similar to the methods employed by
European colonizers (Charry 127). However, Prospero believes he has treated Caliban kindly only
for Caliban to show his ingratitude for trying to civilize him. Caliban views himself as having been
free before Prospero came and enslaved him, yet can only grumble about his servitude now.
Prospero Prospero's power is such that Caliban has no choice but submit; his Art being of such
Powr (I.ii.370).

In 'Frankenstein' the relationship between creator and created, which has uncanny similarities to a
parent-child relationship, rather than being founded on love and equality, is turned into a cruel
power struggle which closely correlates to Hegel's Master-Slave dialectic. According to Edward
Mendelson, human relations divide into two kinds: those based on love and those based on power
(Mend 27). As Mendelson points out all the relations in Frankenstein, except for Victor
Frankenstein's are based predominantly on love and the promises and obligations of love (Mend
27).

Word Count: 2165

The rejection of the De Lacey family is significant, because it leaves the creature with no hope
of being accepted as an equal. Where he should go now except seek for my father, my creator? (F
107)By calling Victor the former term he forces upon him all the cultural and literary associations
attached to it. So while on one hand, he curses his unfeeling, heartless father, on the other hand,
he has no one else to turn for pity and redress. (F 107) Even though the monster claims to be
Victor's child and seeks acceptance, Victor, selfishly rejects a parental role and abandons his
paternal responsibilities to the creature that he labels a wretch (F 45). The word, itself however
will later draw an interesting and ironic parallel between Victor and his creation, as both experience
isolation and Victor comes to employ the same term when the power dynamics in the relationship
have shifted in the last part of the novel.

The monster's final request from Victor is to create him a companion (F 130). This defining
moment marks a turning point in the master- slave relationship. The power dynamics notably shifts
between Victor and his monster as the creature commands to create for him a female, who must be
of the same species and have the same defects (F 130) as the monster. This he vehemently urges:
You must create (F 130) and in so doing he lays down an ultimatum for Victor, for if Victor does
not comply with the command the creature will destroy everyone close to Victor leaving him as
wretched as the creature had been. It is the repugnance of this servile task which makes Victor
incapable of fulfilling it (F 136). Struck with horror and dismay (F 138) Victor refers to his new
position as a form of slavery (F 139) which demonstrates how oppressed he is by his fiendish
adversary (F 117). Victor fears that the female creature he has been ordered to make might serve
the monster to reproduce a "race of devils." (F 117). Overwhelmed by misery and horror, Victor
destroys his work and resolves not to fall before my enemy without a bitter struggle (F 129).
Since Victor refuses to follow the monster's instructions the struggle to the death in the fight for
domination begins. The creature, newly emboldened, returns to Victor and threatens: "I shall be with
Word Count: 2581

you on your wedding night." (F 173). Victor, ever the narcissist interprets this as a threat to his
existence and he looks forward to a deadly strugglein which if he were victorious I should be
at peace, and his power over me at-an end. If he were vanquished, I should be a free man (F 174).

Just as Victor desperately rebels against his fate in Frankenstein so too does Caliban rage,
unexpectedly producing sites of resistance against Prospero in The Tempest. The play stages his
planned attempt to execute a revolution and steal the books of magic which Prospero relies on for
power and authority on the island allowing him to manipulate the other characters. These books
symbolize technological advance and as Caliban realises without them he's but a Sot, as I am
(III.ii.94). Caliban, however, is doomed to repeat the very same mistake in his self-destruction
pattern of behaviour (Charry 58) by trading one master for another suggesting that he is unable to
achieve self-consciousness alone but slavishly depends on being recognised as subordinate; at one
point he asks Stephano, Let me lick thy Shoe (III.ii.27). Caliban inspires a particularly strong rage
in Prospero, because, unlike Ariel, he's never able to submit Caliban completely into his power until
the final act of the play when he acknowledges and recognises this thing of darkness (V.i.275) and
his responsibilities towards Caliban. This moment signifies the moment of greatest intimacy
between Prospero and Caliban (Charry 61) and the latter, for his part, submits to Prosperos
authority, repents of his transgressions, and promises to be wise hereafter/and seek for grace
(V.i.295-296)

The Master-Slave dialectic therefore is resolved in contrasting ways in the two texts. In
Frankenstein the relationship between the protagonists illustrates a struggle and a fight for
domination to the death of one or another until one party imposes its will on the other. Victor and
the creature reject recognition of the other in their thirst for revenge and vindication. In The
Tempest however, the central relationship between the savage and deformed slave Caliban and
Word Count: 2906

his master Prospero is ambiguously resolved. It is questionable whether Caliban is now free or if he
will go back to Milan, a slave forever (Charry 61). Prosperos relationship with Ariel, however, is
resolved in acceptance and reconciliation. Arial is the only slave who ultimately achieves
recognition and consequently freedom from his Master. Unlike other characters in the texts he
follows the role of a dutiful and cooperative slave, which in the end of the play serves him as a way
out of servitude.

Total Word Count 2990

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
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>
Bugg, John. Master of their language: Education and Exile in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein.
Huntington Library Quarterly 68.4 (December 2005): 655-666
Charry, Brinda. The Tempest: Language and Writing. Bloomsbury Arden Shakespeare, 2013.
Print.
Cottom, Daniel. Frankenstein and the Monster of Representation. SubStance, 28 (1980), 60-71
Garvin , Harry Raphael. Rhetoric, Literature, and Interpretation (Bucknell Review Book 28),
Associated Univ Pr; illustrated edition, August 1983.Print.
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.
Mendelson, Edward. The Things That Matter: What Seven Classic Novels Have to Say About the
Stages of Life, Anchor; Reprint edition, 2007.
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.
World Heritage Encyclopedia. MASTERSLAVE DIALECTIC. Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing
Press. Web. 10 Apr 2016 < http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/master%E2%80%93slave_dialectic>