Perfecting monstrosity: Frankenstein and the enlightenment debate on perfectibility

References

• Adorno, T., and M. Horkheimer. 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Armenteros, C. 2011. The French Idea of History: Joseph de Maistre and His Heirs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bader, D. 2010. One Hundred Great Books in Haiku. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Bannerjee, S. 2010. “Home is Where Mamma is: Reframing the Science Question in Frankenstein.” Women’s Studies 40 (1): 1–22. doi: 10.1080/00497878.2011.527783
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barruel, A. 1803. Mémoires Pour Servir à L’histoire du Jacobinisme. 4 vols. Fauche: Hamburg.
   Google Scholar
• Blake, W. 2008. Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake, edited by David V. Erdman. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bour, I. 2005. “Sensibility as Epistemology in Caleb Williams, Waverley, and Frankenstein.” Studies in English Literature 1500-1900 45 (4): 813–827. doi: 10.1353/sel.2005.0035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, M. 1994. “Introduction.” In Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus: The 1818 Text, by Mary Shelley, edited by Marilyn Butler, ix–li. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, J. A. 2007. England’s First Family of Writers: Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, Mary Shelley, 287–302. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, J. A. 2019. “Just Friends? Frankenstein and the Friend to Come.” Nineteenth-Century Contexts 41 (3).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Catron, L., and E. Newman. 1993. “Frankenstein: Les Lumières et la Révolution comme monstre.” Annales Historiques de la Révolution Française 292: 203–211. doi: 10.3406/ahrf.1993.1560
   Google Scholar
• Clemit, P. A. 2003. “Frankenstein, Matilda and the Legacies of Godwin and Wollstonecraft.” In The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley, edited by Esther Schor, 26–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cook, A. 2007. “Reading Revolution: Towards a History of the Volney Vogue in England.” In Anglo-French Attitudes: Comparisons and Transfers Between English and French Intellectuals Since the Eighteenth Century, edited by Christophe Charle, Julien Vincent, and Jay Winter, 125–146. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cook, A. 2013. “Feeling Better: Moral Sense and Sensibility in Eighteenth-Century Europe.” In The Discourse of Sensibility: The Knowing Body in the Enlightenment, edited by Henry Martyn Lloyd, 85–103. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Coward, H. G. 2008. Perfectibility of Human Nature in Eastern and Western Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deane, S. 1988. “Shelley, La Mettrie, and Cabanis: Remorse and Sympathy.” In The French Revolution and Enlightenment in England, 1789-1832, edited by Seamus Deane, 95–129. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fleck, P. D. 1967. “Mary Shelley’s Notes to Shelley’s Poems and Frankenstein.” Studies in Romanticism 6 (4): 226–254. doi: 10.2307/25599693
   Google Scholar
• “Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus.” Review of Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus, by Mary Shelley. Quarterly Review 18 (January 1818): 379–385.
   Google Scholar
• “Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus.” Review of Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus, by Mary Shelley. Edinburgh Magazine, and Literary Miscellany 2 (March 1818): 249–253.
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, M. 2002. A Mary Shelley Chronology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Godwin, W. 1793. An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, and its Influence Upon General Virtue and Happiness. 2 vols. London: Robinson.
   Google Scholar
• Godwin, W. 1798. An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, and its Influence Upon General Virtue and Happiness. 2 vols. 3rd ed. London: Robinson.
   Google Scholar
• Goss, T., and J. P. Riquelme. 2007. “From Superhuman to Posthuman: The Gothic Technological Imaginary in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Octavia Butler’s Xeno Genesis.” Modern Fiction Studies 53 (3): 434–459. doi: 10.1353/mfs.2007.0068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregory, J. 2010. “Wesley’s Context: The Long Eighteenth Century.” In The Cambridge Companion to John Wesley, edited by Randy L. Maddox, and Jason E. Vickers, 13–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haakonssen, K. 1996. “Enlightened Dissent: An Introduction.” In Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in Eighteenth-Century Britain, edited by Knud Haakonssen, 1–11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haney, W. S. 2006. Cyberculture, Cyborgs and Science Fiction: Consciousness and the Posthuman. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
   Google Scholar
• Hatlen, B. 1983. “Milton, Mary Shelley, and Patriarchy.” In Rhetoric, Literature, and Interpretation, edited by Harry R. Garvin, and Steven Mailloux, 19–47. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hetherington, N. 1997. “Creator and Created in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Keats-Shelley Review 11 (1): 1–39. doi: 10.1179/ksr.1997.11.1.1
   Google Scholar
• Hindle, M. 2003. “Introduction.” In Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, edited by Maurice Hindle, xi–l. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Hobbes, T. 1996. Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lew, J. W. 1991. “The Deceptive Other: Mary Shelley’s Critique of Orientalism in Frankenstein.” Studies in Romanticism 30 (2): 255–283. doi: 10.2307/25600894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovell, E., Jr 1953. “Byron and Mary Shelley.” Keats-Shelley Journal 2: 35–49.
   Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, C. 1993. “Reason and Sensibility: The Ideal of Women’s Self-Governance in the Writings of Mary Wollstonecraft.” Hypatia 8 (4): 35–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.1993.tb00274.x
   Google Scholar
• Mellor, A. 1988. “Possessing Nature: The Female in Frankenstein.” In Romanticism and Feminism, edited by Anne K. Mellor, 1–15. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moretti, F. 2005. Signs Taken for Wonders: On the Sociology of Literary Forms. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Ovid. 2010. Metamorphoses. Indianapolis: Hackett.
   Google Scholar
• Passmore, J. 1970. The Perfectibility of Man. London: Duckworth.
   Google Scholar
• Priestman, M. 1999. Romantic Atheism: Poetry and Freethought, 1780-1830. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rothschild, E. 2007. Economic Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet, and the Enlightenment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ruston, S. 2005. Shelley and Vitality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Shelley, M. 1839. “Condorcet.” In Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men of France. 2 vols, vol. 2, 175–194. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Shelley, M. 1980. The Letters of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, edited by Betty T. Bennett. 3 vols. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shelley, M. 1994. Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus: The 1818 Text, edited by Marilyn Butler. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shelley, M. 2003. “Author's Introduction.” [1831] In Frankenstein, edited by Maurice Hindle, 5–10. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Shelley, P. B. 1874. The Works of P. B. Shelley. 2 vols. London: Moxon.
   Google Scholar
• Shelley, P. B. 1994. “Preface.” [1818] In Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus: The 1818 Text, by Mary Shelley, edited by Marilyn Butler, 3–4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shock, A. 2003. Romantic Satanism: Myth and the Historical Moment in Blake, Shelley, and Byron. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, R. 2019. “Frankenstein in the Automatic Factory.” Nineteenth-Century Contexts 41 (3): 303–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterrenburg, L. 1979. “Mary Shelley’s Monster: Politics and Psyche in Frankenstein.” In The Endurance of Frankenstein, edited by George Levine, and U. C. Knoepflmacher, 143–171. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar