Literary Critique of:
Juengel, Scott. “Face, Figure, Physiognomics: Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein and The Moving Image.” A Forum on Fiction: 33 (2000 Summer): 353-76
Juengel argues that physiognomic determinism is deployed in Shelley’s Frankenstein. He believes that the governing logic of physiognomics of the day (which was heavily influenced by Lavater’s physiognomy) is implicated in Frankenstein through the “circulating, miniature portrait” of the protagonist’s mother that seems to herald the deaths of Frankenstein’s mother, brother (William), and Justin. He further argues that the monster’s hunting gaze in the two scenes by the window also casts him as an “image of moving portraiture” since it is this horrid image that Frankenstein runs for/away from that which ultimately causes his death. Lastly, he questions the ethics of physiognomic determinism in Frankenstein, and believes that the novel interrogates this issue itself by illuminating how the monster’s hunting visage thwarts any descent, intersubjective relationship between the creator (Victor) and his creature (monster).
Although Juengel’s essay is insightful and convincing, I take issue with his occasional, obscure use of the term “physiognomics.” Juengel quotes Lavater’s theory of physiognomics extensively to lay out the meaning of physiognomics, however, his essay, in large, does not follow this precept in the strict sense, and thereby confuses the reader in grasping his central points. For instance, his main points of the essay are more about the devastating effects of this “moving image of portraiture” (the picture of Victor’s mother and the monster’s gaze framed by the window), rather than about the cause and effects of physiognomic determinism (showing how the specific facial features of the monster mirror his character, or presage future events according to Lavater’s theory).
Juengel does, however, persuasively argue that monster’s conspicuously structured body from the corpses – “the construction of living from the dead” which Juengel defines as an act of “prosopopeia” – foreshadows iconoclastic fate of his mate’s unfinished, destroyed body. He also does an excellent job of convincing that portraits, specifically, close-ups of human face, have “talismanic” or “fetishistic” power over the beholder because they force the gazer to confront, acknowledge, and linger over an imagined face; but more significantly, because they freeze the image of a moving, living person as static and inanimate, symbolizing death. His final argument, the “ethics of physiognomy,” claims that the immediacy of “face-to-face tableau” – the exchange of monster’s and Frankenstein’s gaze in their encounters – accentuates and augments “fetishistic power,” and thereby, more poignantly provokes and summons Frankenstein’s paternal duty to his creature. For Frankenstein, however, the monster’s distorted visage produces a certain impenetrability that blocks and hampers any “intersubjective intercourse” between the two. Thus, according to Juenguel’s ethics of physiognomy, the fact that Frankenstein escapes from the monster’s proffered hand during this “face-to face” encounter holds him that much more accountable and unethical.
I find this essay intriguing and valuable in investigating and understanding the subtle and powerful impact of the portrait imagery deployed in Frankenstein. Moreover, Juengel’s ethics of physiognomy – the ethics of reading/misreading only what is visible and external (even among the elite scientists) – is interesting and informative because it discloses human’s irrational, biased tendencies in evaluating one’s physicality.
JC's Mental Portal 