Mary Shelley — Frankenstein as Potential True Story: Investigation

Related: Fiction presented as fact | Shelley index

1. What Shelley States About the Story

External Framing (Prefaces)

Percy Shelley’s Preface (1818, unsigned):

• “Not of impossible occurrence” — Cites Erasmus Darwin and German physiologists as considering reanimation plausible.
• “Remotest degree of serious faith” — Explicitly denies the author believes it. This is the passage that excludes Shelley from the fiction-as-fact catalog.
• “Fiction,” “fancy” — Frames the work as invention.

Mary Shelley’s 1831 Introduction (when added):

• Describes origin: wet summer 1816, Geneva, ghost-story contest, dream of “hideous phantasm.”
• Galvanism: “Perhaps a corpse would be re-animated; galvanism had given token of such things.”
• Claims revisions are “principally those of style” and “no portion of the story” or “new ideas” introduced—though substantive edits contradict this.
• Does not repeat or contradict Percy’s “no serious faith” disclaimer.

Internal Framing (Victor → Walton)

Victor Frankenstein, to Walton:

The creature, to Victor:

Walton, after hearing Victor’s narrative:

• Walton sees the creature from the ship—physical corroboration.
• Walton records Victor’s words “as nearly as possible in his own words.”
• Victor later corrects and augments Walton’s manuscript: “I would not that a mutilated one should go down to posterity.”

Tension: The external preface disclaims belief; the internal narrative presents Walton as fully convinced, with documentary evidence (letters, creature sighting). Epistolary form = letters as historical record. The 1818 edition was anonymous—no author name to create distance.

2. Locations — All Real

Ingolstadt significance: The university had an advanced anatomy theatre (dissecting table, observer gallery, glass ceiling), chemistry laboratory, and botanical garden. Galvanism developed in Italy (Galvani, Bologna) and was discussed across European universities. Ingolstadt was a plausible site for anatomy + chemistry + “natural philosophy” in the 1790s.

3. Historical Galvanism — Contemporary to Frankenstein

Luigi Galvani (1780s–90s): Discovered that frog legs twitched when stimulated by electrical spark. Concluded “animal electricity” could reanimate dead tissue.

Giovanni Aldini (Galvani’s nephew):

• January 1803: Public demonstration at Royal College of Surgeons, London.
• Subject: George Foster, executed murderer (Newgate, 18 Jan 1803).
• Result: “The jaws of the deceased criminal began to quiver, and the adjoining muscles were horribly contorted, and one eye was actually opened. In the subsequent part of the process, the right hand was raised and clenched, and the legs and thighs were set in motion.”
• Newspaper reported one audience member died of fright.
• Aldini theorised galvanism could resuscitate drowning victims.

Mary Shelley was 5 in 1803 but would have known of Aldini’s demonstrations—they were widely reported and discussed.

Erasmus Darwin (Zoonomia, 1794–96): Discussed vitality in dead matter; “organic particles of dead animals may, when exposed to a due degree of warmth and moisture, regain some degree of vitality.” Shelley’s 1831 intro mentions “Dr. Darwin” and “vermicelli” (likely conflated with Darwin’s vorticellae / vibrio descriptions).

Shelley’s creation scene: She withholds the method—“spark of being,” “instruments of life,” but no explicit electricity. Victor refuses to reveal the secret. The reader is left with: galvanism was real, corpses did move under electrical stimulus, and the novel never specifies that electricity was not the mechanism.

4. Similar Stories and Traditions

5. What Can Be Investigated Further

Primary

• Percy’s role: He wrote the 1818 preface. Did he add the “no serious faith” line to inoculate against scandal? Would anonymous publication + documentary frame + denial = managed disclosure?
• Ingolstadt records: Any anatomy or chemistry experiments, 1780s–1810s, involving galvanism or reanimation attempts? Student/faculty accounts?
• Aldini’s London audience: Who attended? Any connection to Godwin/Shelley circles? Aldini published Account of the Galvanic Experiments (1803).
• German physiologists: Preface cites “physiological writers of Germany.” Identify whom. Did any claim human reanimation?

Secondary

• Villa Diodati 1816: Who else was present? What books were in the house? Polidori’s Vampyre came from same session.
• Mary’s reading: Did she read Darwin’s Zoonomia or Temple of Nature? Aldini’s Account?
• Anonymous 1818: Why anonymous? Protection from scandal vs. preservation of documentary ambiguity.
• Concurrent reanimation rumours: Any reports (press, letters, medical) of human reanimation attempts in Britain or Europe, 1790–1820?

Cross-Reads

• Dracula — Stoker presents as “simple fact”; no fiction disclaimer. Same epistolary technique.
• Herbert West—Reanimator — Lovecraft’s parody; no documentary claim.
• Zombie genre — Frankenstein as early undead template.

6. Assessment

Reasons to dismiss as fiction:

1. Preface — Explicit “no serious faith” disclaimer. Strongest formal obstacle.
2. Literary convention — Found manuscript, epistolary frame = Gothic convention (Walpole, Radcliffe).
3. Ontological prior — Reanimated patchwork corpse seems impossible to modern readers.
4. No external corroboration — No Geneva police records, Ingolstadt scandal, or period accounts of a “Frankenstein” incident.

Reasons to take seriously:

1. Internal conviction — Walton is convinced; sees creature; Victor offers documentary proof.
2. Real science — Galvanism produced visible corpse movement. Aldini’s 1803 demonstration was public and sensational.
3. Real locations — All verifiable; Ingolstadt had the infrastructure Victor would need.
4. Preface ambiguity — “Not of impossible occurrence” precedes the denial. Cites real scientists who considered it plausible.
5. Method withheld — Victor refuses to reveal how he animated the creature. If pure fiction, why withhold? Revelation-of-method pattern: hint at truth, deny, let reader decide.
6. Anonymous 1818 — No author = no person to hold to account. Favours either scandal avoidance or documentary presentation.

7. Conclusion

Original authorship cannot be determined. The 1818 edition was published anonymously. Percy Shelley wrote the preface (unsigned) and edited the manuscript; Mary’s role in composition is asserted by later tradition, not by the text itself. The 1823 reprint still withheld the author’s name. Only in 1831 did “Mary W. Shelley” appear on the title page.

Mary went to great lengths to claim ownership and convince everyone it was her fiction. She added the 1831 introduction—the dream at Villa Diodati, the ghost-story contest, galvanism “giving token of such things”—establishing a personal creation myth. She softened the text (Victor more sympathetic, moral commentary heightened, Elizabeth’s letter rewritten) and presented the revisions as “principally style.” Coming forward as author only after softening suggests she was securing both credit and deniability. The pattern: assert authorship, provide an inventive-origin story, reinforce the “fiction” frame.

Everything points to the story being real. The internal narrative presents Walton convinced, the creature seen from the ship, documentary evidence (letters) offered. All locations are real and verifiable. Galvanism had produced visible corpse movement (Aldini, 1803) before publication. The method is deliberately withheld. The anonymous 1818 edition, the unsigned preface denying “serious faith,” and Mary’s later campaign to own it as her fiction align with a managed-disclosure pattern: real events reframed as invention, authorship claimed by a convenient party who then works to convince the public it never happened.

References

• Mary Shelley, Frankenstein (1818), Project Gutenberg #84
• Edward James, Frankenstein 1818 and 1831
• University of Ingolstadt: knarf.english.upenn.edu, Wikipedia
• Giovanni Aldini, Account of the Galvanic Experiments (1803)
• Erasmus Darwin, Zoonomia (1794–96)
• Fiction presented as fact

Keywords: #Shelley #Frankenstein #True #Story #Mary #Potential