As these instances make clear, the creature works tounderstandself andothers bymeans of interspecies contact: identification, taxonomy, andanalogy

he creature’s first fieldnotes replicate the structure andterms of Englishtranslations of Buffon’s multi-volume Natural History(begunin1749). As hecomes intoconsciousness, he moves fromvague descriptions of “pleasantsound” and “little wingedanimals”toaccurate ornithologicalclassifications—“I foundthat the sparrow utterednone but harshnotes, whilstthose of the blackbirdandthrushwere sweet andenticing”; “sweeter thanthevoice of the thrushor the nightingale” (68, 69, 72)—thatreplicate thetaxonomic sequence of Buffon’s volume, whose first three headings were “Ofthe Sparrow Kind,” “The Blackbird,” and“The Thrush” (“The Nightingale”appears sixth). Shelley also aligns the creature’s empirical observations withthose appearing inBuffon’s Natural History. His “sweet and enticing”descriptions of the blackbird and thrush allude to Buffon’s respective entriesonthe blackbirdandthe “sweet modulationof his tuneful accents,” as well asthe thrushthat “sings most sweetly” (2:20, 25). WhenconsideredalongsideBuffon’s comments that the sparrow lacks “anypeculiar beauty” and “anymelodyof song,” the creature’s remarkthat “thesparrow utterednone butharshnotes” becomes a tragic allegory. AccordingtoBuffon, the sparrow’sapparentdefects do“not arise fromwant of powersinthis birdtoimitateothers, but because he onlyattends tothe parental note” (2:184-85). Lackingeventhe “parental note” that Buffonassociates withthe sparrow’s failedmimicry, the creature seeks “toimitate the pleasant songs of the birds,” butis “unable” (69). Frankensteinlaterliteralizes this cross-species comparisonwhenthe creature depicts his ownvoice interms of the sparrow’s “harshnotes”: “Myvoice, although harsh, hadnothingterrible init” (89). Bycontrast, throughthe creature’s characterizationof Safie’s song—that “flowedin a richcadence, swellingor dyingaway, like a nightingale” (79)—Shelleyapproximates Buffon’s classificationof the nightingale’s “melodious voice”:“now stealingoff intoa different cadence, now interruptedbya break” (2:35-36).

(“Romantic Exemplarity” 232)

As these instances make clear, the creature works tounderstandself andothers bymeans of interspecies contact: identification, taxonomy, andanalogy.Frankensteintherefore provides further confirmationof Theresa M. Kelley’sclaimthat “Romantic attentiontotaxonomy” became “a vehicle for askingquestions about parts andwholes,the problemof species, andalienormonstrous kinds” (“Romantic Exemplarity” 232). If Kelley’s Romantic plantsconduct “clandestine marriages,” blur animal andmineral lines, andexert “thepull of singularityagainst supposedsecure categories” (Clandestine5, 8), thensotoo does the creature’s anomalous formputscientificsystems underpressure. Positioninghimas workingtodefine the limits of his species, Shelleyassigns the creature ataxonomic model that rejects the hierarchyof the greatchainof being. Noless thanKelley’s monstrous, mimickingplants, thecreature’s bodypresents “a material invitationtofigure” that cuts acrossbotanical andliterarylines (Clandestine13). His composite form

As hecomes intoconsciousness, he moves fromvague descriptions of “pleasantsound” and “little wingedanimals”toaccurate ornithologicalclassifications—

Natural History