It has been often noted that the Romantic writers of English literature were rebelling against the established positions and views of society. Most of the Romantic artists were indigenes of the well-established middle class and they were swiftly tiring of the self-serving political depredation perpetrated by the hands of the upper class. The Romantics were flouting convention, thumbing their noses and calling for radical and widespread reform not only in governmental politics, but within the politics of their own trade--creativity and art. Their myriad of works are clear evidence of this. Contumely against established society was found mostly in the poetical works of the day. However, much social commentary found its way into seemingly unlikely novels. Two such novels are Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and Jane Austen's Mansfield Park. Both of these novels are clever repositories for social commentary and judgment.

The overwhelming social judgment by Austen and Shelly was an intolerance for class distinction. Though they were hardly deluded enough to posses Utopian ideals, they nevertheless felt that a society with very little class distinction and especially without class-specific opportunity and quality of life was indeed attainable. Given that Karl Marx formulated many of his socialist ideals as a result of his exposure to the conditions of working class Englishmen, one might venture to say that the Romantic artists were forerunners of the socialist ideal, though perhaps this is a stretch. However, neither Austen nor Shelly saw socialism as an antidote to class distinction, or if they did, it did not find its way into their novels. They were quick to show, though, that a class blending could occur that was acceptable to all. In fact, such a theme is clearly prevalent in many sections of both Mansfield Park and Frankenstein.

For example, in Frankenstein, Shelly describes the acceptance of a lower class individual into an upper class family. Justine is a lower class servant who is taken into the Frankenstein family to alleviate the dire straits into which she has fallen. However, the Frankenstein's do not view her as a servant in the typical, expected sense. Rather, in a letter to the maniacal, creature-creating Victor Frankenstein, Elizabeth (adopted sister-come-wife of Victor) notes about Justine's situation: "the republican institutions of our country have produced simpler and happier manners than those which prevail in the great monarchies that surround it. Hence there is less distinction between the several classes of its inhabitants...the lower orders being neither so poor nor so despised," and Elizabeth further notes that Justine, accepted into the family even if as a servant, was fortunate to "[learn] the duties of a servant; a condition which, in our fortunate country, does not include the idea of ignorance, and a sacrifice of the dignity of a human being" (Shelly 60-61). Here Shelly has a difficult time portraying a lower class individual as equal to that of an upper-classman, likely because Shelly herself is not Swiss, but rather is British, and the centuries-old belief in separation of the classes is well entrenched in her, if unwelcome. However she still is clearly, tersely and forcefully presenting a character who is heartily accepted by those from a class above her, a radical notion in her time. More importantly, Shelly presents this servant as a woman of dignity and sagacity (well, except for that sorry moment when she confesses to the murder), qualities long deemed impossible for one of the lower class. In this respect, Shelly embodies the Romantic ideal of a less distinct social order, and an ability for man to relate to one another on a human rather than class scale.

Much like Shelly, Jane Austen also puts forth subtle social assertions in Mansfield Park. In this case, however, the ideal comes across more generally than Shelly's specifics. The idea of class blending is an overall theme of Austen's novel, rather than a specific episode (or episodes). The principal character is Fanny Price, a young girl whose mother left her relatively high class family to marry a lower class seaman. When Fanny's mother encounters dire straits, she asks for assistance from her wealthier relations, which is granted in the form of Fanny being adopted by the Bertrams (another curious theme throughout both novels: charity of the upper classes towards the lower). In the beginning of the novel, Fanny is regarded as lower class, the fortunate recipient of generous philanthropy who should never question her established position. However, in many extremely subtle ways, Fanny does continually and persistently question that position and by the end of the novel she has triumphantly risen to the social level of her benefactors. Austen is apparently less confident in making overt references to a more unified class ideal. As a result, she finds that she must rely on a conventional story to express an unconventional point. It was, perhaps, more socially acceptable for one to rise out of one's class through marriage, especially for women, and it is unfortunate that Austen has her character follow this convention. Yet, literature often shows characters rising beyond their expected fortunes by creatively employing the limited resources available to them; such is what tends to define the strong character, especially women characters, in literature. And what saves Austen's novel from pedantic uselessness is that Fanny manages to affect many people along her arduous ascent. Lord Bertram, for one, had originally refused to accept Fanny as anyone of consequence, and certainly no one even approaching the level of his own children. Yet, by the end of the novel, Lord Bertram has come to regard Fanny as more dear than his own children, and certainly more worthy of her new position than his offspring. Thus Austen has been most successful by employing a perfectly traditional role (a staunch, conservative, old-order noble) as a facilitator and commentator of a new social order. And so, Austen as well shines out as an example of the Romantic ideal.

The use of the novel as an avenue for social commentary was a clever route for the loosely organized Romantics. While the novel had played host to political commentary since its creation in the Restoration era, by the Romantic era, it had sunk to a more popular, less serious form. Percy Shelly undoubtedly had much influence on inclusion of social commentary in her otherwise straightforward horror novel, but she penned it regardless. And Austen can likely be fully credited for her commentary. As such, both of these authors are commendable as Romantic visionaries, and can be admired for choosing a more obscure art form as the vehicle for their political expressions.

Works Cited:

Shelly, Mary. Frankenstein. Quality Paperback Book Club, New York. 1994 (1818).