Samba Diaw

Mamadou Lakhassane Cisse

Alassane Bah

An Y MDE Approach for Enactable Software Process Models Generation

Keywords: Model-driven Engineering (MDE), Model Transformations, MDE Software Process, Tailoring, Instantiation

The advent of MDE enabled to automate software development while reducing its production time. While software companies need continually to improve and customize their software processes, an automated approach to do so is still lacking. Most of those companies have an organizational process that is used whenever they have an upcoming development project. Reusing the same process for any development project is somehow inadequate. So, tailoring of such a process is necessary to fit organisational and operational companies' needs. However, even if that tailored process can be used for a specific project, it still lacks resources needed for execution. In this short paper, we propose a Y model-based approach that allows tailoring software processes and generating enactable software process models by using models transformations. We defined metamodels to express models involved in those transformations. We illustrate our approach with an extract of the UWE Process which we adapt and instantiate for a development project with .Net.

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, software applications become more and more important in our daily life. However, their implementation becomes more and more complex depending on their nature. To develop software with a high quality we should have a good process. Therefore, it is important for companies to have their own generic process that can be adapted (i.e. tailor) to any project/organization context. For a better management of a software development project, it is important to capture all changes that happen during the elaboration of the software meaning the description of the actual (i.e. real) process.

According to Curtis and al., a software process model (process model, for short), is defined as "an abstract description of an actual or proposed software process which represents selected process elements that are considered important to the purpose of the model and can be enacted by a human or machine" [START_REF] Curtis | Process modeling[END_REF]. A process model is an abstract representation and does not capture concrete information on how the model-products are really managed during process execution. While software companies need continually to improve and customize their software processes, an automated approach to do so is still lacking. Most of those companies have an organizational process that is used whenever they have an upcoming development project. So, tailoring of process models to exactly fit organisational and operational companies' needs constitute a crucial task for the success of software development project. Tailoring could be a very difficult task, which typically has to take into consideration several human and organisational issues. In this respect, managing such a complexity with model-transformations is a challenging and ambitious issue.

To address this issue, we propose in this article, a Y model-based approach to tailor MDE processes and then generate enactable software process models. To validate our approach, we use an extract of the UWE process and apply it to a development project in .Net.

The remainder of the article is structured as follows: the section 2 presents the Y model-based approach while the section 3 presents the prototype. Section 4 deals with the validation of our Y approach with an illustrated example. The section 5 deals with related works. In the last section, we conclude this article and introduce some perspectives. DOI: 10.5220/0006649505110518

THE Y MODEL-BASED APPROACH

Our contribution will consist in designing and implementing a Y model-based approach (Figure 1) to produce an enactable software process model from a generic process model. The first step (tailoring) of this approach is to produce a tailored process model from a generic process model so-called PIPM (Project Independent Process Model). For the first step, the main idea is to consider tailoring as models' transformation that takes two input models:

• a generic software process model independent from any project (PIPM) conforms to SPEM4MDE,

• a model representing the context of a project/organization conforms to SPCM (Software Process Context Metamodel).

The second step is the instantiation of the tailored process model according to a project/organization context. As a result, an enactable process model so-called PSPM (Project Specific Process Model) will be produced and will include the actors/tools and tasks to be executed.

The Y model-based approach involves four metamodels:

• SPEM4MDE [START_REF] Diaw | Specification and Implementation of SPEM4mde, a metamodel for MDE software processes[END_REF]: a metamodel taking into account the concepts of software development process definition,

• SPCM (Hurtado and al., 2011): a metamodel that defines the context model of a project/organization),

• PRM (Project Resources Metamodel) (Figure 2): a new metamodel that represents the resources of a given project

• EPM (Enactable Process Metamodel) (Figure 3): a new metamodel that defines managed elements at enactment time The major concepts of PRM are ResourceElement and ResourceType. A resource element defines every resource used within a software development project (actors, tools, etc.). It has a name, a description and a kind (primary or secondary). The resource type defines the type of resource, which can be human, software, hardware or any kind of resource type defined by the project manager. Resource types might not have the same properties. For solving that issue, we defined the ResourceProperty concept in order to define new properties for a resource type. Resource elements can be organized in groups. Only human resource elements are linked with their role. Examples of resource elements can be Bob (name), which is a human resource type. For the human resource type, we can also define different others properties such as address, phone number, family name. Note that the list is not exhaustive and give the responsibility to the project manager to define new suitable properties.

Figure 3 presents the Enactable Process Metamodel (EPM). The instantiation process will produce a model ready to be enacted. The importance of this model is to give to the project manager all information about tasks and their performers. The model contains the different resources chosen by the project team for taking part in the execution. The resources are not only humanlike but any kind of resource that will participate in the production of the real artifacts. Having a metamodel representing these concepts is a major key of our approach and enables us to capture the real process (i.e. process in life). For that purpose, we have defined the EPM metamodel. The main concepts of EPM are "TaskInstance", "MDEActivityInstance" and "TransformationInstance". They help defining the activities and tasks that are to be executed. Transformation instance is also a task instance. The task instance takes as parameters one or more model instances (i.e. concrete model-products). Every activity or task is considered as an enactment element meaning that they are the elements that are going to be executed. We also reused the ResourceElement concept from the Project Resources Metamodel to represent the specific resources (human, hardware, software) for executing a task or transformation.

THE PROTOTYPE

To validate our approach, we have developed a prototype. As shown by figure 4, the prototype is divided into two components: SPEM4MDE Process Editor, and SPEM4MDE Process Enactment Engine.

VALIDATION

To illustrate our Y model-based approach, we have chosen as an example the UWE (UML-based Web Engineering) process [START_REF] Koch | Transformations techniques in the modeldriven development process of UWE[END_REF] [START_REF] Kroiß | UWE metamodel and profile: user guide and reference[END_REF]. UWE is a process that covers web systems development cycle from requirements to code generation. Figure 5 represents an extract of the UWE process described with SPEM4MDE.

Project Independent Process Model (UWE Process)

After the description of the requirements model a first transformation (Req. 2 content) produces the content model. The UML standard may be used to describe the content model. The content model is used for the following activity (Content 2 Navigation) to produce the navigation model. From one content model, different navigation views can be obtained, e.g. for different stakeholders of the web system like anonymous user, registered user and administrator.

The requirements model contains information that is useful for the enrichment of the navigation model. For this purpose, the transformation (Req. 2 Navigation) is used.

The navigation model generated on the content model contains itself valuable information that allows for reasoning and improving the navigation model. For the transformation (Navigation Refinement) the following constrains are defined:

1. An index is added for all associations of the navigation model that have multiplicity greater than one at the directed association end. 2. All navigation classes that have at least one outgoing association require a menu class with menu items defined on basis of the association ends of the associations.

Presentation elements are generated based on navigation elements of the navigation model and merged then with style guide information.

For example, for each link in the navigation model an adequate anchor is required in the presentation model.

Functional models (content, navigation and presentation) are afterwards integrated mainly for the purpose of verification into a big picture model. Finally, the platform-specific code (Java, .Net) is generated from big picture model.

SPEM4MDE Process Editor allows process designers to

describe, modify and tailor process models. Once the process model is described, the process designer may check it with respect to the constraints defined in the SPEM4MDE metamodel, or regarding to additional constraints. There are two ways for checking MDE process models: checking on demand (i.e. when the user triggers himself the checking process) or checking during edition (i.e. checking is done automatically by the tool). Outcomes of process editing are stored in a repository called MDE Process Repository. For instantiating a MDE process model in a given project, a project manager may also use this editing component.

SPEM4MDE Process Enactment

Context Model

To tailor the UWE process, we must have a context model representing process variations. This context model will define the specific characteristics we have chosen to deal with the process. In this way, we can configure new process models through model transformations. The characteristics of the specific project are provided by the project manager. This will result in the generation of a new adapted process model.

The context variables considered in this tailoring process are the project type and the development platform. SPCM allows us to create more variables but we rather stick to these two variables since they describe enough our context model.

Context Attribute Value

Project type Development Project

Development Platform . NET

Table I gives the values for our two context attributes. The tailoring process that is done based on them will give a new process adapted to the context of the project. We are going to use ATL [START_REF] Jouault | ATL: a QVT-like transformation language[END_REF] to define the tailoring transformation rules.

Tailored Uwe Process Model

The execution of the tailoring transformation (T1) allows us to configure a new process. That process will be adapted to the project context and is obtained through automatic generation.

Figure 6 represents the resulting process after the tailoring activity. Only the required activities roles and artifacts are present. The resulting process does not include any additional activity. The "Req. 2 navigation" transformation is removed, as it is not mandatory when the navigation model produced by the "Content 2 Navigation" presentation is well defined. The "Java Code Generation" activity is also removed, as it is not mandatory for a .Net development project.

Project Resources Model

In our project resources model, we will give the effective resources in charge of tasks execution. In the UWE process, human actors do some activities whereas transformations are executed by MDE tools. The involved roles in the UWE process are:

• Web Developer • Java Developer • .Net Developer
To instantiate our tailored process model, we are going to choose real actors for those roles. For the role web developer, we can have a human resource with first name, last name, and address properties. Bob and Alice will then play the web developer role while Trevor will play the .Net developer.

The Resulting Enactable Process Model (Enactable UWE Process)

Once we have the tailored process, we can go through an instantiation activity with the real actors.

The instantiation strategy enables us to have a final process model so-called enactable process model. This process model contains tasks to be executed and also the real actors to execute them (Bob, Alice, Trevor). It still conforms to the EPM metamodel.

Figure 7 shows the last step of our approach that produces the enactable process model. ( [START_REF] Cao | How extreme does extreme programming have to be? Adapting XP practices to large-scale projects[END_REF], a set of agile practices tailored for large-scale complex projects has been proposed.

In [START_REF] González | Template Based vs. Automatic Process Tailoring[END_REF], an example of a template-based tailoring is presented. For each possible project situation, a well-defined process is established answering a scenario. For every scenario that might occur, one of the defined processes is chosen and executed for software development. This method is also used in [START_REF] Cockburn | Crystal clear: a human-powered methodology for small teams[END_REF]) by taking into account project criticity and team size to choose the right process. This type of approach is highly depending on a complete knowledge of projects type and size that the company will have to deal with.

Using criteria to be applied in the tailoring process is an important task. However, those criteria must be carefully chosen to see which ones influence more the tailoring process [START_REF] Kalus | Criteria for software process tailoring: a systematic review[END_REF] and even the links between those criteria.

Furthermore, each criterion has its impact on a specific kind of project and none on another one. In [START_REF] Xu | Using process tailoring to manage software development challenges[END_REF], a set of measures is provided to take into account different project situations. For

RELATED WORKS

Process tailoring is the mechanism of adapting a software process to project needs [START_REF] Silvestre | A model-based tool for generating software process model tailoring transformations[END_REF].

In (Pedreira and al., 2017) different tailoring methods have been showed. In some cases, it is done on the organizational level and in others on the project level. Tailoring on the organizational level allows adapting a standard process to the needs of a specific organization. The resulting process is adapted to the needs of each individual company.

Considering that projects in a single company can also differ, we need to tailor process at the project level, which means that the resulted process of the organizational level is adapted to the needs of a specific project. Some work done around tailoring is [START_REF] Hanssen | Tailoring RUP to a defined project type: A case study[END_REF], which presented a simple pragmatic method for adapting RUP to a specific project type in a company. They report that in their experience, process tailoring in small companies is best done as a simple and pragmatic process, and not as one, which is over-extravagant and strict. In each criterion, they ask two questions: What does it means (rationale) ? and what might happen when not considering this particular criterion (implication)?

Another attempt in (Martínez-Ruiz and al., 2012) focuses on the requirements for tailoring software processes. Unlike the former paper, they did not show up concrete criteria but focus more on the elements being used for tailoring and the causes of variations during process tailoring.

One of the common criteria find in the literatures is the team or company size. The project type also is one the most shared criterion for process tailoring. Among the factors that influence the software process we have the project, the organization, the product and the stakeholders of the project [START_REF] Martínez-Ruiz | Requirements and constructors for tailoring software processes: a systematic literature review[END_REF]. Figure 8 shows four major steps in software process tailoring. The criteria can also be split in four groups [START_REF] Preez | Tailoring the development process according to the context of the project[END_REF]:

• the ones with regard to the organization, • the ones with regard to the project, • factors related to the product,

• factors related to human agents.

In [START_REF] Hurtado Alegra | MDE-based process tailoring strategy[END_REF], a model-based approach to software process tailoring has been proposed (figure 9). Even if the proposal approach has been applied for a medium-size Chilean company, the concepts employed will not entirely change when applied to a larger company. This approach is made possible using organizational process model conforms to SPEM and a project context model. The transformation rules written in ATL will accordingly to the metamodels, produce an adapted process model still conforms to SPEM.

CONCLUSION

In the literature, few approaches are natively supporting automatic process tailoring. Using MDE principles to tailor process model in a context of an organization or project and then generating an enactable process model is an ambitious issue.

To address this issue, we have presented a Y model-based approach that allows tailoring software processes and generating enactable software process models. Our approach involves two main activities tailoring and instantiation. The prototype we developed allows using an automated support to assist process designer in those two complex activities.

We validate our approach with an extract of the UWE process, which we adapt within a context of a .Net development project.

The tailored process is instantiated with project resources in order to produce an enactable process model.

Two important perspectives of this work are under consideration. Firstly, we plan to develop a process engine to assist stakeholders in the execution of their tasks. Secondly, we envisage defining a full collaborative process execution metamodel for the enactment purpose.

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: The Y model-based approach.

Figure 2

 2 Figure 2 describes the Project Resources metamodel. The resources used in a software development project are dependent to the project variabilities. The formalization of those elements enables the automatic instantiation of the tailored process. We have defined a new metamodel called PRM (Project Resources Metamodel) to define used resources in the execution of a development project. This metamodel describes every resource element within a software development project.

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: Project Resources Metamodel -PRM.

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: Enactable Process Metamodel.

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: Architecture of SPEM4MDE-PSEE.

  Engine allows the project manager to instantiate a tailored process model and the developers to enact a project-specific process model by giving them their tasks and the current state of any process element. It is integrated with other eclipse-based tools (ATL, Smart QVT, Code Management Tool, etc.) in order to execute the activities of the instantiated process model. Developers can then keep track of what is the current state of each element of the MDE project, what has been done before and what is left. Outcomes (models, code, documentation, etc.) are stored in a MDE Project Repository

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5: Generic UWE Process model.

Figure 6 :

 6 Figure 6: Tailored UWE process model.

Figure 7 :

 7 Figure 7: Enactable UWE Process Model.

Figure 8 :

 8 Figure 8: Software process tailoring steps(Martínez-Ruiz and al., 2012).

Figure 9 :

 9 Figure 9: An MDE approach to tailoring (Hurtado and al., 20014).

Table 1 :

 1 Context elements and values.


published or not. The documents may come

Elizabeth Lavenza in Frankenstein (I):

From the Beast to the Blonde? (1818-1831)

Anne Rouhette, Université Clermont-Auvergne Keywords: Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, femininity, literary history, fairy tales, transparency, animality, divinity Mots-clés : Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, féminité, histoire littéraire, conte de fées, transparence, animalité, divinité

The alterations made by Mary Shelley to her first novel in 1831 for Colburn and Bentley's "Standard Novels" series have been well documented and received a great deal of critical attention (e.g.  O'Rourke) 1 . However, one of those alterations, the rather drastic change undergone by the character of Elizabeth Lavenza, Victor's betrothed and the monster's last direct victim, has not to my mind been sufficiently remarked on. As is well known, 1831 Elizabeth is an adopted child, noticed by Victor's parents while holidaying in Italy, whereas her 1818 namesake happens to be Victor's first cousin, the daughter of Victor's father's sister. As is less well known, her physical appearance changes with her circumstances, as Mary Shelley's original dark-eyed, dark-haired protagonist becomes an angelic blue-eyed blonde, which, as I will argue here, has an impact on the reading of the novel, and not merely from an ideological point of view, although it is hard not to see the 1831 Elizabeth as blander, more proper and less outspoken than her predecessor. If the socio-political implications of 1831 Elizabeth's new origin and lack of opinions have been studied (I will return in particular to the silencing of 1831 Elizabeth), as far as I am aware, the significance of her physical makeover has only been addressed by H. L. Malchow and James O'Rourke. Malchow interprets it from a post-colonial perspective, arguing that the starker contrast between the "master-race maiden" and "her racial negative" (i.e. the monster) highlights "the classic threat of the black male" (112-113), while O'Rourke's reading convincingly locates it within the fairy tale tradition. According to him, Elizabeth's transformation "is the most elaborate use of the conventions of the fairy tale as the oblique vehicle through which Mary Shelley examines both her own ugliest prejudices and her participation in structures of privilege" (381). O'Rourke analyses Shelley's resort to the fairy tale conventions here and elsewhere in the 1831 version in light of the "moral dilemmas" raised by the novel (379). In this two-part essay, I would like to look at the evolution between the two Elizabeths from a different perspective, replacing it within its social, cultural, and literary contexts to reveal a shifting conception of femininity which, when considered in terms of its varying association with Victor's creature, questions the very notion of "reading" as a concept grounded in the legibility of the female (or of the monstrous) face and body, an issue of paramount importance in a novel which revolves so much around (mis)interpretation. Building in particular on the writings of Thomas Dutoit, Scott J. Juengel and Ashley J. Cross, I will try to show how the differences between 1818

Elizabeth and 1831 Elizabeth can further critical reflection on epistemological matters such as the transparency or opacity of faces, the possibility of accessing meaning and truth, and the hermeneutical limits of awareness relying on classical polarities of interiority and exteriority, surface and depth, all matters of considerable instability especially if understood from the perspective of a comparative reading of the two versions of Shelley's novel. The first part of this paper (both parts can be read independently) will consist of a descriptive analysis of these differences, highlighting the alternative representations of femininity they convey, while in Part II I will turn my attention more specifically to the 1818 version and to the critical epistemological issues that are raised by it. Shelley's depiction of her heroine's transparency will be my guiding thread.

My analysis here will rely mostly on a comparison between the following three sets of excerpts dealing with the presentation of Elizabeth's appearance and character, with a few references to the rest of the novel(s): the first introduction of Elizabeth (A), her brief description when Victor meets her again after his time in Ingolstadt and the murder of William (B), and her reaction at Victor's departure for the British Isles (C). The obvious differences in Elizabeth's looks, with which I will begin, are the outward signs of a profound shift in the conception of a character who morphs from an earthly woman to a celestial being, losing her depth in the process.

A 1818

A 1831 From this time Elizabeth Lavenza became my playfellow, and, as we grew older, my friend. She was docile and good tempered, yet gay and playful as a summer insect. Although she was lively and animated, her feelings were strong and deep, and her disposition uncommonly affectionate. No one could better enjoy liberty, yet no one could submit with more grace than she did to constraint and caprice. Her imagination was luxuriant, yet her capability of application was great. Her person was the image of her mind; her hazel eyes, although as lively as a bird's, possessed an attractive softness. Her figure was light and airy; and, though capable of enduring great fatigue, she appeared the most fragile creature in the world. While I admired her understanding and fancy, I loved to tend on her, as I should on a favourite animal; and I never saw so much grace both of person and mind united to so little pretension. ( 20) She appeared of a different stock. The four others were dark-eyed, hardy little vagrants; this child was thin and very fair. Her hair was the brightest living gold, and despite the poverty of her clothing, seemed to set a crown of distinction on her head. Her brow was clear and ample, her blue eyes cloudless, and her lips and the moulding of her face so expressive of sensibility and sweetness that none could behold her without looking on her as of a distinct species, a being heaven-sent, and bearing a celestial stamp in all her features [...]. When my father returned from Milan, he found playing with me in the hall of our villa a child fairer than pictured cheruba creature who seemed to shed radiance from her looks and whose form and motions were lighter than the chamois of the hills. The apparition was soon explained [...]

Dark hair, golden hair

So the hazel-eyed (1818 A and B), dark auburn-haired (1818 B) woman has turned into a blue-eyed one with hair of "the brightest living gold" (1831 A). In this respect, 1831 Elizabeth resembles her fellow blond Shelleyan heroines in the three novels published prior to the revision of Frankenstein: Euthanasia in Valperga (1823), Idris in

The Last Man (1826), and Katherine Gordon in Perkin Warbeck (1830). This evolution, and the predominance of the blond female protagonist in Shelley's fiction after 1818, can be explained by several cultural and literary sources, which I will briefly retrace and describe in order to single out salient points which will be developed afterwards. Frankenstein probably owes a lot to Scott's influence, separating as it does its female characters along stereotypical traits: Elizabeth, the blond domestic woman, and Safie, the dark adventurous one, to whose appearance 1818 Elizabeth was closer, with dark eyes, dark hair, and light skina fair complexion for Elizabeth (1818 A) and a "wondrously fair" one for Safie (1818 81). Shelley resorts to the same contrast most remarkably in two of her subsequent novels, Valperga, where the blond, blue-eyed, sensible aristocrat Euthanasia is paired with the equally beautiful but passionate Beatrice, a prophetess with "deep black eyes" and "jet hair" (143); the same contrast occurs in Perkin Warbeck between a princess with blond hair and blue eyes, Lady Katherine Gordon, and the daughter of a Moor, Monina de Faro. In Scott's novels, the According to Alexander , this duality derives from the contrast between the two female protagonists of another novel re-read by Shelley shortly before her writing of the original Frankenstein (and again after, in 1818 and 1820): Madame de Staël's Corinne (1807), where the passionate, dark-haired and dark-eyed Corinne, who is half Italian, is spurned by her English lover who eventually marries the sweet, blond and bland (and younger) Lucile Edgermond. The latter's name corresponds to her blondeness, connoting both light (lux) and near-otherworldliness, edge-of-the-worldness. This trans-linguistic pun is made by Ellen Moers (233), who explains that Lucile, Corinne's blond rival and stepsister, is "the ideal woman" for an Englishman of the time, the "ideal of English womanhood, English culture, and English Romanticism. Lucile is young, pale, innocent, and silent," all points to which we will return further downone might add that this ideal will be taken to its extreme during the Victorian period.

"[Lucile's] very nullity as a person is the source of her charm," adds Moers (239); a non-person, Lucile is a void waiting to be filled, sexually and intellectually, or perhaps more precisely, she and characters like her are mere surfaces onto which one -Lord Nelvil, Victor Frankensteincan project whatever image one wishes. As a result, transparent heroines of this type come across as two-dimensional, lacking the depths and complexities of human beings, which is the case with 1831 Elizabeth, as we will see later 4 .

In this respect, they strongly resemble the female protagonists of a more traditional and less direct source of inspiration for 1831 Elizabeth, a source where princesses abound: fairy tales, where "[g]olden hair tumbles through the stories in impossible quantities," in Marina Warner's words (365). Indeed, 1831 Elizabeth's "crown of distinction" likens her to the real aristocrats Idris, Katherine Gordon, and Euthanasia (a countess if not exactly a princess like the other two). In From the Beast to the Blonde, from which I borrow the title of this first part, Warner examines the role played by blond hair in those tales, writing that "the colour fulfils a symbolic function, not a practical or descriptive purpose," standing for light, goodness, and purity (364). It might be worth mentioning at this point that when Mary Shelley was eight, in 1805, William and Mary Jane Godwin set up the Juvenile Library to publish children's books, among which Charles and Mary Lamb's Beauty and the Beast (1806), subtitled "A Rough Outside with a Gentle Heart"the creature in Frankenstein refers to himself as a "beast" (1818 95; 1831 177) and the Beast is also called a "Monster" in the Lambs' poem, where Beauty, although not explicitly endowed with golden hair, is repeatedly characterized as "fair," like 1818 Elizabeth's complexion and 1831 Elizabeth in excerpts A5 . Furthermore, 1831 Elizabeth is compared to "a garden rose" (1831 79), the rose being "the emblem" of Beauty in the tale and in the Lambs' poem (11). The change in Elizabeth's origin between the two versions assimilates her to that archetypal fairy tale hero or heroine, the foundling: half Swiss on the Frankenstein side, half Italian in 1818, she retains her Italian father in 1831 but acquires a German mother, which distances her from Victor and from the rest of the Frankensteinsand of course from the swarthy Italian family she is found in to begin with. The symbolism of light and purity associated with blondeness explains why female saints and the Virgin Mary generally possess halo-like golden hair . These religious connotations are found in another source for 1831 Elizabeth, Dante's Beatrice, particularly as she is described in La Vita Nueva, read by Shelley in 1821: in this work, the poet falls in love with the angelic child Beatrice, who comes to represent the spiritual and divine aspect of life.

The love was unconsummated and the lady died at a young age, which reinforces the parallels with Victor's unravished bride. Although not explicitly blonde, the donna angelicata, whose light is a reflection of Divine Love, leads Dante through Heaven in Il Paradiso (on Shelley's reading list for 1819) and constitutes a model to which Elizabeth, Euthanasia, Idris and Katherine Gordon all conform, according to Jean de Palacio (391). This leads me to focus more narrowly on a major distinction between the two Elizabeths: the shift from the woman to the angel.

Earthly "woman", divine "being"

In the two excerpts A, if 1818 Elizabeth's feelings are "uncommon," it is 1831

Elizabeth's appearance with the "crown of distinction" created by her golden hair which sets her apart as the blond, royal little girl among the "dark-eyed, hardy little vagrants" as Thomas Dutoit points out (851). Her nobility is that of the saint, "a being heavensent, and bearing a celestial stamp in all her features" (1831 A). The adjective "celestial" is repeated later in the revised version, in a passage which takes up the same religious theme: "[t]he saintly soul of Elizabeth shone like a shrine-dedicated lamp in our peaceful home […]; her smile, her soft voice, the sweet glance of her celestial eyes, were ever there to bless and animate us" (1831 82). The "woman" of 1818 has been replaced by a soul, a purely spiritual "being" (1818 B and 1831 A). No wonder then that the ethereal 1831 version of Elizabeth seems less subject to the passing of time, which has "greatly altered" her 1818 counterpart but merely "altered" her in the two excerpts B (emphasis added), maintaining her in a virginal child-like state which her blondeness also connotes (Warner 368). In the same line of thought, the symbolism of lightness associated with blond hair is to be taken in all the senses of the word "light;" as a matter of fact, if 1818 Elizabeth has a "light and airy" figure, she is also "capable of enduring great fatigue," while 1831 Elizabeth exhibits no such robustness and appears to be deprived of a body: "lighter than the chamois" (1831 A), this Elizabeth barely appears to touch ground. Like Richardson's Clarissa, "she seemed to tread air, and to be all soul" (949). The comparison with Clarissa (the 1748 novel was on Shelley's reading list in 1815, 1816, 1818 and 1819) and the saintliness of both heroines bode ill for 1831 Elizabeth, whose golden hair seems destined to become the crown of the martyr. This comparison is reinforced by a remarkable echo between two of the most famous literary dreams, Victor's and Lovelace's, more perceptible in the 1831 version because of the Clarissa-like character of 1831 Elizabeth: I thought I would have clasped her in my arms: when immediately the most angelic form I had ever beheld, all clad in transparent white, descended in a cloud, which, opening, discovered a firmament above it, crowded with golden cherubs and glittering seraphs, all addressing her with Welcome, welcome, welcome! and, encircling my charmer, ascended with her to the region of seraphims; and instantly, the opened cloud closing, I lost sight of her, and of the bright form together, and found wrapt in my arms her azure robe (all stuck thick with stars of embossed silver) which I had caught hold of in hopes of detaining her; but was all that was left me of my beloved Clarissa. (1218) I thought I saw Elizabeth, in the bloom of health, walking in the streets of Ingolstadt. Delighted and surprised, I embraced her; but as I imprinted the first kiss on her lips, they became livid with the hue of death; her features appeared to change, and I thought that I held the corpse of my dead mother in my arms; a shroud enveloped her form, and I saw the grave-worms crawling in the folds of the flannel. (Shelley 1818 36;1831 102) Both men dream of embracing a woman alive at the time of the dream but soon to become a dead body, in the dream and in the diegesis; the woman disappears, leaving behind her the garb of a saint which the dreamer wraps in his arms (Lovelace) or transformed into a corpse which the dreamer holds in his arms (Victor). Clarissa ascends among the "golden cherubs," while Elizabeth was herself described as a golden-haired "cherub" a few pages before the second extract. The whiteness of the angel's dress finds a macabre echo in the "livid" hue of Elizabeth's lips and of course the shroud enveloping Caroline Frankenstein's body. In both cases the dream can be read as proleptic, announcing the death of the beloved woman, a death for which the two dreamers may be said to be at least partly responsible.

It might in fact be argued that unlike the original Elizabeth, the 1831 one is not even alive in the first place. If her predecessor's animation is stressed several times in excerpt 1818 A, with the repetition of "lively" and the occurrence of "animated," the life which characterizes her has been transferred to the colour of 1831 Elizabeth's hair, of "bright living gold" (emphasis added)the only thing about her that seems endowed with life. Inanimate herself, 1831 Elizabeth animates others: "her smile, her soft voice, the sweet glance of her celestial eyes, were ever there to bless and animate us" (1831 82). The mineral of 1831 Elizabeth's golden hair has replaced the natural, animal and vegetal, in the description of 1818 Elizabeth, with her "hazel eyes, […] lively as a bird's," whom Victor moreover likens to a "summer insect" and to "a favourite animal" (excerpt 1818 A); the "hazel" of her eyes is repeated in excerpt 1818 B. Even the one natural reference in 1831 Elizabeth, the chamois, sounds vaguely ominous retrospectively: the animal returns further on in the novel as a prey, when Victor explains that the monster "may be hunted like the chamois" (1818 144; 1831 239). His ability to tread lightly is not the only trait which the monster shares with1831 Elizabeth, described for instance in excerpt A as "an apparition," a term also used several times for the creature (e.g. 1818 13 or 146; 1831 69 or 243). In fact, the "being heaven-sent" that is 1831 Elizabeth is constructed as the exact opposite to the (dark-haired) hellish "being that [Victor] had created" (1818 36), an angel of light to his "fallen angel," which is how the creature sees himself (1818 68; 1831 142), in a rather straightforward, Manichean opposition between the demonic and the angelic. Both are connected through their divine characteristics 6 , which by implication emphasises the Creature's non-human nature.

The pairing of Elizabeth and the Creature has often been perceived and commented on 7 but it does not work in the same way and to the same effect in the two versions.

Indeed, 1818 Elizabeth is related to the Monster not through the divine, but through the natural: the "nuts" which he eats are reminiscent of her hazel eyes (1818 72), and Elizabeth in excerpt A is compared to creatures which the monster is said to be, an "insect" (1818 67) and an "animal" (e.g. 1818 51). The same terms apply to the two of them, literally for the monster-beast and metaphorically for Elizabeth, a process which we will trace from another perspective in Part II. Another natural element connects them, this time a physical characteristic: they share the same dark hair. We know from her manuscripts that Shelley toyed with the idea of calling her character by the rather strange name of "Myrtella," which of course evokes the myrtle, another vegetal, but also "derives from the name of a mistress and courtesan" (Ketteredge 273) 8 . Although 1818 Elizabeth has nothing about her of the prostitute, this clearly reveals her bodily quality, brought out by the sensuousness of her "rich, dark auburn hair" (1818 B), which conveys the idea of a woman made of flesh and blood, a very possible bride for Victor, far from the pure soul and eternal virgin that 1831 Elizabeth seems to be. Yet 1818 Elizabeth is also described as being "light and airy", and angelic women already appear in the first version of Frankenstein with Caroline Frankenstein, the "angel mother" (1818 48); both earthly and airy, the image of femininity which emerges from the description of 1818 Elizabeth and from the novel as a whole is more complex than the 6 On the monster's divine characteristics, see Dutoit 858-59. 7 See for instance Knoepflmacher: "Yet the beautiful and passive Elizabeth and the repulsive, aggressive Monster who will be her murderer are also doublesdoubles who are in conflict only because of Victor's rejection of the femininity that was so essential to the happiness of his 'domestic circle' and to the balance of his own psyche" (109). Knoepflmacher's essay is based on the 1831 text. 8 Perhaps "Myrtella" owes her flowery name to Waverley's Flora and Rose. idealisation of 1831, whose Elizabeth, as has been noted, prefigures the Victorian angel in the house (Mellor 176;Malchow 112). This complexity is the last point I wish to examine here.

Surface and depths

The portrait drawn of 1818 Elizabeth in excerpt A is fraught with contradictions: she is "docile and good tempered, yet gay and playful […]. Although she was lively and animated, her feelings were strong and deep […]. No one could better enjoy liberty, yet no one could submit with more grace than she did […]. Her imagination was luxuriant, yet her capability of application was great," conveying an image far from the simplicity of the celestial vision offered by her 1831 counterpart. To the playfulness of the child, 1818 Elizabeth allies application and a "luxuriant" imagination; to her "affectionate" disposition she adds an "understanding" which Victor admires, whereas not much is said of 1831 Elizabeth's interior life. If the sentence "she busied herself with following the aërial creations of the poets" occurs in both versions (1818 20; 1831 81), in 1831 it is followed by Elizabeth's passive "admiration and delight" at the spectacle of nature, while in 1818 the paragraph ends with her vision of the world as a "vacancy, which she sought to people with imaginations of her own" (1818 20); the later character is deprived of the little agency that belonged to her predecessor, an agency poetic in essence, that of "imagining," of forming images, mentioned in her very first introduction (1818 A). Smoothing the asperities within the feminine self in 1831, Shelley leaves her reader with an image of perfection so opposed to the monster as to become the other side of the same coin, the coin of femininity, as several critics have remarked. Envisaging Elizabeth (in the 1831 version) in connection not with the monster but his unfinished female mate, Barbara Johnson explains the repression of female self-contradictions, i.e. complexity, thanks to the clear separation between femininity and monstrousness:

It is thus indeed perhaps the very hiddenness of the question of femininity in Frankenstein that somehow proclaims the painful message not of female monstrousness but of female contradictions. For it is the fact of self-contradiction that is so vigorously repressed in women. While the story of a man who is haunted by his own contradictions is representable as an allegory of monstrous doubles, how indeed would it have been possible for Mary to represent feminine contradiction from the point of view of its repression otherwise than precisely in the gap between angels of domesticity and an uncompleted monsteress, between the murdered Elizabeth and the dismembered Eve? (9) It seems to me that the shift between the two Elizabeths exemplifies the repression described by Johnson by accentuating this gap and limiting women to surfaces, like the surface of the painting and of the miniature in which the mother, Caroline Frankenstein, is contained. To put it bluntly, in 1818 the monster is partly within Elizabeth, because there is something within; in 1831, he is decidedly without because there is nowhere else he could be. 1831 Elizabeth appears devoid of depths, an outside without an inside. While her predecessor's "feelings were strong and deep" (1818 A, emphasis added), the later version is only described in terms of her expressions, i.e. of what is visible on her face -or surface: "her lips and the moulding of her face [were] expressive of sensibility and sweetness" (1831 A), "an expression more full of sensibility and intellect" (1831 B), whether or not that expression corresponds to the inside, whether or not there is an actual sensibility, sweetness or intellect to match. Of course, the reader is led to assume that this is the case, that she is so transparent that it is needless to specify that there exists an inside equal to that outside, but since the two are never differentiated, it hardly seems to matter. The completely transparent woman shows what she is, without any mediation: "the saintly soul of Elizabeth shone like a shrine-dedicated lamp in our peaceful home". She stands as a living embodiment of truth, incapable of deceit, like Katherine Gordon in Perkin Warbeck (1830) 9 , published just before the revision of Frankenstein. As Thomas Dutoit puts it, "[h]er character is entirely a function of the facial features" (851). To some extent, such was also the case with 1818 Elizabeth, whose "person was the image of her mind" (1818 A), but the word "image" suggests a comparison, not an assimilation; a representation, not a presentation, which allows for the existence of two distinct elements, a person (i.e. a body) and a mind which may or may not coincide. In other words, she possesses a character and facial features which happen to correspond, but in a more complex manner than in 1831 Elizabeth's, more human-like and less divine hence the contradictions noticed above. If both characters can practice a form of selfeffacement, 1818 Elizabeth being "forgetful of self" (26) while her 1831version "forgot even her own regret in her endeavours to make [others] forget" (88), there is a strong hint that the selflessness of the second Elizabeth is precisely that: the absence of a self. 9 "Katherine is Truth," explains her cousin the king of Scotland (219). This assimilation between surface and depths in 1831, resulting seemingly in a denial of depths, accounts for another alteration brought to the second Elizabeth: her silencing. By 1831, Elizabeth's voice has faded away, which, as Marina Warner points out (390-95), is another feature of many a fairy-tale heroine, like Donkeyskin after she flies from her father's palace, or the protagonists of the Grimms' "The Twelve Brothers" and "The Six Swans". When considered in the light of the character's transparency, this belongs to a well-known trope according to which "in wordlessness lies sincerity," a conventional manner of doubting the truthfulness of language, which explains why a character like Cordelia in King Lear partly derives from the silent heroines of fairy tales (Warner 390). 1831 Elizabeth has no need for words: her face expresses her feelings and Victor understands what she means by her tears ("she longed to bid me hasten my return" in excerpt C). However, this idealisation of the silent heroinesilent heroes do crop up in fairy tales but on a much less regular basisresults at least partly from ideological considerations, as shown in the various conduct books popular in England in the late 18 th and early 19 th century and derided by Mary Wollstonecraft in her Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). This ideology gained ground in the 19 th century: in the course of the Grimms' editing of the tales from their first publication in 1812 to the final version of 1857, the female protagonists, at least the "good" ones, became more and more silent as the ideal of virtuous, silent and self-abnegating femininity came to meet "a certain particular socio-cultural requirements of family equilibrium in the climate of early nineteenth-century Germany" and in England as well (Warner 394), culminating, as mentioned above, in the Victorian era. The two excerpts C above allow us to pinpoint more precisely the evolution in Elizabeth's character in the sense that the words she uttered in 1818 have disappeared from the later version, in which, "mute" and "silent," she can only express herself by her tears. Deprived of language, 1831 Elizabeth also seems unable to think for herself, approving of the journey because it was instigated by Victor ("My journey had been my own suggestion, and Elizabeth therefore acquiesced," emphasis added), not for reasons depending on her understanding as in 1818 ("Elizabeth approved of the reasons of my departure").

The mild regret expressed by 1818 Elizabeth at being prevented from leaving her home while men explore the world has also disappeared from the 1831 text, in which she no longer seems to hold any thought of her own. As has already been noticed , two of Elizabeth's expressions of opinion were excised from the revised edition: the first consists in her fervent plea in favour of a farmer's career for Ernest in lieu of the judicial to which his father destines him (1818 41), thereby highlighting again her link with nature, as seen above; far from disagreeing with the patriarch Alphonse Frankenstein, just as she submitted readily to Victor's decision in excerpt C, 1831 Elizabeth expresses no particular idea on the subject and is content with merely relating Ernest's wish to enter the military (1831 108). More strikingly, Elizabeth's radical speech against the death penalty and the injustice of men has vanished from the later version:

[…] when one creature is murdered, another is immediately deprived of life in a slow torturing manner; then the executioners, their hands yet reeking with the blood of innocence, believe that they have done a great deed. They call this retribution. Hateful name! (1818 58)

The theme but also the tone of her speech are echoed by the creature who also sarcastically comments on Victor's desire to murder him: "you accuse me of murder; and yet you would, with a satisfied conscience, destroy your own creature. Oh, praise the eternal justice of man!" (1818 68). Not only are the Godwinian undertones of Elisabeth's diatribe done away with in 1831, but the sarcasm she wields, perceptible notably thanks to the italics ("retribution"), the exclamation mark and the distance she puts between herself and the language of men ("They call it"), also disappears, although the monster's outburst remains. Whereas 1818 Elizabeth's eloquence likened her to the creature, indirectly hinting that there may be something human in his nature, 1831 Elizabeth's silence opposes her to him and reinforces the clear-cut separation between the two mentioned earlier. Moreover, the use of irony requires self-division, the ability to say one thing while meaning another; its suppression from the revised version again emphasizes 1831 Elizabeth's simplicity. The latter's transparency and truthfulness, however, avail her little and do not prevent her from dying like her more voluble precursor. While this might possibly represent an oblique criticism of the ideological requirements on which the idealisation of women relies, Shelley problematizes her society's conception of femininity in a more nuanced manner in 1818, offering a reflection on transparency and the access to knowledge and truth it may or may not grant. This is what I will explore in the second part of this essay.

  Shelley's first and most direct source of inspiration comes from the contrast between dark and blond heroines in Romantic prose fiction, more precisely in Walter Scott's novels. Shelley expressed many times her admiration for Scott and as her reading list shows 2 , she read Waverley (1814) in 1815 and again in 1817 and 1821, Ivanhoe (1819) in 1820 and 1821, The Pirate (1821) in 1822, etc. The 1831 version of

  passivity of the blond (e.g. Rose Bradwardine in Waverley, Rowena in Ivanhoe, Brenda Troil in The Pirate) contrasts with the activity of the brunette (e.g. Flora McIvor, Rebecca and Minna Troil in Waverley, Ivanhoe and The Pirate respectively) 3 . The distinction between the two types of heroines usually rests on a social basis as well, the blond one being of noble origin, like Idris in The Last Man, born into the royal family of England, while the dark-haired one springs from more humble stock and often has foreign blood, like Safie and Monina.

I will here focus on the two best-known texts of Frankenstein, leaving aside the 1823 edition, which differs very little from the original one.

Compiled by Paula R. Feldman and Diana Scott-Kilvert and first published in The Journals ofMary Shelley: 1814- 1844 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1987), the Shelleys' reading list is available online on the Romantic Circles website (http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/frankenstein/MShelley/reading, last accessed 08/05/2018).

For a more thorough analysis of the types of heroines in Scott's novels, see Welsh

48-55. 4 Another probable literary source, Richardson's Clarissa, will be evoked below and in Part II of this essay.

Even though "fair" does not necessarily connote blond hair, the two meanings of the word have almost come to merge in English since the 16 th century(Warner 363). Emily Sunstein briefly examines the fairy tale elements in Mary Shelley's childhood and suggests that her interest in Valentine and Orson in particular, a tale involving two brothers, one of whom is a noble youth and the other was raised by bears, might have had an impact on the pair formed by Victor and his Monster in.