Mellor’s account fails to consider the Frankenstein’s adoption of Elizabeth, and its significance. In 1831, Elizabeth is the orphaned daughter of a Milanese nobleman. Catherine encounters the infant Elizabeth in the home of Milanese peasants, “distributing a scanty meal to five hungry babes” (F P. 206). Catherine is attracted to the baby Elizabeth who, despite her poverty, “seemed to set a crown of distinction on her head” (F P. 206). The fair skinned Elizabeth is described as “heaven-sent”, compared to the “dark-eyed, hardy little vagrant” other children (Shelley, 206). Elizabeth is swept up, to a life of comfort, by the Frankensteins. Mellor and Poovey may be correct in their discussion of Elizabeth’s oppression, in the revised edition’s…show more content… Poovey regards “[aversion] to bringing myself forward in print” (Shelley P. 192), as evidence that Shelley shrank from true self expression to protect her image as the ‘proper lady’. Bennet, however, attributes this statement to Shelley’s arrangement with her father in law: “Shelley's father, had forbidden her from bringing the Shelley name or family to public notice in exchange for the repayable allowance he provided to raise her son” (Bennet P. 78). Bennet argues that Shelley uses a superficial resignation, as a facetious guise to discuss the novel’s origins without disrupting her financial arrangement with Timothy Shelley. Shelley’s financial struggles are well documented, and Bennet’s argument certainly seem to reaffirm these suspicions. Yet, a financial motivation for revising Frankenstein does not necessarily invalidate the substance of the changes. When taken in combination with the affect of other revisions, Shelley’s financial motivations not only show the multiplicity of the factors pushing her to edit and rerelease the novel, but highlight her ability to subvert the pressures of Victorian expectation in
