Mary Shelley's Frankenstein:
Myth for Modern Man
by Patricia A. Neal, Ph.D.
How can we think of Frankenstein and ignore the film classic of
1931--who can forget the remarkable appearance of Boris Karloff as the unnamed
monster?1 Yet the remarkable film (not the first, but
one of many to use portions of Frankenstein) does not follow the novel
started by Mary Shelley in the summer of 1816 and completed in 1817. The
difference between the original novel and the numerous dramatized versions
forms the focus of this paper.
Although movie
audiences thrill to the scene of a futuristic laboratory with the mad Dr.
Frankenstein and his faithful assistant Igor, the scene derives from twentieth
century inventions and interests, not the novel first published in January of
1818.2 Before examining the differences between the
two, the genesis of the novel deserves consideration. We could pose the
frequently asked question Mary Shelley answered in her preface to the 1831
edition: "How I, then a young girl, came to think of, and to dilate upon,
so very hideous an idea?".3
Mary
Wollstonecraft Godwin (living with but unmarried to the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley); Shelley; George Gordon, Lord Byron; and
Dr. John Polidori spent the summer of 1816 in Switzerland.
According to a 1 June 1916 letter by Mary Shelley, "almost perpetual rain
confines us principally to the house."4 Lord Byron (a friend of Shelley's)
and his physician John Polidori, resided nearby at
the Villa Deodati. Persistent heavy rains kept
them indoors, the four finally resorted to telling
familiar and recently published horror and ghost stories. For days they told
tales which included gothic elements: graveyard and convent, burial vaults,
mysterious trap doors and passages, wild locations, secluded spots, and
pursuits by moonlight. Finally, one evening at Byron's villa, they made a pact
to see who could write the most frightening ghost story. Both Percy Bysshe Shelley and George Gordon, Lord Byron, had earned
widespread fame; even Mary had first published a book at the age of eleven (Mounseer Mongtongpaw).5
Each undertook the task eagerly. As Mary Shelley
explained in the preface:
Night waned upon
this talk, and even the witching hour had gone by, before we retired to
rest....My imagination, unbidden, possessed and guided me....I saw--with shut
eyes, but acute mental vision,--I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts
kneeling before the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a
man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs
of life, and stir with an uneasy, half vital motion. Frightful must it be; for
supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavor to mock the
stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world. (Bennett and Robinson, 170)
Her idea for the novel began with a student whose pursuit of
"unhallowed arts" lead to a horrifying apparition. The success of his
experiment would terrify, not delight, the student:
he would rush away
from his odious handiwork, horror-stricken. He would hope that, left to itself,
the slight spark of life which he communicated would fade; that this thing,
which had received such imperfect animation, would subside into dead matter;
and he might sleep in the belief that the silence of the grave would quench for ever the notion of the hideous corpse which he had
looked upon as the cradle of life. He sleeps; but he is awakened; he opens his
eyes; behold the horrid thing stands at his bedside, opening his curtains, and
looking on him with yellow, watery, but speculative eyes. (170)
Spurred by the horror of her nightmare, Mary completed the story within two
months.
The novel appeared
on January 1, 1818 and in 1823 Mary Shelley viewed Presumption; or The Fate of Frankenstein, the first dramatic production
based upon Frankenstein. After she attended the play written by Charles Brinsley Peake, Mary Shelley
wrote Leigh Hunt: "The story is not well managed--but Cooke played
__________'s* part extremely well."6 Thomas Porter Cooke portrayed the
monster, a role acted by numerous other performers in later plays, satires,
melodramas, and movies. Yet none of the productions adhere to the novel, few
retain the author's deliberate parallel between Victor Frankenstein as creator
and God as Creator. Mary Shelley's dream developed into a novel reminds us of
J. A. Hadfield's observation:
What myths are to
the race, dreams are to the individual, for in dreams, as in myths, there also
appear those primitive emotions and feelings in the form of giants, heroes,
dragons, serpents, and blood sucking vampires; representations of guilt,
retribution, and fate; of lust and power, of monsters of the deep, (the
unconscious) and of unknown but overwhelming beings which fill our nights with
nightmarish dreams and make us fear our sleep, but which, rightly used, can be
fruitfully integrated into our personality.7
Mary Shelley's monster continues to repel and appeal to a wide audience; at
the present time there are twenty-six different editions of the novel in print.
Rapt audiences
thrill to dramatic interpretations of the novel, Frankenstein. For many
viewers, the famous sentence: "It was on a dreary night of November, that
I beheld the accomplishment of my toils" opens the story (ch IV, 42). We observe a futuristic laboratory an eager
assistant and onlookers. Yet film interpretations distort the novel.
For good reason,
the novelist chose not to begin her story with the chilling event of the dreary
night in November. Who, in 1818, would have read such an improbable story?
Instead of the major event, the book opens with a series of letters from Robert
Walton, a self-educated Englishman dedicated to scientific exploration. He has
embarked upon the icy northern seas to view" a part of the world never
before visited, and ...tread a land never before imprinted by the foot of
man" (Letters, I, 116). Obsessed with training himself for his
self-appointed task, Walton studied navigation, mathematics, and the science of
medicine. His devotion to study separated him from others. Despite his zeal for
the voyage of discovery, Walton recognized his isolation and shared his desire
for a congenial equal in self-explanatory, informative letters to his sister in
England, Margaret Saville.
As he travels,
Walton envisions himself discovering the cause for magnetic north in the land
where the sun never sets. Walton reflects the contemporary interest in
scientific expeditions: well-educated men chose to explore the unknown and
expand mankind's knowledge of the universe. He represents a reasonable person
who properly prepared both for the hardships of the trip and the possible needs
of a journey into the unknown. The rational man provides a reassuring narrator,
one who enables the reader to accept the story he tells, a tale related by the
second narrator. In other words, Mary Shelley provides what is known as a
"framework" narrative, the same idea adopted by Chaucer for the Canterbury
Tales.
Walton is intent
upon his own purposes and conscious of the remoteness of his location; in fact,
his ship is locked into masses of ice and cannot move. He faces the strategic
problem of cutting free from the ice and attempting to sail further north on the
ice-covered sea. Yet two incidents distract him: he observes "a being
which had the shape of a man, but apparently of gigantic stature" guiding
a dog sledge rapidly moving north until lost in the distant inequalities of
ice; two hours later a fragment of ice with another dog sled with an exhausted
man appeared (21). Curiously, the man adrift on the ice refused to board the
ship until the captain assured him they were headed north.
The importance of
a glacial location, a suitable background for a man coldly detached from
society, could have formed a spectacular movie scene! Floating chunks of ice in
the cold Arctic Sea, two isolated dog sleds trudging in the frozen north, and
one man rescued by a ship locked in ice would make a compelling movie opening!
Yet not one director recognized either the dramatic potential or the symbolic
importance of an Arctic setting. The inherent drama of location is ignored.
Even Walton's heroic rescue of a freezing man would pique viewer interest,
increase suspense. Eagerly the reader waits to hear why a man is alone so far
north.
The weakened man,
Victor Frankenstein, relates his story as he slowly regains strength. Once
again the reader is surprised, and perhaps puzzled, by a prolonged
introduction: rather than explaining why he is adrift alone on the ice,
Frankenstein relates an elaborate tale of his parents' courtship, marriage, and
delight in him as an adored only child. The frustrated reader learns that
"no creature could have more tender parents than mine" (p. 27). The
statement, seemingly superfluous when Victor makes it, becomes more important
as the tale unfolds.
There must be a
reason for the casual reference to a pretty young cousin and two younger
brothers; all three are almost ignored in the story. His siblings interested
Frankenstein less than books by Cornelius Agrippa, Paracelsus, and Albertus Magnus. As Victor later lamented, his father had
ordered him to abandon those accounts, yet failed to explain that the outdated
works were useless. Drawn to the mysteries of experiments with and for the
unknown, Victor read about alchemists and early natural philosophers;
eventually, he enrolled at the University of Ingolstadt to study science.
Impressed with the
power of electricity in lightning, he determined to pursue the secret of life.8
Although faculty members praised his brilliance,
he furtively embarked on secret research in the attic of his boarding house.
Even relating the story to Walton the young man remains vague and imprecise in
discussing both the small hidden laboratory and the experiments. He shared his
secret experiments neither with professors nor fellow students. Evidently no
one else in the boarding house knew or suspected the late night research.
Unlike the
familiar films, no faithful Igor helped him rob graves or assisted him in an
extravagant, futuristic laboratory. No details of the laboratory enliven the
novel. He told no one of his experiments and worked alone on his "filthy
creation" in the "cell at the top of the house"; with his own
"profane fingers" he had stealthily obtained body parts from
graveyards and charnel houses (40-41). Specifics concerning the actual
experiment are omitted, no account of the actual
process of locating, obtaining, and transporting body parts appears in the
novel. Sorry--there is no dramatic graveyard scene with him waiting to snatch a
newly buried corpse. The reader learns of Victor's obsession with his
experiment and of his own horrified response when the scientific experiment
works!
If only part of
the story sounds familiar it is because too much is omitted in the movies.
Missing is the important framework, Victor's status as a student (not a
doctor), the isolation of the experiment, and the eventually articulate
creature who comes to life and seeks his creator.
In a number of
films the mad Dr. Frankenstein (a product of film writers) wildly exults,
"It's alive! It's alive!" Actually, the horror of the creature
prompts Victor to swoon and remain unwell for months. The enormity of his
action stuns and frightens the young student.
Transformed by
drama and film into a mad scientist, the altruistic young student disappears
for the sake of technical effects. Rather than the attic of a student boarding
house where the student stealthily brings what he has robbed from the graveyards,
the films often depict a large, elaborate laboratory with one faithful
attendant. The 1931 film shows Frankenstein and his assistant waiting to rob a
grave.
With the emphasis
on grave robbing and technical effects, Victor's burning desire to benefit the
entire human race seldom is heard in the film version. In the novel the
necessity of focusing on death itself forms an important part of Victor's
study--he believes that only by examining death can he re-create life. Finally,
in Shelley's work he "discovered the secret of generation and life...and
became capable of bestowing animation on lifeless matter" (39). Juxtaposed
with his revelation is a warning to Walton as listener--and to the reader as
secondary audience:
Learn from me, if
not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of
knowledge, and how much happier that man who believes his native town to be the
world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow. (39)
Remove Walton from the story and no audience remains for the important
lines; the wider implications of the scientific experiment fail to affect the
viewer. The parallel stories, one of attempting to discover the secret of life
and the other of forcing nature to open her secrets to man, disappear from the
film. The events on screen remain remote from the viewer's life
. The absence of Walton diffuses the warning to consider the final (not
immediate) effects of scientific exploration and experiment. The reader
discovers the dangers inherent in defying the natural order; the movie audience
watches a horror film.
Finally, the
novel, after 47 pages, reaches the familiar lines long thought the opening of
the story:
It was on a dreary
night of November, that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils... one in the
morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly
burnt out, when ,by the glimmer of the
half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open...How
can I describe my emotions?...His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected
his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! His yellow skin...horrid
contrast with watery eyes, shriveled complexion, and straight black lips. (42)
After two years of tireless devotion the scientist's pride and eager
anticipation suffered a terrible blow. Frankenstein's success produced horror,
not joy.
The film image of
the creature as a silent, malevolent being distorts the story and its
importance: a thoughtless young scientist creates a powerful object, yet provides
no measures for guidance and control. Rather than accept his own responsibility
as creator, Victor rushed from the laboratory and shunned the creature. Victor
never made an effort to help or teach the abandoned creature. After the silent
being escapes into the night, Victor keeps the dreadful secret to himself. In fact, he carefully avoids telling anyone about
the creature until after a series of deaths within his family circle. Only two
people besides Victor ever hear from him about the creature: the Swiss official
who cannot pursue the unknown murderer, and the narrator of the framework tale,
Robert Walton.
As you might have
noticed, I refer either to the being or the creature--Mary Shelley never gave
him a name. She deliberately left him nameless to emphasize the fact that the
creature has no place in the Great Chain of Being. As Martin Tropp noted, "Knowing the name of something has
traditionally conferred magical control over it, a place in an ordered
universe."9 Although composed of human parts, the creature is not mortal.
What is it?
Although I prefer
to avoid plot summary, the Frankenstein familiar to moviegoers is not
Mary Shelley's creature. At times movie versions include an important idea--but
the complexity of the story and ideas does not appear. Realistically, slavish
adherence to a novel often results in a turgid, boring film. Yet the director
interested in technical effects could highlight key ideas. For example, the
excitement of opening in the frozen north, with one figure moving across the
ice and receding into the distance while another suddenly appears hundreds of
miles from land, could hold the attention of the audience. The relationship
between isolated figures on a vast expanse of ice could serve as a poetic leit-motif in the film and retain a significant element of
the novel. The cold and sterile elements assume greater meaning than a
senselessly rampaging creature engulfed by fire. Even Henry Clerval's
importance as the person Victor could have become offers a second theme
which deserves exploration.
Once again
Victor's childhood friend, Henry Clerval, helps
Victor recuperate. Clerval, an important character in
the story, could be the Victor's twin. Both men hope to accomplish great and
good things; however, Victor pursues science and Clerval
studies languages and the humanities. If we consider the fascination with
dualism, evident in Percy Bysshe Shelley's poetry, we
more readily understand the significance of Clerval.
Even Victor points out that "Henry is my better self." At critical
points in the narrative Clerval reappears and helps
Victor regain his balance.10
As Victor relates
the destruction of his loved ones, from little brother William to falsely
accused Justine, the reader sympathizes with him. Victor seems unfairly
persecuted by the dreadful fiend he created. His initial dreams of benefitting
mankind and creating a race which would be grateful to him ironically mock the
young man.
Yet reader
sympathy shifts once more when the creature confronts Victor with a demand for
an audience. The sudden appearance of the creature striding across a glacier
high in the mountains startles both Victor and reader. Even more startling is
the being's extraordinary range of ideas, precise vocabulary, and concept of
justice and obligations.
In fact, the
creature asks Victor what it is. The articulate figure challenges his maker:
How can I move
thee? Will no entreaties cause thee to turn a favourable
eye upon thy creature, who implores thy goodness and compassion.
(74)
Both reader and Frankenstein recognize the justice of the creature's
demands. Slowly, reader sympathy shifts from antagonism toward the
"fiend" to recognition of its deplorable state, abandoned and
unprepared for any role in the world.
It is no surprise
to hear it say,
All men hate the
wretched; how then must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things!...How dare you sport thus with life? Remember, that I am
thy creature: I ought to be thy Adam: but I am rather the fallen angel, whom
thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Every where I see bliss from which I alone am irrevocably
excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend.
(74)
It is true. The creature committed no crime, yet his creator shunned him.
Why did the scientist's good intentions, the two year ambitious drive to create
the being, fail to reach fruition? Why must the repulsive creature (ugly
through no fault of its own) be driven from the door of his creator? The
reader, recalling the emphasis Victor placed on his own childhood, recognizes
that the fault lies not only with creature. The being, nameless as an object
with no legitimate place in creation, deserves an answer. Movie directors
ignore the dramatic potential of such a scene.
Yet the very
ability to articulate ideas, to express complex patterns of thought, to
question the justice of his indifferent creator, sets the creature apart from
the lumbering monsters who lurch, groan, and creak
across the screen. Admittedly a patchwork being, assembled from assorted body
parts, the stitched together being offends by his ugliness, abnormality, and
un-natural existence. How did he learn to speak, to exercise his mental
abilities, and to determine Victor's obligations to him?
In a series of
vignettes the creature pours forth a story to arouse our sympathy and
understanding. Ignorant and unable to fend for himself, he gradually learned
what to eat, how to hide from people who feared him, and finally attached
himself to an educated French family in exile. Unseen by them he acted as an
unknown benefactor, cutting wood during the night and neatly stacking it at
their door--a bit like the fairy tale of the elves and the shoemaker.
Providentially, it becomes necessary for the French cottagers to teach someone
else the language. The creature looks and listens through a knothole.
Eventually driven
away by the French family, he resolves to cease trying to be peaceful. He will
avenge himself on mankind; however, he observes a young woman drowning. Without
hesitation (and with personal risk to himself because he cannot swim) the
creature saves the woman's life--only to be rewarded with a shot to his shoulder.
No one helps him in his need, so he hides until the shoulder heals.
As the narrative
unfolds reader response shifts from the need to allow the creature to speak to
a sense of pity, perhaps outrage, for the injustices he suffered. Do we ever
respond this way to a Frankenstein film? Clearly, Victor Frankenstein should
have given more thought to his creation and its needs prior to animating it
with the gift of life. Or, once endowed with life, he should have provided some
means to control, educate, and guide it. Yet is that ever possible with an
independent being? Could a scientist guarantee a life of goodness in the
creature assembled from dead people? Can anyone guarantee that the results of
any laboratory, or scientific experiment, will automatically be benevolent and
good?
Finally the
creature makes clear his great need: he is lonely, one of a kind, and unloved.
He has learned the importance of position, family, and property. He wonders:
What was I? Of my
creation I was absolutely ignorant: but I knew that I possessed no money, no
friends, no kind of property....Was I then a monster, a blot upon the earth
from which all men fled, and whom all men disowned? (89).
Consider the being's language, the ideas expressed. How did he master such
complex thoughts? Not one dramatized version of the novel offers the creature's
story--nor any recognition of Frankenstein's monstrous
treatment of his own creation. In the creature's despair he fortuitously finds
a portmanteau which contains three books which he can read: Paradise Lost,
The Sorrows of Young Werther, and one volume
of Plutarch's Lives. Capable of speaking,
receptive to new ideas, he reads the books and learns about himself and the
world in which he lives.
In common with
Robert Walton and Victor Frankenstein, the speaker's language, perception of
significant ideas, and understanding of the world derive from self-directed
reading. Each of the three develops a sense of self and personal needs based
upon ideas developed in books. The educational ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau
influenced both Mary Shelley and her husband, Percy Bysshe.11 That influence is
apparent both in the novel and in the program of self-education adopted by the
young couple. Each considered education to essential for improvement.
Curiosity prompts
the creature to return again to the important questions:
Who was I? Whence
did I come? What was my destination?...Plutarch taught
me high thoughts, but Paradise Lost excited deeper thoughts...I read it
as a true history (95-96).
For Victor, the creature, and the reader the parallel with Paradise Lost
becomes important. Victor emulated God's actions when he created the being--yet
what a difference! The creature exclaimed,
Like Adam, I was created apparently with no link to any other being in
existence; but....he had come forth from the hands of God a perfect creature,
happy and prosperous, guarded by the special care of his Creator: but I was
wretched, helpless, and alone. Many times I considered Satan as a fitter emblem
of my condition. (96)
Finally the creature echoes Milton's lines, "And now, with the world
before me," and explains why he has sought Frankenstein.
With a mate he
will be happy, leave Europe to settle in South America, and leave mankind
alone. By now reader and Victor understand the pathetic cry: "I am
malicious because I am miserable; am I not hated by all mankind?" (107). Yet two people have already been killed by the creature; in
fact, the smooth talking creature rouses suspicions about his long term
commitment to a life of obedience and good. His demands (not mild requests)
include terrible threats to be enacted if his request is not met.
The reality of the
dilemma could be debated at length. To what extent is the creature dependable?
How much can he be trusted? Is there an alternative for Victor? Vacillating
between agreement or refusal, Victor weighs the
problems and determines that justice demands his return to the laboratory to
create a mate. Yet conscience, which prevents him from relating any of the story to his father, betrothed, or Henry Clerval,
suggests his awareness of the potential harm. By this time two people, Victor's
little brother William and the innocent family servant Justine, have died
through the creature's fault. Unlike the movie monster, the creature does not
go on a murderous rampage. Only people related to Victor suffer injury or
molestation. The being seeks vengeance against his maker and threatens the
Frankenstein family, not others.
Briefly, Victor
collects necessary parts, embarks for the Orkneys (an appropriate isolated,
rocky location off the coast of Scotland and Ireland) and attempts to fulfill
his promise. The first time he engaged in frenzied activity to create life he
failed to reflect upon the possible consequences; now he cannot ignore the
potential damage to be feared from two such beings. What effect or impact will
his selfish hours in the laboratory, dedicated to the pursuit of a personal
goal and a desire to spare his immediate family, have on other innocent people?
He had isolated himself from other people when he first ascended to the attic
for his experiments--and he knew the terrible consequences of that creation.
Convinced of the hopelessness of his own position, but cognizant of the damage
already inflicted by his creature, he finally tore apart the almost completed
mate. The malevolent face of the creature, infuriated by Frankenstein's failure
to complete a mate, threatened "to be with him on his wedding night."
The ensuing
disposal of the second being, Clerval's murder at the
hands of the creature, and Victor's imprisonment and release all precede the ill-fated wedding night. Determined to protect
his bride from the creature Victor leaves the room to encounter the being--as
he paces the halls Elizabeth's piercing scream reaches him and Victor
recognizes his own inability to reason to a sound conclusion. His bride has
been murdered.
Now the tale
narrows to creator and creature, pursuer and pursued. Relentlessly Victor
tracks the creature--in fact, the chase injects new meaning into his life now
his family has been destroyed. The roles are reversed as the creature leaves
his trail for Frankenstein to follow. Now the creator follows a path
established by his creation. Even nature sympathizes with Victor--in a clear
sky a small rain cloud appears to provide rain for him to drink--food appears
when needed. Does even nature abhor the unnatural creature?
And of course,
Victor, creature, and Robert Walton all head north across the glaciers. The dying
Victor--the only living person who has ever seen the creature, warns Walton
"Trust not the creature." And the reader is reminded that the devil
is the father of lies.
Who learns or
benefits from Frankenstein's story? First of all, the ship's crew survives the
perilous trip when the captain, Robert Walton, turns around and returns to
port. Rather than risk lives in the dangerous north, Walton suppresses his own
ambitious goals and turns south. Of the two men obsessed with achieving what no
man has ever achieved, Walton sets aside personal ambition for the sake of
others. The deliberate use of dualism enables Mary Shelley to offer an
alternate for Victor's obsession for over-achieving.
The power of the
myth of an unattended scientific creation, left to destroy innocent lives,
assumes importance in the final decade of the twentieth century. The book
questions the morality of Frankenstein's actions. Did he have a right to create
and abandon the creature? In her novel, Mary Shelley anticipated the problem of
a destructive force created by man, a force with no genuine means of control.
Although her story served as a springboard to a host of horror movies, both the
numerous movies and dramatic presentations omit the basic intelligence of the
creature, its initial benevolent impulse, and its ability to recognize good or
evil. Even the altered movie endings--with a mob scene presenting the monster's
death in a great conflagration, violates the intent of the author. Ice must be
the final lifeless element for the creature.
One exception
could be the Mel Brooks film, Young Frankenstein. Although a parody of
the numerous earlier films, the creature does become articulate and does appeal
to Frankenstein's sympathetic nature.
The novel itself
continues to intrigue the modern audience. The nineteen year old Mary Shelley
successfully combined three separate stories. Reader sympathy shifts with each
narrator, thereby making it more difficult to remain detached from the events.
Until the creature narrates his own history he receives no sympathy, yet after
his narration the reader recognizes the injustice of Victor Frankenstein's
actions, his thoughtless focus on personal achievement. Most terribly, he
completes an experiment which can, and does, threaten mankind. The absence of
conscience, or awareness of implicit obligation to provide safeguards in a scientific creations, alarmed Mary Shelley the author.
She consistently pushed stories beyond the normal conclusion, the expected ending.
Her modern
Prometheus, based upon Prometheus the creator, not the thief of fire, provides
a myth for modern man. How can a scientist anticipate the results of his
continued experiments? Can the beneficial effects of each new scientific
discovery be guaranteed? Thoughtless Victor built in no safety controls, no
device to assure that only good actions would be performed. Yet, would such a
safeguard be possible?
The story, first
published in 1818 before the author's 21st birthday, proved an immediate
hit--although the audience believed the work was written by her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley. In 1823 the first dramatic production, Presumption,
appeared on the London stage. Within a few months a second version appeared and
two years later the first of many parodies, Frank and Steam, entertained
English audiences.
© http://ntserver.shc.edu/www/scholar/neal/neal.html
More articles: Next
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]
Academic year 2008/2009
© a.r.e.a./Dr.Vicente Forés López
© Lorena Levy Ballester
lolevyba@alumni.uv.es