In the seventeenth century, authentic scientific discoveries were the ideals of the future. The reality was alchemy, an extremely basic science in which the procedures were practically guesswork. It is this sense of the unknown that induces both fear and questions of morality in Hawthorne's science fiction. The short stories "The Birthmark" and "Rapaccini's Daughter" both include alchemists, bringing a Frankenstein-like horror regarding the lengths and lengths to which scientists will go to achieve progress. The two scientists, Rappaccini and Aylmer, are bound together in an almost religious, Promethean quest to achieve a higher knowledge, a higher spiritual being than that of mere mortals. Through the attainment of this spiritual ideal, concepts of morality become further complicated. Here it is necessary to consider whether one who dedicates himself to the attainment of higher knowledge is therefore above humanity and exempt from the deadly laws of morality. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The practice of alchemy not only had no written definition, but its process and methodology were also unknown. The danger of exploring the unexplored is heightened by the use of people as subjects. Both endings for the heroines of "Rapaccini's Daughter" and "The Birthmark" culminate in death, each death caused by a scientist's inability to predict the reaction of a chemical substance within the human body. The only certainty present in alchemy is the result. Rappaccini and Aylmer, the two alchemists in the stories cited, are certain of the physical change they aspire to achieve and continue so until they reach this ideal conclusion, or until their subjects die. Perhaps these scientists are labeled “scientists” by the modern definition only because of their experimentation with materials. The characters can, arguably, be more accurately classified as pseudo-scientists. They have a right to science in their knowledge, but this is based on myth and the unknown, which means that their method is not specifically scientific. Every scientist can also be described according to the myth of the "mad scientist". In literature this character was present before Hawthorne. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Jonathon Swift's Gulliver's Travels feature versions of the "mad scientist", who strives to achieve Promethean knowledge that usually resides beyond detectable knowledge on earth. The experiments and their physical results in Hawthorne's stories are important. However, the moral consequences of the procedures are more important than the scientific results, and the 'mad scientists' are presented as figures to be judged according to a nineteenth-century morality. There is also an alignment between the nineteenth-century context and Hawthorne's fictional progression of science. The Industrial Revolution began in 1760; thus, Hawthorne's fiction published since 1830 encounters a world that is still attempting to emerge from the practices of medieval science. Accessibility, however poor, to scientific knowledge allows Hawthorne's characters in his nineteenth-century fiction to develop beyond the "mad scientist" stereotype to achieve a certain amount of reason. The 'mad scientist' therefore remains a character who belongs to the past, ignorant of modern scientific techniques, but insatiable in his desire to progress towards the future. Is he the 'mad scientist', therefore responsible for every sin in 'Rapaccini's Daughter'? The creator, Rappaccini, and his creation, Beatrice, probablythey both harbor evil. The creator remains the most obvious source of evil, as his mind imagines the experiment and his hands conduct it. However, he cannot be completely blamed when he practices alchemy, as the results are unknown. The Bible states that “the way of the wicked is as darkness; he doesn't know what he's stumbling upon." If one is blind to what "stumbles" during the process, the obstacle cannot be decided as good or bad. Moral judgment can therefore only occur when the experiment emerges from the “darkness” towards a definitive outcome. This darkness is presented as multifaceted, while the plot focuses on the process of the experiment. It can serve as temporary blindness that will lead into progressive and uncharted territory, or exist as a harbinger of inevitable tragedy. Rappaccini is branded a "mad" and evil scientist only because his experiment ends in death. If he created a beneficial elixir for medicine, he would transcend the "mad scientist" stereotype and instead emerge as a pioneer. So far, the responsibility of scientists has been explored. Hawthorne also examines their abilities. The scientist's practice does not require love to be successful, and it is examined how this fact affects relationships that undoubtedly require love. Hawthorne wrote in an 1840 letter to Sophia Peabody, his future wife: "we are but shadows [...] until the heart is touched." Hawthorne therefore saw a person without love as incomplete, a mere 'shadow'. The heart, representative of emotion, and the head, representative of measured and reasonable thought, are presented as different but not entirely antithetical. A body needs both a heart and a brain to function, so a whole being is not a combination, but a balance of these two. Hawthorne scientists are unbalanced, as they focus on the mind rather than emotions. In "The Birthmark" Aylmer seeks love by washing "the acid stains from his fingers and [persuading] a beautiful woman to become his wife." A lack of science is necessary in initial courtship, suggesting that emotion and the "heart" must temporarily overwhelm the reasonable "mind" to succeed. It is disturbing that, as Aylmer "stains" his fingers once again, this balance is once again disturbed and his heart loses the capacity to love. Yet, in this initial courtship, love is only mentioned once. Instead, he must persuade a woman to marry him, an action that is performed by the mind, not the heart. Sherwood R. Price argues that Hawthorne explores the "consequences of separating reason from emotion or emotion from reason." [2] This is not entirely accurate, as Hawthorne never implies an antithesis such that reason is completely separate from emotion, or vice versa. At first, Aylmer has to temporarily abandon science for love, but this leaves "spots" on his fingers. This situation suggests an inability to engage with a natural instinct of love for another being so profoundly influenced by alchemy, so that the moral consequences - even for those he loves - are irrelevant. However, the lack of this natural instinct to love is perhaps necessary for scientific research. result in Hawthorne's fiction. Depending on physical chemistry, achievements in alchemy require a human body as the subject. Rappaccini's progress can only continue through the dedication of his life and the sacrifice of those around him. Edward H. Rosenberry suggests that "Rappaccini has no physical, but only spiritual or intellectual ancestry." This is accurate on a metaphorical level, as the poison in Beatrice's blood represents her scientific achievement. However, he also has it as a "physical" specimen,necessary for the experiment. He does not, however, consider her as a "progeny", only allowing her solitude to be put to an end at the price that Giovanni Guasconti, the naive student fascinated by Beatrice, also becomes a subject. By imprisoning Giovanni as the next generation, Rappaccini promotes the idea that science requires, literally, a lifetime to thrive. Aylmer and Rappaccini must see their relatives as mere subjects in order to progress scientifically, but this perspective is complicated by their drive, which is apparently emotional. They desire to elevate their subjects to a higher position of eternal perfection. Hawthorne's scientists are then punished for their choice to give up emotions. The scientists are in fact guilty of feeling too few emotions, it also features characters like the reckless young Giovanni in "The Birthmark" who feel emotions too intense and are equally guilty. A life without love is empty, yet an existence governed entirely by emotions leaves the person, arguably, vulnerable. In response to Beatrice, Giovanni feels himself to be "a wild child of both love and horror". Being a sensitive man with the ability to feel, Giovanni should exist as Rappaccini's antithesis. Yet he can't even love fully. His emotion is undefinable, and is instead a "wild spawn", suggesting that a definition has not yet been developed in the English language. Perhaps this implies an inability to react to a phenomenon he has never encountered. Since "both love and horror" exist as emotions, they should be based entirely on how one feels. Giovanni's love instead arises from a morbid fascination, a sensation that originates in the mind. Even in expressing admiration, Giovanni still lacks a genuine reason to save Beatrice from her own father. John is perhaps further condemned for failing to control his 'wild' emotion. His scientific research aligns him with the ruthless Rappaccini and he begins to balance his excess of emotions. If he could control his emotions, he could have remained detached from Beatrice from the beginning. Because Hawthorne accuses men of being too restrained or too emotional, he suggests that residing at either end of the spectrum is limiting and has negative consequences. So far, Hawthorne's seventeenth-century scientists have been examined in terms of moral action and its consequences. Hawthorne also allows the reader to witness the motivations behind their actions, allowing for further examination of the character without entirely judging their outward behavior. Scientific research on the part of the scientist resembles a Faustian need for knowledge. While Faustus signs his soul to Mephistopheles with blood, Aylmer and Rappaccini make the same pact without symbolic ritual. In their scientific research, Hawthorne scientists perhaps go beyond this Faustian impulse. Rappaccini does not need the devil's permission to motivate his cause, and "would sacrifice human life [...] for the sake of adding even a grain of mustard" to knowledge. Rappaccini is undoubtedly Faustian in what he is willing to "sacrifice" for knowledge, suggesting that he holds scientific progress in higher regard than human life. This fact is underlined by placing an epochal concept – human life – syntactically close to an extremely small physical concept, a mustard seed. Like Rappaccini's garden, this idea creates walls around him so that his scientific research is separated from human life. The value of the “mustard seed” as a representative of knowledge depends on perspective. Baglioni, the philosopher who makes this statement, does not agree. For him, sacrifice, 1978)