In the 17th century, true scientific advances were ideals for the future. The reality was alchemy, an extremely basic science in which the procedures were practically guesswork. It is this feeling of the unknown that gives rise to both fear and questions of morality in Hawthorne's science fiction. The short stories “The Birthmark” and “Rappaccini's Daughter” both include alchemists, bringing a Frankenstein-like horror to the possibilities and the lengths to which scientists go to progress. The two scientists, Rappaccini and Aylmer, are linked in an almost religious and Promethean quest to achieve higher knowledge, a spiritual being greater than that of mere mortals. In achieving this spiritual ideal, concepts of morality become even more complicated. Here we must ask ourselves whether, if one devotes oneself to attaining higher knowledge, one is therefore above humanity and exempt from the mortal laws of morality. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original EssayThe 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 using people as subjects. Both endings of the heroines of "Rappaccini's Daughter" and "The Birthmark" culminate in death, each death caused by a scientist's inability to predict the reaction of a chemical in the human body. The only certainty present in alchemy is the result. Rappaccini and Aylmer, the two alchemists in the stories mentioned, are sure of the physical change they are striving to achieve and continue to do so until they reach this ideal conclusion, or until the death of their subjects. Perhaps these scientists only qualify as “scientists” by the modern definition because of their experiments with materials. The characters can arguably be more accurately categorized as pseudo-scientists. They claim science in their knowledge, but it 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 “mad scientist” myth. In literature, this character was present before Hawthorne. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Jonathon Swift's Gulliver's Travels present versions of the "mad scientist," who strives to acquire Promethean knowledge that generally resides beyond knowledge discoverable on earth. The experiments and their physical results in Hawthorne's short 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 19th century morality. There is also an alignment between the 19th century setting and Hawthorne's fictional progression of science. The industrial revolution began in 1760; therefore, Hawthorne's fiction published from the 1830s encounters a world still trying to emerge from the practices of medieval science. Accessibility, however minimal, to scientific knowledge allows Hawthorne's characters in his 19th-century fiction to develop beyond the "mad scientist" stereotype to achieve some measure of sanity. The “mad scientist” therefore remains a character who belongs to the past, poorly educated in modern scientific techniques, but insatiable in his desire to progress towards the future. Is the “mad scientist” therefore responsible for all the sins in “The Daughter ofRappaccini”? The creator, Rappaccini, and his creation, Beatrice, are undoubtedly both harboring evil. The creator remains the most obvious source of evil, because his mind imagines the experiment and his hands conduct it. However, he cannot be entirely blamed when practicing alchemy, as the results are unknown. The Bible says that “the way of the wicked is like darkness; he doesn't know what he's tripping over. If one is blind to what "he stumbles upon" in the process, the obstacle cannot be considered good or bad. Moral judgment can therefore only take place once the experience emerges from “darkness” and leads to a definitive result. This darkness is presented as multifaceted, while the plot focuses on the process of experience. It can either serve as a temporary blindness that will lead to progressive, uncharted territory, or exist as a harbinger of inevitable tragedy. Rappaccini is only called a "mad" and evil scientist because his experiment ends in death. If he had created an elixir beneficial to 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 succeed, and it is examined how this fact influences 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 considered a person without love to be incomplete, a mere “shadow.” The heart, representing emotion, and the head, representing measured and reasonable thought, are presented as different but not totally 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 because they focus on the mind rather than emotion. In "The Birthmark", Aylmer searches for love by washing "acid stains from his fingers and [persuading] a beautiful woman to become his wife". A lack of science is required during initial courtship, which suggests that emotion and the "heart" must temporarily dominate the reasonable "mind" to be successful. It is worrying that as Aylmer once again “stains” his fingers, this balance is once again disrupted and his heart loses the capacity to love. However, in this first court, love is only mentioned once. Instead, he must persuade a woman to marry him, an action that is accomplished by the mind and not the heart. Sherwood R. Price argues that Hawthorne explores the "consequences of the divorce between reason and emotion, or between emotion and reason." [2] This is not entirely accurate, because Hawthorne never implies such an antithesis to the extent that reason is completely separated from emotion, or vice versa. At first, Aylmer must temporarily abandon science for love, but this leaves "stains" on his fingers. This situation suggests an inability to engage in a natural instinct of love for others while being so deeply influenced by alchemy, such that the moral consequences – even for those he loves – are irrelevant. However, the absence of this natural loving instinct may be necessary for scientific research. achievement in Hawthorne's fiction. Dependent on physical chemistry, success in alchemy requires 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 descendants, onlyspiritual or intellectual. 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 "offspring", only allowing an end to his solitude at the cost of Giovanni Guasconti, the naive student captivated by Beatrice, also becoming a subject. By imprisoning Giovanni as a new generation, Rappaccini promotes the idea that science literally needs a lifetime to flourish. Aylmer and Rappaccini must view their loved ones as mere subjects in order to progress scientifically, but this view is complicated by their motivation, which appears to be emotional. They wish to elevate their subjects to a higher position of eternal perfection. Hawthorne's scientists are therefore punished for choosing to forgo emotion. Scientists are indeed guilty of feeling few emotions, he also presents characters like the reckless young Giovanni from "The Birthmark" who feel too intensely and are also guilty. A life without love is empty, but an existence governed entirely by emotion undoubtedly leaves a person vulnerable. In response to Beatrice, Giovanni feels "a wild offspring of both love and horror." As a sensitive man with the capacity to feel, Giovanni should exist as the antithesis of Rappaccini. But he cannot love fully either. Its emotion is indefinable and instead constitutes "wild offspring", suggesting that a definition has not yet been developed in the English language. This perhaps implies an inability to react to a phenomenon he has never encountered before. Since "love and horror" exist as emotions, they should be based entirely on what one feels. Giovanni's love is born rather from a morbid fascination, from a sensation that arises in the mind. Even while expressing his admiration, Giovanni still lacks a real motive to save Beatrice from her own father. Giovanni is perhaps even more condemned for not being able to control his "wild" emotion. His scientific quest brings him closer to the heartless Rappaccini and begins to balance his excess emotion. If he could have controlled his emotions, he could have remained detached from Beatrice from the start. While Hawthorne accuses men of being too measured or too emotional, he suggests that residing at either end of the spectrum is limiting and has negative consequences. So far, seventeenth-century Hawthorne scientists have been examined in terms of moral action and its consequences. Hawthorne also allows the reader to witness the motivations for his actions, allowing for a deeper examination of character without entirely judging his outward behavior. The scientist's pursuit of science resembles a Faustian need for knowledge. While Faustus signs his soul to Mephistopheles with blood, Aylmer and Rappaccini accept the same pact without symbolic ritual. In their pursuit of science, Hawthorne scientists may go beyond this Faustian instinct. Rappaccini does not need the devil's permission to motivate his cause, and he would "sacrifice human life [...] to add even a grain of mustard seed" to his knowledge. Rappaccini is undoubtedly Faustian in what he is willing to "sacrifice" for knowledge, suggesting that he values ​​scientific achievements more than human life. This fact is emphasized by placing a momentous concept – human life – syntactically close to an extremely small physical concept, a mustard seed. Like Rappaccini's garden, this idea creates walls around it so that its scientific activities, 1978)