English Literature

As an influential character, Sheila is critically significant, and she is the character who seems to change the most in ‘An Inspector Calls’. Priestley uses her as an attempt of an allegory, to provide hope for future generations and the power of the individual in a biased, patriarchal society.

In act one, Priestley uses language to deliberately present Sheila as infantile when she refers to her parents, Sybil and Arthur Birling, as ‘Mummy’ and ‘Daddy’, which is a childish mode of address, hinting at the fact that Sheila, although in her ‘mid-twenties’, still relies on her parents. Furthermore, her euphemistic use of the adjective ‘squiffy’ further emphasises her juvenile nature, which Priestley portrays in order to later show her dramatic change in both her political views and actions.  

Sheila’s deep reliance on her parents, to the audience of 1946, may seem peculiar; however, during the early 20^th century, Britain was still a patriarchal society, so women were seen as inferior to men, and the singular purpose of middle/upper class women was to dress well and to show off their husband/father’s wealth. During act one, Sheila has no objections to these expectations as shown by her immediate response to her father ‘I’m sorry daddy. Actually, I was listening’, illustrating her strict obedience and emphasising her youthfulness. She later turns to Gerald to ask the question ‘When do I drink? ’that Priestley uses to highlight that, Mr Birling’s ownership of her will be passed on to Gerald once she is married, demonstrating that even when independent of their parents, women still have little, if any, freedom.

Sheila, as a woman in 1912, also has no vote, meaning no political or social power, and she is protected by her father and mother of the ugly truths of the world. This idea is subtly suggested in the stage directions ‘very pleased with life and rather excited’ because it demonstrates that she is blinded by the rose-tinted ‘pink’ life her father leads, but when the inspector arrives, the lighting cleverly changes to ‘brighter and harder’ to represent her realisation of the truths that had been hidden from her before.

Nearing the end of act one, Sheila has already noticeably changed for good because understanding how she wrongfully abused her power has made her more insightful and can see things clearly that others cannot, which in some ways makes her the detective in the crime thriller element of the play. Her almost mocking response to Gerald ‘Why – you fool – he knows.’ indicates her realisation that the Inspector is omniscient and that he controls the events perfectly in chronological order to achieve his goal in warning the family. Approaching the end of the play, Sheila calls her parents ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ instead of her childish address at the beginning, which implies that she no longer clings to her parents as a child would, but she has learnt to become her own, unique person, who can have views that contradict her parents’. Alternatively, her change in address, could instead of separating herself from her parents, be a method to persuade them to change their perspectives and accept responsibility because perhaps they can take her more seriously if she begins to speak as an adult.

Through her bitter, assertive and sarcastic attitude towards her parents ‘I suppose we’re all nice people now.’ Priestley shows her rage towards them as they refuse to accept responsibility. Through this way, she, as well as Eric, act as the foil of the older Birlings and Gerald, opposing their strong, selfish capitalist views, with Priestley’s views on socialism. As the co-founder of the Socialist Commonwealth Party, J.B Priestley uses Inspector Goole as a mouthpiece to express his socialist views that ‘We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other’. However, when the Inspector leaves, Sheila becomes his mouthpiece, using similar methods such as shock tactics when exposing her mother’s deed to Eric, and questioning Gerald. Priestley does this to continuously express his views even when Inspector Goole has left and also to illustrate his impact on Sheila and the younger generation. This transition from the Inspector’s character to Sheila’s character helps the audience to understand this play is more of a morality play than a whodunnit form because while it has the characteristics of a whodunnit play, Priestley uses this form to more powerfully express the importance of social responsibility.

Sheila’s change in maturity is primarily expressed by the quote ‘You and I aren’t the same people who sat down to dinner here.’ and how she respects Gerald more for it, implying that she is not governed by her emotions any more, but by logic and reason. The pronouns ‘you’ and ‘I’ emphasise that they are now separate people because although Sheila has changed her perspective on life and accepted responsibility, Gerald has not, therefore, she cannot go into this marriage knowing their differences . On the other hand, Gerald’s honesty with Sheila could suggest that many men do have affairs while engaged or married, but are not honest with their spouses, which illustrates the crack in the idealised family façade and it may be the reason why Sheila respects Gerald for it.

By the end of the play Sheila becomes the role model and sends the very important message of accepting responsibility to the audience and that actions have consequences. As a well-made play (where there is a return to order), AIC is structured cyclically (with the inspector calling both at the beginning and end) to show how the majority of characters do not change, but Sheila opposes this structure as she vividly changes, reflecting how as a woman she has gone against all of the expectations and no longer feels the need to be protected. In fact the symbol of the ring is used to convey how Sheila has grown to reject materialistic values, for she has realised that she does not value the ring’s meaning, and instead she ‘must think’ before proceeding with her actions.

Sheila’s rapid and dramatic transformation from naïve, spoilt and materialistic, to an insightful inspector of the others’ actions conveys how we are all able to become conscious of our responsibilities towards other members of society, especially as she does this so whole-heartedly. However, Priestley may have only used this method to provide hope for future generations and to create the moral of the play because Sheila’s transformation seems almost unrealistic due to the complete change in perspective over one evening.

In An Inspector Calls, Priestley uses the Inspector as a construct to express his own socialist views about post-WW2 society, as he played an active role in the establishment of a welfare state by the Labour government elected in 1945. Through this character he attempts to improve society by urging the British upper classes to accept more responsibility for the rest of society and highlighting their flaws in order that they might change their fixed, ignorant mindsets and after the collective suffering during 6 years of war, create a fairer society which provides basic economic security and dignity for all of its citizens no matter what class they are born into.

Through the use of stage directions before the beginning of the play, Priestley immediately establishes the role of the Inspector as someone who will completely flip the lives of the Birlings. The lighting should change from ‘pink and intimate’ to ‘brighter and harder’ when the Inspector arrives, displaying how previously, the Birling’s saw the world through rose-tinted spectacles, making them arrogant to worldly issues. This is demonstrated through the constant use of dramatic irony with Mr Birling, who is utterly oblivious to issues facing lower classes like his factory worker, Eva Smith, who he sacked simply because she led a strike demanding a wage, showing no awareness of how girls like this would be ‘counting their pennies in their dingy back bedrooms’. Priestley shows him to be blinded by his pride, causing him to dismiss things such as miner strikes confidently as simply ‘wild talk’, when in reality the national coal strikes of 1912 went on to establish minimum wage. Priestley’s use of plosives in ‘brighter and harder’ displays how the Inspector brings a new outlook on the world, one that is more realistic and doesn’t attempt to escape ‘silly pessimistic talk’. Through this, Priestley uses the character of the Inspector to show how society should be improved – as foreshadowed by the stage directions – through opening the eyes of the prideful and ignorant upper classes who separate themselves completely from the lives of the lower classes. Moreover, by setting the play in 1912, Priestley is able to do this by making a mockery out of a typical upper-class family in order that the 1946 audience might change their ways.

Priestley further uses the Inspector to suggest the idea of collective responsibility. When the Inspector arrives, he interrupts Mr Birling mid-speech ‘you’d think everybody has to look after everybody else, as if we were all mixed up together like bees in a hive…’. This is a very effective use of structure because it demonstrates that Inspector Goole is Mr Birlings foil, and the interruption mid-sentence portrays the clash between capitalism and socialism. The two men are also both described in the stage directions to be in their fifties, and this allows the audience to better contrast and compare between the two. In addition, the simile ‘like bees in a hive’ could connotate the idea of a worker bee, and how Mr Birling’s incomprehension of this idea is a result of him never being put to manual labour, furthering the Inspector’s socialist views. The Inspector’s timing therefore symbolises the need for this social responsibility to ‘look after everybody else’.

Furthermore, the Inspector’s is imposing attack on Mr Birling initiates a fight between father and son. Mr Birling attacks Eric telling him ‘It’s about time [he] learnt to face a few responsibilities’ displaying Mr Birling’s natural reflex to pass the blame on. The Inspector thereby highlights Mr Birling’s inability to feel guilt – the deadly sin of pride – displaying to the audience the kind of behaviour that he is attempting to abolish. This occurs after Birling blatantly asks the Inspector ‘and where do I come into this?’, completely dismissing the horrific suicide of Eva Smith and only interested in how it affects himself, showing his complete lack of awareness and responsibility for people other than himself and therefore depicts the hypocrisy of the upper class. – mr Birling’s treatment of Eva

The Inspector’s departing speech in Act 3 further emphasises the need for a socialist society and improvement of the treatment of the lower class by giving a voice to Eva and therefore to the whole of the working class who feel mistreated. Priestley’s use of the phrase ‘we are members of one body’ is a Christian allusion since it comes directly from the Bible and Church services. He uses this language with the Christian audience so that they can make the connection that socialism is Christianity – thereby suggesting that capitalism is anti-Christian and if you are capitalist then you are not behaving in a Christian way. In this way the Inspector could be seen almost like a god, someone who is all knowing and all seeing, coming to teach the consequences of people’s actions, highlighting how capitalist’s treatment of workers goes against Christian morals. This can be connected to the Inspector’s final message, ‘if men do not learn that lesson, they will be taught it in fire, blood and anguish’, which not only is a reference to the wars to come, but an explicit description of the Christian Hell. Priestley does this to appeal to and convince the audience, with the threat of Hell instilling fear in order that people realise that the segregation of society into classes is wrong. Furthermore, the use of the noun ‘men’ instead of ‘man’, which includes both men and women, could be implying that it is the males only that have the power to ‘learn this lesson’ and that women like Sheila have no power in 1912 – war is the fault of men, it is men that hold all political power.

Moreover, the development of the character of Sheila and the explored theme of gender equality suggests that the younger generation is the hope for society to be improved, but this can only occur if women are not shielded from ‘unpleasant and disturbing things’. Mr Birling attempts to protect Sheila from Eva’s death, instructing her to ‘Run along’ which suggests the idea of an ignorant and oblivious young child, while the Inspector tells her to ‘wait a minute’ and stay to learn about this event even though it may be disturbing. In this way, the Inspector treats her with respect and as an equal, which demonstrates the steps towards gender equality since 1912: women had no vote in 1912, but did in 1946, when the play was published. As a direct result of Sheila being allowed this knowledge, she changes from an immature young girl dependent on her parents to a developed women with independent views. Through this, Priestley enforces the significance of gender equality and the continuing need to include women, especially young women with the ability to change societal views, in political and worldly issues.

In conclusion, Priestley employs the character of the Inspector in order to warn society of the dangers of continuing to head down the same path: poor worker treatment, social classes, and the patriarchy. This can be seen through the description of the Inspector, his lessons and the characters responses to him, portraying that responsibility must be taken for our actions that affect all the lives that are ‘intertwined’.

Social class is arguably the most explored theme in An Inspector Calls as it is this very thing that Priestley is working so hard on to diminish. Through the Inspector, Priestley illustrates the significance of social class in the patriarchal Edwardian England, and the ignorance of the wealthier upper-class, whose actions are at the expense of the poorer in society.

Through the use of opening stage directions to dictate the appearance of the stage, the audience immediately recognise the Birling family as a part of the upper classes who use their wealth as a method to elevate their reputation. The ‘port’ and ‘good solid furniture’ represent the family’s comfortable wealth with the adjective ‘solid’ emphasising the incredible quality of furniture they can afford. However, the phrase ‘not cosy and homelike’ follows afterwards indicating at the pretences they put up and the discomfort, which can insinuate already at the crack in the Birling family façade. This juxtaposes the older Birlings’ pride in their wealth because it demonstrates that making social class one’s priority damages the family.

Furthermore, Priestley states that the lighting should be ‘pink and intimate’ at the beginning of the play, which mirrors how the family view the world through rose-tinted spectacles and as a result turning a blind eye to the ugly truths such as Eva Smith’s suicide, who died in ‘agony’. This technique hugely contrasts the life of the higher-class with the people of the working-class, who see the world ‘brighter and harder’, exposed and vulnerable to all the world.  Alternatively, this change in lighting may also be a method to not only portray the difference in classes, but the huge clash between socialism and capitalism.

Priestley uses vivid imagery when encouraging the family to imagine ‘women counting their pennies in their dingy little back bedrooms.’ The verb ‘count’ coupled with ‘pennies’ demonstrates the extent of their vulnerability as they have so little wealth that they are forced to ‘count’ it in order to determine whether they will survive. Moreover, the adjective ‘dingy’ creates a dark, gloomy and uncomfortable atmosphere, again juxtaposing with the Birlings’ ‘solid’ furniture. This builds a great impact on the audience who recognise the inequality in this and perhaps view it as an unfair fight of the classes. Especially in the patriarchal society of Edwardian England, Eva as both a member of the working-class and a woman would have no power whatsoever (social or political), the small power she may have lies in her beauty, though this in fact causes her the loss of her job at Millwards. 

By using structure effectively, Priestley further highlights the conflict between the ideas of socialism and capitalism when the Inspector interrupts Mr Birling’s speech mid-sentence on how every man must ‘look after’ himself and how we’re not ‘mixed up together like bees in a hive’. The Inspector extends this by using didactic language and anadiplosis when he repeats ‘what happened to her afterwards’ and the end of one clause and beginning of the next. This use of sentence structure displays how the classes are dependent on each other, in a almost cyclical way. Furthermore, the chain imagery in ‘A chain of events’ emphasises this point ant the noun ‘chain’ connotating heaviness could imply how this ordeal is weighing the Birlings down like a burden. This idea illustrates that even though the upper-class use the lower-class almost as a recourse, it has a great impact on themselves as well.

As a morality play, AIC revolves around the victim of the play – Eva Smith – whose lack of voice in the play reflects how the capitalist upper-classes oppress the lower classes and it further shows her lack of power. The symbol of the disinfectant in Eva’s suicide could be linked with the biblical interpretation that she sacrificed her life in order to prevent her child from living the same horrific life as her – this represents her as Jesus, who died to save humanity. On the other hand, it may present the idea that the upper-class are subconsciously cleansing the world of the working-class (the employees), and as employers, this will affect people such as Birling who rely on the ‘cheap labour’. Despite Eva’s tragic death, the Inspector provides hope for the working-class because the strikes, which Birling refers to as ‘wild talk’, in fact were successful and achieved minimum wage. After the national coal strike of 1912, there were multiple other during the social unrest. The audience of 1946 knows this and feel optimistic in knowing that the harsh divisions of social class in 1912 have blurred over time.

In conclusion, Priestley uses the Inspector as a mouthpiece to exaggerate his own views on social class and he cleverly uses the Inspector’s authority over the household to reflect how the capitalist upper-classes will be punished in ‘blood and fire and anguish’ if they do not learn their ‘lesson’ and begin to take responsibility for those that are more helpless.

In ‘An inspector calls’, Priestley initially presents Gerald’s relationship with women in positive light and is in fact complimentary of Gerald. Later on, however, Priestley portrays his relationships with Eva and Sheila as both exploitative and as methods to solely benefit himself.

Priestley shows Gerald to be perhaps left to blame for the death of Eva by illustrating that Gerald’s relationship with Eva was in fact non exploitative and a positive thing for Eva. It can be argued that Gerald treats Eva with respect, helping her with food and accommodation, becoming her ‘fairy Prince’ and not ‘ask[ing] for anything in return’. This depicts Gerald as the perfect gentleman, which is further shown through the Inspectors opinion of him, ‘he at least had some affection for her and made her happy for a time’, and Sheila he praises his honesty. The inspector is not very critical of Gerald, perhaps mirroring Priestley’s views also, since he himself was also openly unfaithful in his marriage, and therefore may have not greatly disapproved of infidelity.

Alternatively, through subtle hints in the text it can be interpreted that Gerald in fact sacrificed nothing for Eva and their relationship was total sexual exploitation. This is seen initially through his language in referring to how he had come about to have these rooms, calling them ‘a nice little set of rooms’ clearly having the intention of using it as an opportunity for an affair. furthermore, he claims that the end was brought about by needing to go away for business, when in reality the audience can understand that’s the real reason is that his friend was returning from Canada. Through this Priestley is highlighting how rich capitalist men in 1912 felt they had the privilege to use and exploit working class women as if they were commodities. He is attempting to promote a society in which the abuse and exploitation of women is seen as great an issue as other police investigations, as depicted through the Whodunnit genre which he employs, where the inspector goes to great efforts to reveal the happenings to a working-class woman.

Furthermore, although it is only in his relationship with Eva where he is sexually exploitative of her, his relationship with Sheila will also bring him great financial benefits as Mr Birling depicts when he refers to the marriage as an alliance between the companies of ‘Crofts Limited’ and ‘Birling and Co’, therefore depicting his relationship with Sheila as exploitative also. Moreover, the use of the adjective ‘allowed’ when referring to Eva ‘she’d lived very economically on what I’d allowed her’ suggests that in this relationship he was completely in control and superior, treating Eva almost as if she were a child. Gerald’s relationship with Sheila is not significantly different since she too is treated by him as a child as emphasised by the Inspector as he questions him ‘and you think young women ought to be protected from disturbing and unpleasant things?’. Through this imbalance of power and access to knowledge, Priestley is implying that it is men such as Gerald that are holding women back from any kind of political power due to the fact that they are hidden from all the ‘unpleasant and disturbing things’.

In addition, Priestley hints at the fact that Gerald’s relationship with Sheila in the play will not change, in order to demonstrate that women like Sheila were forced to accept this infidelity, since Priestley portrays Gerald as a construct to represent how all upper-class men are unfaithful in their marriage. Priestly does this through the end of the play where Sheila responds to Gerald’s return of the ring ‘No, not yet. It’s too soon, I must think.’, where it is likely that Sheila will eventually go back to Gerald. Through this Priestley demonstrates the depressing reality that the only way for upper class women to gain independence from their parents was through marriage, having no kind of political power (women did not even have the right to vote in 1912) or opportunities for high-paid work. It is because of this that the audience can infer that Sheila is forced to return to Gerald.

In conclusion, Priestley successfully presents Gerald’s relationship with women as directly mirroring everything that is wrong with the patriarchal society: exploitation and abuse of working-class women, and limiting women like Eva and Sheila from having a political impact or any social opportunities.

In the play, Priestley explores the effects of the seven deadly sins through each of his characters, who are constructs for the unchanged post-war attitudes towards class and moral responsibility.

Arthur Birling, as the character with the most obvious fixed and stubborn mindset, can be seen to represent the deadly sins of greed and gluttony (purple-faced old man) since throughout the play his one and only thought seems to be centred around wealth. This can be seen when nearing the end of the play, Mr Birling attempts to convince Sheila to reconsider her rejection of hers and Gerald’s engagement due to the financial advantage that merging companies would mean to Mr Birling. Not only does Priestley undoubtedly display this overwhelming trait of Mr Birling, but also portrays the effect of this stubborn attitude on his knowledge about the wider world as Priestley shows him to be ignorant. For example, the extreme dramatic irony in his confident statements that ‘we’re in a time of steadily increasing prosperity’ and his reference to the titanic as something that is ‘unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable’, when in fact two wars succeeded and the titanic ended in the infamous tragedy. This demonstrates how the deadly sin of pride makes individuals blind to issues concerning the wider world since they can only centre their opinions around their own self-interests, and perhaps Priestley is sending this message to his audience in order make the privileged upper-class clear their minds of the prideful fog that clouds their judgement. However, Priestley displays Inspector Goole’s transformative attempts on Mr Birling to be unsuccessful, and therefore hints that there is only hope for the younger generation to change society.

Sheila, as Priestley’s proxy for the change he wants to see in society, is portrayed to display the ugly emotions of wrath and envy when she encounters Eva – someone who has a thing that Sheila can’t have, her beauty and sense to fashion. This reveals Sheila’s immaturity as a spoilt child with an elitist attitude, making her sincere transformation all the more inspirational since it gives hope of possible change. Priestley writes that Sheila was in a ‘furious temper’ for simply witnessing Eva ‘smiling at the assistant’, where the melodramatic anger she shows links her to the deadly sin of wrath. She further is fiercely protective of her innocence and snaps at Gerald ‘I expect you’ve done things you’re ashamed of too’ as well as blaming Eva’s prettiness since ‘If she’d been some miserable plain little creature’ she wouldn’t have done it, highlighting how desperately she attempts to distance herself from her own guilt. Moreover, the noun phrase ‘plain little creature’ may perhaps imply that due to her envy of Eva, she is wishing for her to look like this ‘plain little creature’, further attempting to belittle Eva and push her down so far below Sheila’s own status that she is no longer threatening to her. Yet despite this, by the end of the play, Priestley has developed Sheila into this mature responsible adult who is ‘frightened’ of her parent’s fixed ways.

Sybil Birling is perhaps presented by Priestley in the most unfavourable light as a prideful and ignorant woman of upper class. From the very start of the play in the stage directions, Sybil is described as ‘a rather cold woman and her husband’s social superior’, which immediately distances the audience from this emotionless character and means that we feel little if any sympathy for her. Her constant unbroken attention to Edwardian decorum and her own innocence, repeating ‘I’ve done nothing wrong’ and ‘she had only herself to blame’. Moreover, her statement that ‘unlike the other three, I did nothing I’m ashamed of’ highlights the extent of her pride because even with her own family, she personally ranks herself as most dignified and virtuous. The irony here is that it is the lack of guilt that Sybil experiences that portrays her as the character with the lowest moral standing, and it is Sheila and Eric’s shame through which they are humanised. This is elevated by her blindness to the investigation when she exclaims to the Inspector that the man responsible for Eva’s pregnancy should be ridiculed with a public confession.

Stevenson makes it clear that Hyde is inhumane and a disturbing member of society: however, it is the subtle details that imply that Hyde is a product of Victorian London’s prejudice. His further references to homosexuality evoke disapproval in the Victorian reader, but it may cause the modern reader to pity Hyde.

In Chapter 1 of the novella, the reader’s first perspective of Hyde is an animalistic ‘damned Juggernaut’, meaning huge overpowering force. This not only present Mr Hyde as an unstoppable wild animal and therefore separate from the polite society, but the noun ‘Juggernaut’ relates to practices in Hinduism, and this can symbolise Hyde as a member not accepted by the Christian God. This is further highlighted by the use of the adjective ‘damned’, having the biblical connotations of Hell, which implies that Hyde is utterly removed from the respectable society. The interpretation of ‘Juggernaut’ could evoke a feeling of disgust in the Victorian reader, who would find it disturbing that this ‘creature’ does not follow Christian expectations. This alone may reflect how Stevenson rejected Christian morals and transformed into an atheist; therefore, with this, he may be criticising the Victorian society of such prejudice.

During Utterson’s nightmares of Hyde, he describes how Hyde moved ‘swiftly’ and ‘swelled out suddenly’. Here, the uses of sibilance have connotations of being snake-like, hence presenting Hyde as a vicious and aggressive predator. Snakes often kill their prey with quick unpredictable attack which further shows the similarity between Hyde and this predator (as this is a similar way in which Hyde murdered Carew). The educated Victorian reader may link this to Satan in the form of a snake in the Fall of man, implying that Hyde’s purpose is to tempt humanity away from Christianity, again this thought may scare the reader and present Hyde in an inhumane manner.

The many who encounter Hyde also refer to an unknown sense of ‘deformity’ and ‘something detestable’, which may be the factor that makes Hyde ‘troglodytic’ or pre-human. The theory of atavism refers to this idea that the features one has reflect certain characteristics, and suggesting that there are born criminals that look a particular way. This further links to Darwinism, how Hyde is not only born criminal, but a creature of reversed evolution. Moreover, this instantly labels Hyde as a monster, perhaps making the modern reader pity and feel sympathetic. However, Stevenson uses Hyde’s ‘deformity’ and extremes of personality to satisfy the Victorian reader’s pleasure from reading Gothic fiction.

In the extract, Utterson speculates that Jekyll has ‘one of these maladies’, which refers to diseases caused by indulging in carnal pleasures, and by many they were thought of as punishments. This is further a reference to homosexuality, suggesting that the ‘deformity’ on Hyde that no one seems to be able to name is their repulsion due to his sexuality. Stevenson structures the novella deliberately to make the reader realise this before actually finding the truth nearer the end that Jekyll and Hyde are ‘truly one’. Although a Victorian reader would disapprove of this, Stevenson may add this idea to criticise the law that labelled homosexuality as ‘gross indecency’. Alternatively, he may be simply stating the obvious that Hyde’s sexuality is distressing, and he therefore may agree with Victorian decorum.

The reader is further troubled by Poole’s frantic response to Utterson’s ‘explanation’ as he calls Hyde a ‘dwarf’ and a ‘thing’, both objectifying Hyde and contrasting him with Jekyll’s ‘tall’ stature. The repeated use of question marks, commas, and dashes in Poole’s fragmented dialogue quicken the pace as it is read. This leads up to the disturbing realisation that ‘there was murder done’, creating a rise in tension before release.

In conclusion, throughout the extract and novella Hyde is consistently mentioned as animalistic and clearly petrifying to all readers. However, the reference to homosexuality suggest how Stevenson wans to change society. After writing Jekyll and Hyde he actually moved to Samoa, representing how he wished to push away from Christian morals and suggests he preferred the more ‘ape-like’ members of society.

In the Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Jekyll is portrayed as a conflicted character throughout, who battles with his different alter-egos in order to find freedom and happiness in himself. However, his inevitable death by suicide is a result of his inability to choose, and the forceful Victorian prejudice that Stevenson hints at.

In Chapter 10, the reader is made to understand how Jekyll constantly went back and forth transforming into Hyde and vowing not to. This not only displays him as a conflicted character but as weak because he is unable to resist the temptation of ignoring his morals and committing transgressions. After two months of repressing Hyde, he explains how it caused the ‘devil’, who ‘had long been caged’, to come out ‘roaring out’, suggesting that Jekyll was to blame for the murder of Carew and not Hyde as it is he who caused this anger and violence to build up inside Hyde/himself. Furthermore, the very name ‘Jekyll’ is a portmanteau word with ‘Je’ meaning ‘I’ in French, and ‘kyll’ a homophone of ‘kill’, suggesting that Jekyll is the hidden murderer and not Hyde. Stevenson may use this method to create clashing thoughts in the readers mind, who struggle to pin-point the real antagonist, and this therefore further complicates the character of Jekyll. By forcing this question, Stevenson subtly manipulates the reader into questioning what is good and what is bad. The verb ‘caged’ in ‘devil had long been caged’ illustrates Jekyll and Hyde’s relationship at that point: Hyde was still the prisoner of Jekyll here, so he was inferior to Jekyll. However, in Chapter 7, it is Jekyll who is the ‘disconsolate prisoner’ reflecting the ever-changing relationship between the two sides – good and evil.

In the extract, Stevenson uses the semantic field of war and battle to mirror Jekyll’s feeling of being torn between the two sides. The adjective ‘perennial’ in ‘perennial war’ gives justification for his suicide at the end of the novella because it was the only way that he felt he could escape. In addition, the phrase ‘deeper trench’ creates a geographical separation between the two different landscapes of Jekyll and Hyde, emphasising the point that Jekyll feels utterly stuck in the middle and believes he cannot merge his two qualities, just as two opposing sides at war cannot become one team. Readers of Freud’s psychoanalytic theory may interpret this as the three alter-egos within each person, the superego, the ego and the id; Jekyll, in his ego, seems to be battling against his id – Hyde – and his superego – the respectable Jekyll who feels shameful and guilty. This is demonstrated when Utterson and Enfield see Jekyll in ‘the middle one of the three windows’ symbolising the three alter-egos.

Through the final chapter, the reader is given the impression that Stevenson prefers the Hyde form of man rather that the Jekyll form. When Jekyll describes his first transformation into Hyde, he explains how he ‘came to’ himself ‘as if out of a great sickness, where the pronoun ‘myself’ is referring to Hyde, illustrating that Hyde is his true nature and that Jekyll is like a ‘sickness’ caused by Victorian repression. He further describes the experience with an asyndetic list ‘younger, lighter, happier in body’ to reflect the freedom he felt and his limitless positive emotions. Stevenson presents Hyde in the better light here to mock the way the Victorian society taught respectable gentlemen to supress emotions because it was feminine to feel, and to resist temptations, because giving in was weak.

Alternatively, these positive descriptions may be simply a method to contrast the negatives and transgressions of Hyde, to present Jekyll as a psychologically unstable individual. Before, Hyde is described as ‘natural and human’, but later he is ‘that child of Hell’ who ‘had nothing human’. Alternatively, this change in perception of his alter-ego shows his bitter regret at the fact that he has unleashed a monster, whose outward appearance belies his inner ‘base passions’.

In conclusion, Stevenson presents Jekyll as a conflicted character by writing about constant contradictory actions and thoughts. The Gothic genre of the novella is another method by which Jekyll’s torn nature is emphasised because it allows Stevenson to hide many aspects of the plot, which are later pieced together at the end to reveal these conflicting actions of Jekyll. However, through all of the internal violence Jekyll experiences, the reader is made to feel sympathy for him in this difficult position that forces him to ‘bring the life of that unhappy Henry Jekyll to an end’.

In Jekyll and Hyde, Hyde is presented as both frightening and an outsider to Victorian society, as a vicious construct to symbolise the lurking evil embedded in every human.

Stevenson uses the noun ‘figure’ to portray Hyde as a ghost-like unknown individual and therefore relate to the gothic genre of the novel as these genres often deal with mystery and supernatural goings on. This first impression of Hyde conjures up a sense of mystery and an eerie atmosphere in the reader’s mind, causing the reader to be immediately wary of him. Furthermore, Enfield refers to him as a ‘damned Juggernaut’, meaning huge overwhelming force. This presents him as an uncivilised being who ignores the morals of society; it could also symbolise Hyde as an outsider pushing into Jekyll’s respectable ego and overpowering the repressive Victorian society. This noun further juxtaposes with the description of the little girl as ‘of maybe eight or ten’, and this contrast elevates his obvious difference from society. Also, the word ‘Juggernaut’ has connotations of religious beliefs outside of the accepted Christian values of 19th century society as it links with Hindu gods, and the adjective ‘damned’ gives the idea that Hyde is outside of conventional religion and will be ‘damned’ to hell.

Enfield is said to have given ‘a few halloa’, a typical call used when hunting in that area of London, Soho. This dehumanizes Hyde, making him seem more animalistic and ‘troglodytic’, which reflects the primitive form of man, setting him apart from the typical 19th century gentleman. This description coupled with Hyde’s movements in Chapter 2, ‘steps drew swiftly nearer, and swelled out suddenly’, portrays him as a predator ‘swiftly’ drawing nearer its prey. The sibilance in this quote along with Hyde’s ‘hissing’, creates the image of Hyde as a serpent, again indicating that Hyde is a predator, but one that unpredictably attacks. The visual image of a serpent could also have biblical interpretations, being connected to Satan in the form of a snake in the Fall of man. Not only does this illustrate Hyde as the ultimate incarnation of ‘pure evil’, but as an intruder tempting the honourable crowd into immorality, and thus presenting readers with a truly horrifying antagonist. This motif of Hyde as an animal and his ‘deformity’ relates to the Victorian idea of physiognomy, which is that your appearance can define you as a criminal. These unusual features that label Hyde as a criminal highlight him as the suspicious incomer compared with the girl and Enfield. 

Throughout this extract and later on in the novel, Hyde, through many witnesses, is presented as a monstrous character. The oxymoronic language in ‘trampled calmly’ is utterly horrific to the reader as it shows that he has no remorse over the fact that he hurt an innocent child. Alternatively, this demonstrates the inner conflict between Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, as Jekyll is repressing Hyde – his inner id, according to Freud’s psychoanalytic work – and attempting to dampen the severity of the crime through the use of the adverb ‘calmly’. This is frightening to the reader as he does not fear the consequences of his evil actions, and therefore is free to do as he wishes. Furthermore, Stevenson deviates from the traditional gothic genre, setting the action in a more suburban area, terrifying the reader as civilised people are committing crimes right under their feet.

When Stevenson uses ‘little man’ he could be conveying the idea that Hyde is at first glance a fragile old man, and this immediate false facade makes his future crimes more appalling. Moreover, Hyde causes a physical reaction on those who encounter him, seen through Enfield’s exaggeration that Hyde was ‘so ugly that it brought out the sweat on’ him. This implies that Hyde’s presence is disturbing even to a Victorian gentleman, who should turn a blind eye to unconventional happenings and maintain a ‘grave countenance’. However, this could also be interpreted differently as Hyde being a poison who infects those around him like a disease – this is also illustrated through his complete corruption of Jekyll. This idea of Hyde as a disease is further emphasised by the death of Dr Lanyon, as it is Hyde that allows him to stay and witness the transformation, perhaps as an act of vengeance for calling Jekyll’s work ‘unscientific balderdash’. Stevenson writes most of this novel through Utterson’s perspective in a formal, controlled and restrained language, and this makes Hyde a more shocking and frightening revelation in contrast. 

Overall, through the tragic disaster of Hyde, Stevenson may be communicating an allegory and sending the moral message that we must not transgress, give into pleasures and that we should fear Hell as well as the consequences of our sins. Hyde, as a frightening outsider, terrifies the reader into acknowledging that through committing crimes harm will be done to others and, more importantly, yourself. However, Jekyll may be instead a construct for Stevenson to criticize the ways of the repressive Victorian society because in Chapter 10, we understand that Jekyll’s obsession with seeming reputable was what led to the creation of Hyde. By this interpretation, Stevenson may show Hyde in the better light, giving the message that our natural personalities should not be repressed as it only leads to self-destruction. The extremity of Hyde’s character may reflect how everyone, no matter of their unusual or unconventional personalities, should be allowed to express themselves in their natural form. After writing Jekyll and Hyde, Stevenson actually decided to leave England forever and travel to Samoa: he rejected the kind of society that Jekyll lived in, and the country he chose reflects how much he wants to push himself away from European ways. This implies that Stevenson left because, despite the wealth that the novel brought him, he did not feel as if the readers got the correct message.

In the novel, Stevenson presents the effects of Jekyll’s scientific ambitions by demonstrating the extreme physical reaction that characters in the novel have in response to Jekyll’s creation – Hyde. Stevenson further depicts the consequences of Jekyll’s ambition through displaying it as the driving factor in his desire to seek revenge on Dr Lanyon, which ultimately leaves him friendless.

In the extract, Stevenson uses a range of linguistic techniques to portray how Hyde repeatedly tempts Lanyon into viewing the transformation. The repeated use of rhetorical questions such as ‘Will you be wise?’ and ‘has the greed of curiosity too much command of you?’ displays how Hyde is attempting to goad Lanyon by sparking a scientific curiosity within him. This is furthered by the biblical imagery in ‘your sight shall be blasted by a prodigy to stagger the unbelief of Satan’, which mirrors the same way that the Devil tempts Eve in the Fall of man. Through this comparison, Stevenson could be suggestion that Jekyll’s scientific ambitions have led to such a diabolical catastrophe that it is comparable to this event in Christianity, which the Victorian reader would view as humanity’s ultimate source of sin. This relates to the ambitions of Darwin and the theory of evolution that created controversy about creationism, and therefore installing fear in Victorian Christian society that the scientific ambition of others can lead to the deterioration of the key pillars of Christianity. Stevenson, through Jekyll, is creating this fear in the reader in order to highlight how the evolving scientific community consequently leads to the destruction of humanity and that much like Jekyll and Hyde, both science and religion cannot coexist.

Furthermore, Stevenson, through Lanyon’s death, indicates that as well as affecting religion, scientific ambition such that Jekyll has also destroys friendship. Although it is Hyde that tempts Lanyon into viewing the transformation, Jekyll has the ultimate incentive to kill him due to the differences between his and Lanyon’s scientific careers. While Lanyon ventures into rational and logic-based sciences, Jekyll finds the ‘mystic and transcendental’ interesting, leading Lanyon to dismiss his work as ‘unscientific balderdash’. It is Jekyll’s anger and revenge towards Lanyon that leads him to kill him, and this idea is highlighted through Stevenson’s choice of Jekyll’s name. It is a portmanteau word, with ‘Je’ meaning I in French, and ‘kyll’ being a homophone for kill, emphasising that Jekyll’s scientific ambitions caused him to kill his ‘old friend’. In Chapter 10, Jekyll comes to the realisation that ‘To cast it in with Hyde, was to…become…friendless’, suggesting that although his ambitions caused him to lead a double life of sin, the even harsher consequence was that he lost the greater pleasure of friendship. Through this, Stevenson may be implying that the danger is not that you will become evil, but that you will become friendless, and that it is the ultimate punishment.

In addition, the creation of Hyde not only impacts Jekyll, but also creates an extreme physical response in all that encounter him. In the extract, Stevenson’s use of powerful verbs in ‘reeled, staggered, clutched’ displays the physical pain and damage that this transformation has on Jekyll, and the use of an asyndetic list further implies Jekyll’s helplessness and inability to stop his suffering. This demonstrates how his ‘transcendental’ scientific discovery has taken control him and is gradually destroying him, which is shown through the simile ‘like a man restored from death’ implying that he is only barely surviving. His scientific discovery also has a tremendous physical effect on Lanyon, who is left ‘visibly balder and older’ with ‘tokens of swift physical decay’, which is a direct contrast to Lanyon’s appearance before as a ‘hearty, healthy, dapper red-faced gentleman’. This juxtaposition elevates how simply the sight of Jekyll’s creation was enough to completely ruin a man both mentally and physically. Likewise, Poole has a similar response to Hyde ‘my hair stood upon my head like quills’ and so does the doctor in the beginning of the novel, who turned ‘sick and white with the desire to kill him’, which is ironic since doctors heal and save people. Through these reactions, Stevenson highlights how Hyde completely changes people’s appearances and morals, causing people to either die in their shock or turn violent and aggressive, showing the detrimental effects of Jekyll’s scientific ambitions.

Overall, Stevenson may emphasize these damaging effects in order to scare and warn society of the dangers of science. The novel’s genre is gothic, but it is also structured in the form of a Scientific Case Study by starting with the main story made up of a third person dispassionate narrative then adding in two letters, which resemble concrete data, at the end. This depicts the very real horror that scientific ambitions can have. Stevenson does this since the novel is all the more terrifying for its readers if it contains a chilling air of realism.

Stevenson deliberately presents Utterson as both rational and reliable through descriptions and his responses to various circumstances to illustrate him as a construct for the idyllic Victorian gentleman, who should restrain from the pleasures of life.

In the opening of Chapter 2, we learn that it was Utterson’s custom to read ‘a volume of some dry divinity’, where the noun ‘divinity’ refers to a religious book, possibly the Bible, illustrating that he conforms to the conventional Christian society. The use of the adjective ‘dry’, however, emphasises that he is hesitant to conform as he finds reading this uninteresting and tedious, yet he still reads every ‘Sunday’ displaying his strong inner morals and willpower. In addition, the use of alliteration elevates Utterson’s reluctance as the hard ‘d’ sound may make it seem to be a compulsory read. The reader may also get the idea that Utterson is both literally and figuratively close to God through the quote ‘neighbouring church’, implying that he is a good, moral character who is accepted by God, and therefore should be accepted by the reader. His strong self-discipline coupled with the idea that he is close to God presents him as a trustworthy narrator and a role-model to Victorian gentlemen; these characteristics may also be a part of why many characters in the novel trust and admire him so much. This concept is further explored through Stevenson’s choice to name him ‘Gabriel’, which is most commonly associated with angel Gabriel, God’s right-hand man and one of the most powerful figures of good.

Through Utterson’s deep-thoughted analysis of Henry Jekyll’s will, we see that he is rational and follows expected procedure when he notices something unconventional. When faced with the strange ‘contents’ of the will, Utterson ‘sat down with a clouded brow’, demonstrating that he is rationally thinking about the problem and not causing a fuss, despite the fact that he is clearly distressed about the issue. He behaves in the same way when Sir Danvers Carew is reported to be dead and replies ‘I shall say nothing till I have seen the body’ because he knows that if this is a rumour, then his involvement may suffer his reputation. Stevenson also uses this as a structural technique to digress from the issue at hand and slow the revealing of the murderer, which both the reader and Utterson would suspect to be Hyde.

Utterson’s rationality and reliability is what further makes him the only character fit to be the narrator of the novel and Stevenson presents him very carefully in the opening pages of the novel for this reason. Firstly, much of the action is seen through Utterson’s eyes and because its subject matter is quite unbelievable, it’s crucial that Stevenson make him as believable as possible. He is ‘lean, long, dusty, dreary’, which portrays him as a dull figure not prone to any extremes of personality. This list of appearance traits without joining connectives reflects his serious attitude as similarly, Utterson likes to be factual and straightforward, which is what makes him such a reasonable character. Furthermore, he is ‘loveable’ and does not like to take part in gossip, adding that he is trustworthy but not interesting in himself so that he does not distract too much from the other characters of the story.

However, Stevenson adds that Utterson wonders ‘almost with envy, at the high pressure of spirits involved in their misdeeds’ meaning that he is ‘almost’ jealous of the great amount of pleasure that criminals feel when committing crimes. This hints at his hypocrisy because he actually wants to be committing the same misdeeds as his clients, but he holds himself back because he fears giving into evil and sin. If Utterson represents all gentlemen, Stevenson is criticizing that all gentlemen repress their emotions like this, causing them to be hypocritical. By using the adverb ‘almost’, Stevenson may be attempting to dampen this idea that a respectable man such as Utterson has a darker inside that is drawn to the pleasure of crime, in order to reassure the reader who would be frightened by the concept. This subtle exposure of the crack in Utterson’s façade could contradict his rationality and make him an unreliable narrator in contrast.

Through this idea, the name ‘Gabriel’ may be viewed ironically because Utterson is only good on the outside, and some may argue that Stevenson is calling him Gabriel because he is questioning the values of Christianity, suggesting that no one can be all good, everyone has that hint of duality within them. In spite of the suggestion that Utterson too has a dual nature much like Jekyll, he maintains the same ‘grave countenance’ throughout the series of events in the novel and even when Carew, Lanyon and Jekyll all died. This further illustrates that he has a strong capability to cope with possibly life-changing events and remains rational and calm despite the situation, making him an excellent narrator who the reader sees as a role-model.

Throughout the entire novella and in this extract, Stevenson uses an abundance of techniques to create mysterious atmospheres and rises in suspense to petrify the reader. Utterson’s nightmare along with hidden themes embedded in Jekyll and Hyde make it a very effective piece of Gothic fiction.

In the extract, Stevenson creates mystery through revealing little to the reader and the fact that Utterson is not an omniscient narrator allows Stevenson to do this and maintain the mystery throughout until the very end of the novella. The references to ‘no face’ and ‘figure’ tell the reader nothing of the visual description, therefore this mystery creates an element of fear as the reader is free to imagine their worst nightmare. Moreover, the motifs of light and darkness with ‘lamplighted city’ and ‘gross darkness’, coupled with the ‘fogged city moon’ makes even the smallest intensity of light such as the moon, faded, therefore this fog along with the darkness provide an eerie atmosphere in which transgressions can take place secretly.

Earlier on in Chapter 1, Stevenson also uses mystery to engage the reader. The house with the ‘Door’ is described in great detail as a ‘certain sinister block of building’ creating an similarly eerie atmosphere as it is a very vague description, with little talked about the actual physical features of the house. The reader is also told more of what the house has not got than what it has: ‘no window’ and ‘neither bell nor knocker’. This coupled with the personification of ‘blind forehead’ enable the reader to realise that the house is a metaphor of Hyde, who is likewise never fully described and has an unknown ‘deformity’. However, Stevenson cleverly structures the novella so that at this point, the reader knows nothing of Hyde and therefore, evoking a feeling of repulsion as they begin to fear it, but also attraction due to their curiosity. Compared with the earlier description of the joyful town with an ‘air of invitation’, this house seems almost unreal in comparison, which elevates the curiosity surrounding it, as the Victorian society would not have expected something so out of place in this respectable and polite area of London.

In the extract, it is clear that Utterson fears the possibilities of Hyde’s actions, but this is heightened by later characterisation of him as a rational and reliable figure who seems brave and fearless. This is because the fact that he is frightened illustrates how truly petrifying the entire situation must be, making the reader also feel this way. Hyde’s movements are described through sibilance with the adverb ‘swiftly’ and phrase ‘swelled out suddenly’ later on in the chapter. This creates the visual image that Hyde is a serpent who is ‘swiftly’ moving through the streets and could attack at any moment unpredictably, which builds this feeling of nervous anticipation in the reader. In addition, the suspense is further built when London is referred to as ‘labyrinths’, a noun that in Greek mythology was a maze that led to destruction, darkness and death. Despite this description being a dream, Stevenson successfully brings it into reality by adding the tension and not allowing release.

The hidden theme of homosexuality is also explored through this extract as Hyde is described to have stood by Jekyll’s ‘side’ and that he must then ‘rise and do’ Hyde’s ‘bidding’. This idea of a forced homosexual relationship between Jekyll and Hyde scares and may disgust the Victorian reader as it was a crime in Victorian society labelled as ‘gross indecency’ in 1855. In addition, this new idea that has come to light heightens the mystery as the reader may be unaware of the connotations or consequences of this and therefore are intrigued to read on to see the mystery unravelled. As Utterson is a construct who represents the idyllic Victorian gentlemen, his dream about this event suggests that all gentlemen have a voyeuristic attraction to violence, despite their social standing. This may portray Hyde in the better light as he is the only person who does not hide behind a façade – this again reveals an idea that is not fully developed, to deny the reader the possibility of understanding the situation. This puts us in the same point of view as Utterson as we share his compulsion to know more about the mystery. This could make us feel uncomfortable about our increasing desire for knowledge. As we are imagining the morally questionable relationship between Jekyll and Hyde, Stevenson forces us to consider the attraction to forbidden knowledge – an idea common in Victorian Christian society.

Stevenson’s portrayal of Hyde as a biblical figure in the extract further elevates the confusion and uncertainty of him. He is described as a mystery that may ‘lighten and perhaps roll altogether away’ which may be a reference to the resurrection of Jesus in the Bible, suggesting that Hyde is the image of good in the novella who breaks the repressive Victorian decorum. Alternatively, this may simply be a method to present him as intimidating and a ‘figure to whom power was given’ so that his power over people succeeds the power of God, therefore, raising the question in the reader of who this ‘juggernaut’ really is portrayed to be.

In conclusion, Stevenson explores various themes of homosexuality and things that would petrify both Victorian and modern readers to make it seem perhaps more realistic than other Gothic books at the time, and hence more horrifying. Stevenson’s intension to shock the reader with the layers of mystery and suspense is also demonstrated by the fact that his wife actually burned the first copy of The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Hyde because she felt that it was too disturbing to read.

In the extract, Stevenson clearly depicts evil as the result of a deformed and abnormal physical appearance. Through describing Hyde as ‘less robust and less developed than the good which [Jekyll] had just deposed’, Stevenson is making it clear that there is a physical contrast between the two alter-egos. The idea of Hyde, a creature that is viewed as evil, as ‘less robust’ suggests that he is smaller and less evolved than Jekyll: Stevenson is depicting Hyde as Jekyll’s intellectual inferior. This is elevated through the description that Jekyll had ‘lost in stature’ through transforming into Hyde, where this visual image depicts how diminished Hyde is in contrast to Jekyll. This connects to the Victorian idea of atavism, stating that a criminal and evil can be identified by physical deformity, and to the theory of devolution – perhaps Hyde is a less evolved, more primitive form of Jekyll. Through this, Stevenson may be suggesting that evil is something that originates from our less evolved ancestors and therefore evil beings, such as Hyde, are both lesser physically and in terms of status. However, Hyde is also depicted to be ‘younger’, implying the carelessness and freedom that people have as young adults. Stevenson may be criticising the pressures Victorian society has on adults to follow strict rules on decorum, therefore constraining their freedom and desires. In this way, evil can be seen as the result of Victorian repression.

Furthermore, throughout the novella, Stevenson hints that perhaps the first impressions that Hyde represents evil, and Jekyll represents good are wrong. In the extract, Hyde is ‘natural and human’, where the adjective ‘natural’ implies that he is the better more organic form of man, rid of all facades and deceit, and represents the complete truth. This coupled with Jekyll’s later revelation – ‘I came to myself as if out of a great sickness’ – suggests that Jekyll is the one that is the poisoning, artificial alter-ego that needs to be ‘deposed’. The use of the pronoun ‘myself’ emphasises this, since it clearly demonstrates that Hyde is the dominant form and the form that Jekyll associates himself most with. Through this, Stevenson may be ridiculing Victorian ideas of good and evil, since it is what society views as evil that Stevenson is presenting as the righteous form of man. Stevenson, in fact, went to Samoa not long after writing the novella, where he lived with indigenous tribes – he rejected the kind of society that Jekyll lived in, and the country he chooses reflects how much he wants to push himself away from European ways. This implies that Stevenson prefers the idea of a Hyde rather than Jekyll, and that the conflict between good and evil is futile.

Since the idea that Jekyll is the symbol for good is obstructed by his creation of Hyde, we may understand Lanyon to represent good in the novella since he is a direct foil of Jekyll as he is a rational scientist who doesn’t delve into ‘unscientific balderdash’ or ‘mystical and transcendental’ discoveries. However, Lanyon too is lured by evil when Hyde comes to him and tempts him to witness the transformation: ‘your sight shall be blasted by a prodigy to stagger the unbelief of Satan’. This mirrors the way that the devil tempts Eve in the Fall of mankind, and therefore reinforces the idea that evil is rooted within all humans and is something that is inescapable, even by a respectable supposedly good gentlemen such as Lanyon (or Utterson: he is envious of spirits involved in misdeeds).

In the novella, the key thing that terrifies the reader is that supposably respectable upper-class gentlemen, such as Henry Jekyll can have such evil inner desires, and since the main target reader are these upper-class people Stevenson is suggesting that the desire to break free and ignore morals lies within everyone. To incite this realisation in the reader, Stevenson uses form and structure to display the realism behind the story. Through structuring it as a multi-narrative, by starting with the main story made up of a third person narrative then adding in two letters at the end, it resembles the genre of Scientific Case Study, where real events of patients were described often with concrete data placed towards the end. This makes it all the more terrifying to the Victorian reader, since this idea that evil lurks beneath everyone is brought into reality.

Although Stevenson uses Jekyll’s internal conflict to create sympathy for his character, he also uses language and structure to create strong disapproval for him, especially in the eyes of the Victorian reader.

In chapter seven, Incident at the Window, Stevenson uses descriptions to evoke a feeling of pity and understanding in the reader. The ‘premature twilight’ may mirror and foreshadow Jekyll’s ‘premature’ death at the end of the novel. Alternatively, this ‘cool’ and ‘premature twilight’ coupled with the ‘sky’ that was ‘still bright with sunset’ may reflect the power struggle inside of Jekyll with Hyde gradually taking over the little goodness left in Jekyll. Both these interpretations of the setting mirror Jekyll’s suffering that the repressive Victorian society has inflicted due to its expectations and decorum.

Furthermore, the use of hyperbole in Jekyll’s ‘infinite sadness’ heightens his depression that, what the reader believes, is due to Hyde’s power and control over him – which is, ironically, true because although Hyde is not blackmailing him, he has the power to overcome Jekyll’s goodness. The simile in ‘like a disconsolate prisoner’ highlights how he wishes to go outside but he ‘dare[s] not’ as he fears himself and what he is capable of as Hyde, and the image created with ‘prisoner’ further emphasises how he is unwillingly trapped and cannot escape. What he may be referring to when he says ‘It will not last long’ is his eventual, tragic suicide, for it is the only way that he can escape the prison that he is in. In addition, Stevenson uses the repetition of ‘very low’ to add emphasis on the fact that Jekyll is losing control of himself and Hyde, continuing the feeling of empathy in the reader.

At the beginning of chapter ten, Dr Jekyll describes how his idyllic youth with ‘every guarantee of an honourable and distinguished future’, brought out two sides of his nature. We are informed about ‘a certain gaiety of disposition’ that forced Dr Jekyll to hide his true self before others in order to preserve his reputation as a doctor with a superior attitude. Stevenson uses the fact that Jekyll ‘concealed his pleasures’ where the verb ‘concealed’ evokes negative connotations, to create sympathy for him, despite the horrendous crimes Hyde has committed.

Throughout the novel there is a recurring theme of duplicity, perhaps making the reader realise that Hyde and Jekyll are two separate figures and that they can feel sympathy for Jekyll’s position while also hating the ‘brute’ Hyde. Nearing the end of the chapter, the reader notices a tone of chaos and panic as Jekyll had lost control of Hyde and is now battling against the devil. Here, Stevenson uses the image of Jekyll ‘shuddering and weeping in his chair’ with the verb ‘shuddering’ to suggest how Hyde has made him horror-struck of his unearthly capability and fear himself. In the final sentence of the novel, Stevenson writes how Jekyll brings his ‘unhappy’ life to an end causing the reader to pity him, but also further understand that Hyde and Jekyll were very separate. However, the Victorian reader may frown upon both Jekyll and Hyde because suicide was considered a sin in Christian beliefs as it was taking away the life that God had given you. This could cause them to feel disapproval towards Jekyll instead of sympathy – firstly, for creating Hyde, and secondly, for committing suicide.

Many may think of the work of Freud at this point, connecting Hyde with the id and Jekyll with the superego, feeling sympathetic towards Jekyll’s ego, which must suffer in battling the two. This idea of repressing different personas perhaps is more obvious to the modern reader as mental health and expressing yourself are things commonly talked about in the 21^st century. In addition, readers who know about Stevenson’s own struggle with his identity and rebelling against his parents, would sympathise with Jekyll, for they may see Jekyll as a reflection of Stevenson.

However, Stevenson used structure to overwhelm the reader: with Enfield’s story of the young girl, Utterson’s investigation of possible blackmail, the Maid’s witness statement and Lanyon’s account. This means that we can’t have sympathy for Jekyll because of the effect Hyde has caused on so many. In addition, the novel’s many narratives and accounts overwhelm the reader, and similarly, the reader is overwhelmed by the expectations of society.  This may be an allegorical method to get across the idea that this repressive society needs to change, and it may make the reader understand the situation in which Jekyll has found himself.

Moreover, the reader may be troubled by the conflicting feeling of blame and disapproval towards Dr Jekyll because he states that it was ‘the worst of [his] faults’ that he had a ‘certain impatient gaiety of disposition’ (he feels he overly enjoys the pleasures of the world). This may evoke a sense of disapproval because the reader knows that his biggest fault was that he cared too much for himself and his reputation, which is also demonstrated by the great length of the final chapter. Through this way, Jekyll’s care of his reputation may be seen as the true monster which he is trying to escape from.

Overall, the reader understands that Jekyll is a method used by Stevenson is to express the evil in all humans (this also connects to the religious aspect of Adam and Eve’s Fall). However, Victorian repression may be symbolised by the structure as similar to how the novel’s many narratives and accounts overwhelm the reader, the reader is overwhelmed by the expectations of society.  This may be an allegorical method to get across the idea that this repressive society needs to change, and it may make the reader understand the situation in which Jekyll has found himself.

When the audience first meet Lady Macbeth in Act 1 scene 5, Shakespeare immediately emphasises her violent and masculine nature through her reaction to Macbeth’s letter. Lady Macbeth’s first impression towards the possibility of Macbeth’s power is that his ‘nature, It is too full o’th’milk of human kindness’, something that she views as a negative characteristic. Following the theories put forth by Aristotle, Macbeth is the tragic hero of the play, whose most obvious hamartia is his ambition, and yet Lady Macbeth sees that his flaw is ‘kindness’. This juxtaposes with traditional Jacobean views that women are gentle, kind and emotional, which therefore highlights Lady Macbeth’s masculinity. In the metaphor, Shakespeare also associates ‘milk’, a word which has maternal connotations, with Macbeth, emphasising his feminine traits. Through this, Lady Macbeth appears to be all the more masculine. The noun ‘milk’ is also referenced later on in the scene when Lady Macbeth asks spirits to take her ‘milk for gall’. This further gives the idea that stereotypical gender roles between her and her husband are reversed, since Macbeth is ‘too full o’th’milk’ while Lady Macbeth begs for ‘gall’. – form

As the play progresses, Lady Macbeth’s character unravels through her manipulation of her husband, and her reaction to power. In Act 1 scene 7, Lady Macbeth describes how she would have ‘dashed the brains out’ of her own baby rather than to break a promise and betray her husband. In this violent image, Shakespeare may be attempting to move Lady Macbeth even further from the stereotypical Jacobean woman by again illustrating her lack of maternal traits. The contrast with the poignant visual image of a baby ‘smiling in [her] face’ and the aggressive plosives on ‘plucked’, ‘boneless’ and ‘brains’, portray her violence towards something so sweet.

Despite putting up a feminine façade of a ‘honoured hostess’, Lady Macbeth is perceived to be violent by many characters and not just the audience. For example, at the very end of the play, Malcom refers to her as a ‘fiend-like queen’ with ‘violent hands’, portraying her in a very similar way to the witches. Moreover, Ross refers to Macbeth as ‘Bellona’s bridegroom’. Bellona was the Roman goddess of war, so here Ross may be implying Lady Macbeth’s power and violence, especially over her husband. In the Jacobean era, this would have been thought to be unthinkable, since women were supposed to obey their husbands and parents raised women to believe that men were more important than they were. Shakespeare’s creation of this strong and powerful character may have been a reflection of having Elizabeth I on the throne just before James I.

In contrast to Lady Macbeth’s violence and strength early on in the play, in Act 5 Scene 1, the audience witness her sleepwalking and suffering from the consciousness of the murders. When Lady Macbeth sleepwalks, Shakespeare breaks his pattern of iambic pentameter and writes this in prose, which may signify her control breaking down and mental instability. This frailty is a feminine trait, and something that Macduff references after the death of Duncan: he says, ‘The repetition in a woman’s ear would murder as it fell’. This suggests that the murders have changed Lady Macbeth to become more feminine and less violent, portraying her earlier violence as perhaps a temporary phase by which she attempted to live vicariously through her husband’s power.  

In Macbeth, Shakespeare presents the idea of ambition through depicting it as Macbeth’s fatal flaw, or hamartia that inevitably leads to the death of both him and his wife, who also shares the same desperation for power as a woman in the Jacobean Era only had access to power through their husband. This key theme is also expressed through the character of Banquo, which Shakespeare does to politically appeal to King James, though to be the descendent of Banquo.

Ambition within the character of Macbeth is revealed very early on in the play, and it evolves into a much darker and twisted motive to cross moral boundaries. Initially, his reaction to the witches’ prophecies is ‘If chance will have me king, why chance may crown me without my stir’, which implies how at first he is happy to let the powers of fate take its course and not interfere for his own gains. This is juxtaposed with his Aside to the audience in the following scene ‘Stars hide your fires, Let not light see my black and deep desires’, where the proximity of these two feelings in the text demonstrates how quickly Macbeth is able to completely change his mind, leading the audience to believe that it was his intention all along. Through the use of celestial imagery and also semantic field of Christianity with the contrast between ‘light’ and ‘black’, Shakespeare relates Macbeth’s ‘desire’ to something utterly Satanic, elevating the extreme mindsets how ambition has lead him to evolve from a good and rational protagonist to one plagued by corrupt desire for power.

However, Shakespeare’s depiction of Macbeth in this unstable way, could in fact reflect the internal turmoil and mourning process of a person who has recently lost a child, showing ambition as a coping mechanism to fill the void of Macbeth’s lost love. This is why we can see ambition within Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as they both share this same loss, which the audience can interpret to be very recent since Lady Macbeth is still lactating as seen through her cry ‘take my milk’.

Despite this, it is evident that Lady Macbeth has her own personal agenda when it comes to her own ascent to power, and perhaps Shakespeare presents her as the main perpetrator behind their wrongdoings, leading the unstable Macbeth to a turning point, or peripeteia as proposed through Aristotle’s theory. Shakespeare’s successful use of structure as Lady Macbeth enters the stage immediately after his soliloquy, where Macbeth contemplates ‘I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent’ reflects how Lady Macbeth represents Macbeth’s ‘spur’. However, the much more plausible explanation is that the blame is not entirely on Lady Macbeth, since Shakespeare is perhaps creating pathos for Lady Macbeth, since the audience could relate her erratic behaviour to the difficulty of obtaining power as a woman in the Jacobean era. This suggests that the only way that this can be done is through acting in a cruel and unnatural way. In some ways, Shakespeare may be justifying Lady Macbeth’s ambition, and therefore portraying it as a route to power for women at that time.

Furthermore, the lack of ambition seen in Banquo, not only shows Macbeth as all the more ambitious, but also acts as a virtue that Shakespeare hints all rulers should have. Their differences can be seen by their reactions to the witches’ prophecies, where Banquo asks Macbeth ‘Why do you start?’, showing how he is unaffected by these prophecies. Shakespeare may do this in order to appeal to King James, who would have likely been a part of the audience and is suspected to be the descendent of Banquo. Therefore, Shakespeare may be in turn complimenting the King in order to make his play a bigger success, and to show the audience – who may already be sceptical of King James’s ability to rule – the greatness of their King.

However, Shakespeare may subtly hide an alternative interpretation perhaps to reveal his true political views. This can be seen through the fact that Banquo never shares his suspicions that Macbeth killed Duncan with the other nobles, suggesting that Banquo needs Macbeth to become king in order that the witches’ prophecies about his children become true. Banquo commands the witches “If you can look into the seeds of time and say which grain will grow and which will not”, depicting his interest in the matter. Through this, Shakespeare is suggesting that ambition is something that is escaped by no man, how even kings must battle with this fatal flaw.

In Macbeth, Shakespeare presents Macbeth and Banquo’s attitude towards the supernatural in contrasting ways in order to highlight the two character’s differences and to both appeal to King James’s obsession with the supernatural and to compliment his divine ruling.

In the extract, it can be seen that Banquo responds very rationally to the fulfilment of the witches’ prophecies and worries about the consequences of it. He suspects that the witches ‘win us to our harm…to betray’s in deepest consequence’ implying that despite the fact that a prophecy has in fact been fulfilled, he still is hesitant to act on their prophecies. Furthermore, his reference to them as ‘instruments of darkness’ not only hints at their evil nature, but the noun ‘instruments’ suggests that the witches are simply tools with the sole purpose of corrupting them – they hold no power of their own. This is highlighted by Banquo’s initial response to the witches’ prophecies when he turns and asks Macbeth ‘Why do you start?’ indicating how he has chosen not to read into the matter on account of the untrustworthy source, the witches – who often tell half-truths. Through this perceptive realisation and attitude towards the supernatural, Shakespeare shows Banquo as shrewd and cautious, which is an indirect compliment to the King, King James, since he is thought to be descendent of Banquo. It also coincides with King James’s strong views towards the supernatural which he documented in his book ‘Daemonologie’, where he detailed the features of witches and other supernatural beings. Therefore, Shakespeare’s presentation of Banquo and his response to the witches is a successful attempt at obtaining better recognition for his play.

In contrast to this sensible attitude seen in Banquo, Macbeth responds in the complete opposite way. In the extract, Macbeth immediately spirals into an abyss of internal turmoil as his mind wanders into regicide, causing his ‘seated heart [to] knock at [his] ribs’. Through personifying Macbeth’s heart, Shakespeare suggests that his response is so extreme that his body tries to act on this surge of ambition despite his conflicted conscious thoughts, displaying how he has lost complete control. Unlike Banquo, Macbeth is not scared of the witches’ prophecies, but in fact of his own ‘black and deep desires’, which Shakespeare may do to perhaps suggest that Macbeth has already accepted their prophecies without question and is now contemplating whether to act on his ambition. This demonstrates the peripetia (according to Aristotle’s form of a tragedy) in the play, since he falls into the trap the witches create. The result of this is that he is unable to see the supernatural as Banquo does because he has already allowed his entire body to by affected by its poison. His desperation to escape the situation can be seen through his reference to celestial imagery in ‘Stars hide your fires,/let not light see my black and deep desires’ which could symbolise how he is begging the heavens or God to hide and bury his immoral thoughts. Despite this Shakespeare uses rhyming couplet’s here with ‘fires’ and ‘desires’, mimicking the tone of the witches and therefore furthering the influence the supernatural has had on Macbeth. In this way, the audience can understand that it is Macbeth’s accepting attitude towards this supernatural that causes him to take a different route from Banquo leading him ultimately to his downfall.

Alternatively, even though Banquo’s reaction to the witches clearly shows him to be the foil to Macbeth, he also seems to have some curiosity, like Macbeth, in the prophecies. This is demonstrated through his command to the witches ‘If you can look into the seeds of time and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then to me’, where the use of imperative verb ‘speak’ indicates at Banquo’s impatient curiosity to which of his sons will be king. This aggressive attitude reveals Banquo’s ambition, which is elevated in the fact that he later on suspects Macbeth’s intention to murder Duncan – ‘I fear thou played most foully for it’ – and yet doesn’t share this suspicion with the other nobles because he needed Macbeth to kill Duncan so that the prophesy about his children will in turn be fulfilled. This depicts how his ambition has grown and evolved from the initial spark that the witches caused, into something that has completely corrupted him with the hope that his friend will die. Consequently, Shakespeare perhaps presented Banquo’s initial attitude to the supernatural as dismissive to highlight that even the best of men can be influenced by it and therefore become totally consumed by their ambition.

Overall, Shakespeare presents Macbeth and Banquo’s attitudes towards the supernatural as juxtaposed, through which the contemporary audience can see that ambition is something escaped by no man.

In the tragedy of Macbeth, the relationship and marriage between Macbeth and lady Macbeth evidently deteriorates as a result of their individual ambition, greed for power and bloodlust. the strong relationship at the beginning of the play and compatibility foreshadows this collapse of their relationship, and through this Shakespeare emphasises the didactic message of the play, how exercising free will and giving in to greed has severe consequences. Despite this, it could be suggested that in fact the two share a deep love for each other which is able to overcome all of these difficulties.

In the beginning of the play, especially in Macbeth’s letter to his wife, their relationship is illustrated to be based on equality and a profound care for each other. in act one scene 5, Shakespeare, through Macbeth’s use of language, highlights Macbeth’s respect and love for his wife as he addresses her with ‘my dearest partner of greatness’ and through the fact that his first thought when he hears of the news is to consult his wife so that she would ‘not lose the dues of rejoicing by being ignorant’. This complete trust in his wife and partnership would have been seen as unusual in a common Jacobean marriage, therefore the contemporary audience would view their relationship in positive light. Furthermore, it is clear that Macbeth is completely dependent on his wife, which further highlights their compatibility despite having switched gender roles. This is made evident in the metaphor in Macbeth’s soliloquy ‘I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent’ and Lady Macbeth’s consequent entrance to the state, where he is looking towards his wife, who is more decisive and controlling than he is, to be the ‘spur’ which helps him to commit and follow through with his desires. this contrast in their nature is elevated through the motif of ‘milk’, something that has clear maternal connotations, where Macbeth is ‘two full of the milk’ while lady Macbeth bags for ‘gall’. Through this, Shakespeare is portraying their marriage as not only having gender stereotypes that are reversed, but also that this makes the two all the more compatible coma which results in a strong and enduring relationship between the two.

However, as the play progresses, lady Macbeth’s greed and desperation for power fuels her to become terribly manipulative, as the controlling side of her nature dominates Macbeth. In extract, lady Macbeth uses degrading language, calling Macbeth’s hope as ‘green and pale’ which connote sickness, something that symbolises great weakness and helplessness – lady Macbeth is ultimately accusing Macbeth of being weak and frail, as a woman would have been seen as, and is therefore doubting everything that he should, as a ‘worthy gentlemen’, stand for. Here, Shakespeare is contrasting lady Macbeth’s opinion that Macbeth is a ‘coward’ with the praise he received at the beginning of the play – ‘brave Macbeth – well he deserves that name’. In this way, not only is Shakespeare indicating that Lady Macbeth’s comments are callous and harsh, but also that she is tapping into something that is clearly important to Macbeth – his reputation as a courageous warrior. In addition, the repeated rhetorical questioning is used to reflect the same insecurities that Macbeth which have about himself, highlighting how successfully lady Macbeth is able to completely manipulate her husband into obtaining them this power. This depiction of lady Macbeth’s greed-driven influence over Macbeth creates hatred for her, especially by the audience of the Jacobean era, when these traits in a women would have correlated with popular beliefs on witchcraft (as specified in King James’ book on the supernatural and witchcraft, ‘Daemonologie’). As a result, Shakespeare is portraying the deterioration of their marriage as the consequence of Lady Macbeth’s avarice and an element in her attitude that is reminiscent of the Witches.

However, a contemporary audience can understand that women’s only route to power at the time was through their husband, and therefore by being exposed to this possibility of such ‘greatness [that] is promised’, lady Macbeth is instantly desperate to hold on to it at all costs. Furthermore, this erratic behaviour seen in Lady Macbeth can be ascribed to the mourning she is going through as she has recently lost her baby. Lady Macbeth reminds us of how recent this is with the fact that she is still lactating ‘take my milk for gall’ – we can infer that it has been difficult to conceive and how important the baby must have been, and through obtaining power as the queen, she may be attempting to replace this love that she has just lost of her child. Therefore, a contemporary audience would understand that their marriage and relationship was weakened by all of these challenges that the couple faced, and because of this it was destined for ruin.  

Furthermore, Macbeth’s trust in his wife also changes as a result of his obsession with staying on the throne, his paranoia and bloodlust. This can be seen through the fact that he refuses to tell his wife about his plans to kill Banquo, and instead tells her ‘Be innocent of the knowledge dearest chuck’, which demonstrates how their relationship has changed, since he now talks down to her and does not treat her as an equal – all of the qualities that the contemporary audience would have admired about their relationship at the beginning have disappeared. However, it can be argued that Macbeth has a powerful deep love for his wife and is trying to protect his wife from the mental turmoil of dealing with murder. Moreover, Lady Macbeth’s sleepwalking scene shows a really powerful love, since he is caring for his wife on the morning of the battle, placing his concern for her emotional and mental wellbeing above his own power. Furthermore, Macbeth’s response to his wife’s death is with his ‘Out, out, brief Candle’ speech about the meaningless and futility of life, it even leads him to question Christianity (something that in Jacobean time would be seen as the ultimate collapse of a person) when he refers to God, who tells the tale of his life, as an ‘idiot’. This utter, almost instantaneous deep despair and nihilism demonstrates Macbeth’s great love for his wife and how much he depended on her to make him the man he wants to be. In this speech he is also mirroring his wife’s language, with the repeated ‘out’ reflecting Lady Macbeth’s ‘out damned spot, out I say’, and Lady Macbeth in fact mirrors Macbeth’s actions in her sleepwalking scene when she desperately attempts to wipe her hands clean. Shakespeare does this to portray the deep connection between the two.

Overall, although Macbeth and Lady Macbeth’s marriage seems to weaken as both their behaviours change, the direct result of their desperate need to hold on to power, on deeper analysis Shakespeare could be suggesting that their profound love for each other is still seen at the very end of the tragedy, in spite of the numerous emotional distractions they have had to overcome. Shakespeare may be hinting, through this, at the importance of equality in a marriage because it is only when this breaks down, that their relationship weakens.

Macbeth’s innate violent nature is clear from the very beginning of the play when we are first introduced to him in act 1, scene 2. This aspect of him only grows bigger and more dominant as the play progresses, since his paranoia leads him to turn violent and aggressive towards all.

In the extract, his violence is portrayed through his determination to defeat Macdonald. In the simile ‘As two spent swimmers that do cling together/And choke their art’, the powerful verbs ‘cling’ and ‘choke’ further emphasise Macbeth’s power and strength, heightening the impact his violence has. Shakespeare is demonstrating how the courageous violence that Macbeth shows towards the rebel is a product of utter determination and to defend his country. In this way, it can be viewed as a patriotic act, to which the audience would respond well to and admire the character as a result. In the Jacobean era, fighting to protect the nation like this was brave and it was seen as a religious act since the King was thought to be appointed by God. Shakespeare creates this first impression of Macbeth in order to establish a connection between him and the audience, making it all the more tragic when he decides to act against God by committing regicide. Alternatively, the simile could portray the men as equally weak, and that Macbeth uses this violence simply to not appear as the weaker fighter, risking death to maintain his reputation.

Macbeth’s violence is also portrayed through his skill while fighting MacDonald. The captain describes his weaponry as ‘brandished steel, which smoked with bloody execution’, where the use of the verb ‘smoked’ connotes fire and heat, creating an image of hot blood clouding the cold air. Shakespeare does this to very clearly present Macbeth’s high level of skill and this is said through the Captain to further the sense of admiration others have for his skilled way of battle. However, the description is also very exaggerated, which could imply that the captain is mocking Macbeth’s arrogance and self-interest, perhaps describing the scene as Macbeth would have seen it. Even so, the secondary meaning of the noun ‘execution’ (meaning the completion of an action) highlights the talent with which Macbeth killed the rebel since the noun implies that it is almost a performance or art. This skill also comes across in act 2, scene 3, when Macbeth very quickly kills the two men that he and Lady Macbeth framed for the murder of Duncan. As he reports ‘I did kill them’ it appears that he has no blood on himself, suggesting that he performed it very quickly and efficiently. Through this it can be interpreted that battle and violence is intrinsic to Macbeth.

As the play progresses, Macbeth’s violent nature seems to grow and his motives for violence also change. In this extract from the beginning part of the play, Macbeth ‘unseamed him from the nave to the chaps’. The verb ‘unseamed’ connotes sewing imagery, suggesting the precision and delicacy with which he does it – portraying a sophisticated violence. However, the motif of blood later displays how unskilful he is with murder later on in the play. While before the blood from his weapon ‘smoked’, later on it haunts him as he questions ‘Will all great Neptune’s oceans wash this blood clean from my hand?’. This rhetorical question demonstrates how the confidence earlier associated with his violent nature has disappeared. Now that he has committed regicide and used violence sinfully, he will never be able to free himself from Christian guilt.

Macbeth’s downfall can be seen directly from the change in motive behind his violent. From defending the king and fighting rebels to killing anyone who may touch the crown and disrupt his corrupt rule. It shows how becoming king and obtaining the ‘fruitless crown’ has made him kill indiscriminately. Despite this, the audience understand how different aspects of his surroundings led him into this vicious circle of aggression and murder so can therefore (following Aristotle’s theory on tragedies) feel pity for the tragic eponymous hero that is Macbeth.