Hi there.

Welcome to today's lesson.

Great to see you.

My name is Mr. Barnsley.

We're gonna be looking at the strange case of Dr.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in a bit more detail here.

And today we're gonna be diving into a bit of context as we start to look at the duplicitous upper classes.

All right, let's get started.

So the outcome of today's lesson, by the end of the lesson, you are gonna be able to use context to explain the complicity of other characters in the actions of Hyde.

Okay, that's quite a complex outcome there with, you can see in bold, one keyword.

So let's dive in and make sure we really understand what this means.

Let's start by looking at some of the keywords that are gonna appear in today's lesson.

So five keywords today: complicit, duplicitous, both those words you've seen already.

One in the title of today's lesson and the other in the outcome.

And then three other words: hypocrisy, the verb to indulge, and that final word analogy.

Let's look at what these words mean in a little bit more detail, shall we? So to be complicit means to have an involvement in wrongdoing or playing a part in a questionable act.

So when we think about the outcome of today's lesson, you can see that we are gonna be using context to decide whether there are more than one character who can say are arguably responsible for some of the actions of Hyde.

And this links to the word duplicitous.

This adjective means to be deceptive or to lack in honesty.

And you can see from the title of today's lesson, the duplicitous upper classes, we're gonna be casting our net a little bit wider and trying to see if there are more than one character, is it more than just Jekyll who is deceptive or lacks honesty in other ways? And other words that are gonna help us do that are hypocrisy, definition appearing now.

The verb to indulge.

That definition is now on the screen.

And this word analogy.

So pause video if you need to take a moment to note any of these words down, if you think they're gonna be useful.

But it's really important that we understand what they all mean 'cause we are going to be using them in our lesson today.

Okay, then let's have a look at the outline of today's lesson.

So two learning cycles today.

Firstly, we're gonna think about the other character's complicity.

So we're gonna have a little bit of a discussion, some thinking around how other characters might be responsible.

And then we're gonna link this to some context in our second learning cycle.

Thinking about how Stevenson or how Stevenson criticises a hypocrisy.

And again, hypocrisy is one of our key words today.

So we're gonna think about really what Stevenson's message around hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of the upper classes.

But let's start with our first learning cycle today, which is other characters' complicity.

So I want to start with a discussion then.

I want you to think about then, do you think Henry Jekyll is the only character who is culpable? Who is to blame for the crimes of Mr. Hyde? What do you think? Pause the video.

Have a discussion.

If you've got a partner, that's great.

You can think and discuss with them.

If you're working by yourself, don't worry.

You can just pause the video, think through these questions yourself.

You could even make a couple of notes if you wish to.

So pause the video, have a think about your response to this, and press play when you are ready to continue.

Over to you, off you go.

Some fantastic discussion and back and forth, some of you thinking, yes, Jekyll was the only person responsible and I could hear people bringing other people's names in.

That was really great.

Well done.

Let's have a look at what some of our characters said then, shall we? Well, Izzy, like some of you ,said, "Of course, Jekyll is responsible.

He created Hyde and he enjoyed living his life as his moral alter ego." And we know this from that final chapter of the statement of Dr.

Henry Jekyll where he says that he felt younger, lighter.

He said it braced and delighted him like wine.

So we know there's lots of quotations which show that Jekyll really enjoyed his life as Hyde.

Sofia says, "Jekyll is obviously culpable.

Of course, he's to blame.

But others are complicit too.

Others are guilty too.

Think how many others had suspicions but didn't do anything to stop Jekyll." Let's pause for a minute and think about why Sofia's response is more nuanced, is a little bit more detailed than Izzy's.

How might it make our own analysis more interesting if we share a viewpoint or acknowledge a viewpoint like Sofia's? Pause the video, have a discussion with your partner, or think through this by yourself and press play when you're ready to continue.

Some really nice ideas there.

And well done to everyone who was listening just as much as they were contributing to those discussions and building on what their partner was saying.

That's really great to see.

Okay, let's explore then why Sofia's response allows us to be maybe a little bit more creative in our analysis and our interpretation of the text.

Well, first of all, she acknowledges Jekyll's role.

So if we take a similar view to Sofia or we at least analyse Sofia's view, even if we don't agree with it, we can see it still allows us to talk about Jekyll's role, and the extent of his own culpability, okay? But it also allows us to bring in other characters, which is gonna make our essay more interesting 'cause we can do a bit more comparison here comparing the different roles different characters play.

But it also gives us an opportunity to explore how culpability, how guilt, how responsibility comes in many different forms. So let's pause and think about what Sofia might be actually saying here.

Who are the others do you think Sofia might be referring to and why do you think she views them as being complicit too? Pause the video, have a think, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Fantastic.

Some brilliant ideas there and I loved hearing you bringing lots of different characters in.

I really liked people starting to weigh up what it means to be responsible.

And some of you quite rightly acknowledged here that Sofia saying, "Look, there are some characters who had suspicions or even some who knew what was going on and they didn't say anything.

And actually that silence, that ignoring of the truth makes them guilty." Maybe not as guilty as Jekyll, but it certainly makes them culpable to a certain extent.

That was great.

I really loved hearing ideas like that.

Well done if you said something similar.

So the Oak pupils then have started discussing, okay, we've acknowledged that maybe Jekyll isn't the only person who is guilty in the crimes of Hyde.

Maybe some others are too.

And they're starting now to discuss who they think could be culpable.

What I want you to think about is who do you agree with most? You're gonna want to use evidence from the text here, so it's gonna be really important that you have your copies of the text open.

Let's have a look at what some of our pupils were saying then, shall we? Well, Sofia was saying, "I think Dr.

Lanyon knew the whole truth, but he chose to protect Jekyll.

So he's the most culpable." Izzy says, "Well, Utterson left the letters unopened and those letters contained the truth, so therefore, he concealed the reality of what was happening." And Andeep says, "Well, Enfield witnessed a crime right at the beginning or before the novella even began, but yet he chose to stay silent.

That makes him culpable." So I want you to pause the video and I want you to see who do you agree with most.

Sofia who believes Dr.

Lanyon is most guilty.

Izzy who believes Mr. Utterson is most guilty.

And Andeep who says Enfield is the most culpable.

Who do you agree with? But I want to see if you can use some evidence from the text to justify and also support this idea that these people may be culpable.

Okay, pause the video, have a discussion, or have a think if you're working by yourself and press play when you're ready to continue.

Great work there.

Really impressive seeing people flicking through their copies of the novella.

That's fantastic to see.

All right, let's have a look then at some of the evidence that you might have found to justify all three of these perspectives.

So for Sofia arguing Dr.

Lanyon was most culpable, you could find that quotation where he says that his letter, which contained the truth, should not be opened till the death or disappearance of Dr.

Henry Jekyll.

So he's saying, "I know the truth, but I'm not willing to let the truth go out there until I know that Henry Jekyll's reputation cannot be destroyed because either he's already dead or he's completely disappeared." Okay? Izzy found this quote.

"The packet slept in the innermost corner of the private safe." So we know that this letter, which contains the truth, Utterson doesn't know it contains the truth, but he know it must contain something really juicy, something that could potentially destroy the reputation of his friend.

He puts it in the innermost corner of his private safe.

He puts it the safest place he can possibly find it to make sure it does not get into anyone else's hands.

And let's have a look what Andeep chose.

He says right at the end of that first chapter, when Enfield says, "Here is another lesson to say nothing." He says, "I'm not gonna speak about what I have seen.

I'm gonna keep this to myself." So you can see all of these quotes suggest that all of these characters are complicit to a certain extent.

All right, let's have a check to see how we are getting on.

Can you tell me which of these pupils have the most nuanced response? Is it Sofia or Izzy? Let's have a look what Sofia said.

She said, "whilst Jekyll's culpability is undeniable, Utterson is also complicit in these crimes.

His decision to lock Lanyon's sealed envelope in his private safe could symbolise his refusal to reveal the truth." Izzy says, "Jekyll's culpability is undeniable.

He created Hyde to escape the dreadful shipwreck of having to hide his immoral desires.

He acts in a duplicitous manner, hiding the truth from his innocent peers." Pause the video, have a think, who do you think has the most nuanced, the most detailed response? Make your decision and press play when you're ready to find out the response.

Over to you.

Slightly tricky one there because both pupils have a nice, clear idea supported with evidence.

But well done if you said Sofia, if you picked A, because Sofia's is starting to weigh up the culpability of different characters, whereas Izzy is still all on that one track, it's Jekyll's fault.

Therefore, Sofia's essay is probably gonna add a little bit more nuance because she's gonna start to evaluate between the culpability, the complicity of different characters.

Well done if you said A.

Okay, let's move on to our first practise task.

At the end of today's lesson, you are gonna be taking part in a debate and we are gonna debating this question, which other character was most complicit in Hyde's crimes? So we're all gonna acknowledge that Jekyll, of course, is very complicit, he's very culpable, but you are gonna be having a debate about which other character you would say is the most complicit.

So you will not be able to talk about Jekyll.

So what you are gonna do now is draught your initial response based on the discussions that we've already had.

You're gonna want to use your copy of the text to find supporting quotations and there's gonna be a table that I'm gonna share on the screen now, which is gonna help you structure your ideas.

So make sure you open your response very clearly, make sure you justify why you think that character is culpable.

Make sure you are providing evidence and make sure you are summing up your thoughts because this is gonna be a debate, so we're gonna be going back and forth between different ideas.

Okay, it's time for you now to pause your video, open your copy of the novella, and have a go at writing your initial response to this question, which other character was most complicit in Hyde's crimes? Pause the video and give this a go.

Over to you.

Good luck.

Okay, great work there.

Welcome back.

Okay, it's now time for us to just self-assess our work before we move on.

So I want you to reread your work and identify where you've done the following.

Where have you clearly identified who you think is complicit? Where have you justified your reasons? Where have you used evidence from the text to support your argument? And where have you included a clear summary of your argument? Pause the video, reread your work.

If there's any of this that you haven't included, now is the time to add it in.

Okay, pause the video.

Press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, now let's move on to our second learning cycle in today's lesson.

And remembering our outcome is all about using context today.

We are now gonna use some context to weave this into our debate responses to make them even more sophisticated.

So I want you to think about what do you know about Stevenson's upbringing and why might that have made him critical of the upper classes? Pause the video, have a discussion with your partner if you've got one, or have a think through these questions to yourself and press play when you're ready to continue.

Fantastic work there and welcome to those of you drawing on some knowledge that you may have already picked up in some previous lessons that you have studied.

Let's have a look at some of the fantastic ideas that some of you said then.

So some of you said that we know that Stevenson rejected his strict Calvinist upbringing.

Calvinism being a branch of Christianity, a more puritanical branch of Christianity and he rejected this.

So his parents were very strict Scottish Calvinists and he rejected this upbringing that he had.

And we could say, you could make a link to this because actually religion was, at the time, and potentially today still is, arguably a driver of moral standards.

A lot of people's ideas of what makes them a good person comes from ideas from the Bible or other religious texts.

So this rejection of Christianity could be linked to maybe his own rejection of these really high moral standards that maybe he felt were unachievable.

We also know that he experienced duplicity himself because he was the son of a very strict middle class Calvinist.

Yet when he went to university, he actually indulged in many pleasures that many wouldn't have saw, seen fit or seemed to be appropriate of a middle class Christian boy.

So he himself experienced and dabbled in a duplicitous life, it could be argued.

So maybe he was in a really good place to be critical of the hypocrisy that many wealthy upper class people seem to get away with this immoral behaviour either because other people turned a blind eye, looked away, or because they had the money to cover up the fact that they were behaving like this.

And often, not always, but some of the people who behaved in this way would look down on the poor for also behaving in this way.

But whilst they were secretly behaving in this duplicitous and hypocritical manner.

So well done if you said any of these things and of course, you might have said other things, but this is really important to have in mind as we think about Stevenson's purpose, his intentions as he was creating his text.

So what I'd like us to do is reread a section of chapter one and this comes from when Enfield is telling his story about what he'd seen, the story of the door, and Enfield and Utterson are talking about what happens if you are to breach confidence, to whisper, to discuss about things that might have happened, things you might have seen.

And this is an extract from chapter one where an analogy of a stone is used.

Let's have a look at it in a bit more detail, shall we? "I feel very strongly about putting questions.

It partakes too much of the style of the day of judgement.

You start a question and it's like starting a stone.

You sit quietly on the top of a hill and away the stone goes starting others and presently some bland old bird, the last you would've thought of, is knocked on the head in his own back garden and the family have to change their name.

No, sir, I make it a rule of mine.

The more it looks like Queer Street, the less I ask." So I want you to think about this analogy that Enfield uses.

Why does he compare asking probing questions to pushing a stone down a hill? Pause the video, have a think, and press play when you are ready to continue.

Some really interesting interpretations there.

Well done.

I want to shine a spotlight on anyone who said something similar to this.

So Enfield compares asking questions to throwing a stone down a hill.

Just as you don't know who that stone might hit, who might get hurt by throwing that stone, you cannot predict what answers you might hear and as a result, who might be damaged, whose reputations might be damaged by the answers to those questions.

Okay, then let's try and link this analogy and why it might be useful to exploring ideas around hypocrisy, duplicity, and complicity.

Okay, so three of our key words there.

Why might this analogy be so useful in exploring those ideas? Pause the video, have a think, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Well done for thinking of some really creative responses to this question.

This might feel like a really minor extract from the text and it might be something that we might have read once and thought, "Well, that's never gonna be important", but actually this little moment can be really useful when we want to explore some of really key themes of this novella, including hypocrisy, duplicity, and complicity.

Let's have a look at some of the fantastic things that you might have said.

So first of all, this is really saying don't ask questions if you don't know whose family name you might end up ruining.

And this really suggests that Enfield and other characters who follow this advice are complicit in covering up bad behaviour.

They're saying, "Look, if I'm worried that I'm gonna ruin someone's reputation, I'm just not gonna ask the question." And actually that makes you a little bit guilty in helping to cover up the bad behaviour of those respectable families.

It's also quite duplicitous.

It's basically saying that the more that behaviour seems wrong, the less likely I am gonna ask a question.

And that, I think, is quite duplicitous behaviour.

You're not really picking the path of truth and honesty there.

You're willing to, like, hide the truth.

And this whole statement actually here makes Enfield seem quite hypocritical.

Not only is he willing to turn a blind eye, but we've got to remember that Enfield was walking around in the middle of the night when Jekyll trampled on this young girl.

Why? Why was this respectable, honest, honourable, upper middle class man walking around London, the dark streets of London in the middle of the night? There's something slightly hypocritical about Enfield's actions and his words here.

Well done if you said any of these things.

Okay, let's check how we're getting on.

True or false: Stevenson's novella cannot be a criticism of the upper middle classes as he came from the middle class family himself.

Is that true or false? Pause the video, have a think, and press play when you're ready to continue.

That is, of course, false.

Let's think about how we can justify that statement being false.

Is it A, that Stevenson's own social class gave him a greater understanding of the hypocrisy of those who admonished the poor, so looked down on the poor for not following strict moral codes yet led duplicitous lives themselves? Or is it Stevenson is critical of all who failed to follow the strict moral codes expected of them? He hated those who lived duplicitous lives.

Pause the video, have a think which of these justifies our response that this statement is false? Press play when you're ready to continue.

Yes, that is, of course, A.

Stevenson himself has never really said that he hates people who leads duplicitous lives.

That would make him a bit of a hypocrite, in all honesty.

What he really doesn't like is the hypocrisy of others and particularly, he understood, being from the middle classes, how easily some from the upper and middle classes would look down on the poor, yet lead duplicitous lives themselves, therefore, making them hypocrites and that's who he was being really critical of or arguably who was being very critical of.

Okay, so Sofia has written a response and she has included some context.

So let's have a look at what Sofia said.

"Stevenson presents Enfield as a character who values the preservation of reputation over the importance of truth." So he values keeping reputation, people's reputation safe over truth.

"And his refusal to ask questions due to the fear of causing a reputable family to change their name results in him resorting into silence rather than reporting Hyde to the police in chapter one.

Contextually, we know that Stevenson was critical of upper middle class hypocrisy." Now you can see that Sofia's first draught doesn't weave context into the paragraph.

In fact, she just kind of tags it on the end.

That makes her use of context a little bit less skillful.

Let's have a look at her second draught.

So I've challenged Sofia to try and weave her context into this paragraph.

Let's have a look at how she's done it and see if it makes her response better.

"Through his presentation of Enfield as a man who values the presentation of reputation over the safety of the public, Stevenson shares his personal criticism of the hypocritical upper middle classes.

Stevenson's own experiences at university opened his eyes to the dual nature of man, yet he arguably felt that only the poor were punished for immorality.

Enfield's refusal to ask questions due to the fear of causing a reputable family to change their name is a clear illustration of the duplicity of the upper classes who protected each other at the expense of the truth." Can we see how that context has been woven into and supports each stage of Sofia's argument? This makes it a lot more skillful and this is what we're gonna try and do in our final activity today.

So let's do one final check before we practise for ourselves.

Which student below weaves context into their response? Is it Andeep who says, "Lanyon is complicit as he craves knowledge, yet does nothing with it.

Stevenson was influenced by the Enlightenment era." Or is it Izzy who says, "Interestingly, Stevenson uses the idea of enlightenment throughout to illuminate Lanyon's own complicity.

Seeing knowledge as a route to freedom, Lanyon discovers the truth about Hyde, yet hypocritically does not reveal the truth." Pause the video, have a think, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Well done.

That was, of course, Izzy and we can see too a little bit of context that she's used here.

So she, like Andeep, have linked to her knowledge of the Enlightenment era and she's taken this idea further and the idea that knowledge many during the Enlightenment era saw knowledge as a route to freedom.

She's really used this to enhance her criticism of Lanyon.

Okay, over to you now.

You are gonna rewrite your response to learning cycle one.

So we're gonna redraft it and we're gonna improve the work that we did in learning cycle one and remembering that question that we are writing response to 'cause we're gonna debate this very shortly, is which other character was most complicit in Hyde's crimes? So I want you to improve your paragraph, but this time, you're gonna weave some context throughout, remembering we don't wanna just bolt our context on the end.

We want to make sure it's completely woven through the entirety of our response, using it to justify our argument at different levels.

Okay, pause the video, over to you, and press play when you are ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

As promised, we are going to do a feedback via a debate.

So if you've got a partner, this is great, you can debate each other.

If you're working by yourself, you might wish to find someone else that you can share your response with because they might be able to give you some feedback.

So pause the video if you need to, go and find someone else to join in with this debate with you, and press play when you are ready for the rest of the instructions.

Okay, hopefully you now all have someone to debate with.

So as promised, we are gonna debate which other character was most complicit in Hyde's crimes.

So after someone else has shared their argument, I want you to use the checklist and the pupil responses below to give them some verbal feedback.

So I want you to pull out a strength of the argument that you hear.

I also want you to tell them something that the person who you are debating with could do better.

How could they improve that argument next time? As you can see on screen, we've got the checklist.

So try and make sure that they are explaining who they believe is complicit, making sure they're using well-selected evidence, and also that they're using context to help justify their response.

Okay, pause the video and give yourself plenty of time to debate this question.

Press play when you are done.

Welcome back.

It was so great hearing such engaging debates.

It was lovely hearing you go back and forth and fantastic though not everyone all agreed on the same character.

All right, on the screen now, you can see a summary of what we have learned today.

Firstly, we've learnt that whilst Jekyll is clearly culpable for the creation of Hyde, we can argue that others are complicit in the crimes too.

We know that Dr.

Lanyon learns the truth, but he chooses not to expose Jekyll.

We know that Utterson fails to take many opportunities to unearth the truth.

Instead, he chooses to keep secrets sealed away.

And finally, through Enfield and the other characters, we could say that Stevenson is very critical of the hypocrisy of the upper middle classes.

If there's any of that that you are a little bit unsure of, go back and watch different sections of the video so you feel really confident with all of this before you move on.

Thank you so much for joining me today.

I've had a great lesson learning with you all today.

I hope to see you in a lesson with me soon.

Have a great day.

Goodbye.