A few quick notes before we start:
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is free to read on Project Gutenberg! If you don't have a copy and are interested in reading it, check out this link.
This novella, while short, is too rich to be covered in a single blog post. I will do my best to present the themes and aspects I feel are most important, but will likely have to leave some things out.
Introduction
It may be a bit old now, but at some point you’ve likely heard the idiom “Jekyll and Hyde.” If you have, you probably understand what it means to some extent. If you haven't, I'll explain it.
To call someone a “Jekyll and Hyde” would be to say they have a dual personality, that they’re not all that they seem. A good example is for people who seem way too nice in public. They make you think, "when they’re alone, are they always this nice?" You know they’ve got to have a dark side. That’s what the idiom means, and to some degree, it applies to everyone. Whether you’ve heard it or not, I highly suggest you read the origin of the idiom to fully understand it.
It comes from Robert Louis Stevenson’s 1886 novella The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and has been used ever since. The novella centers around one Mr. Utterson, a lawyer in charge of the will of his friend, Dr. Henry Jekyll. He sees a suspicious name in Jekyll’s will, that of one Edward Hyde, someone his other friend Mr. Enfield once warned him of. Enfield seems convinced that Hyde is dangerous and almost inhuman, and recalls him giving a look
“so ugly that it brought out the sweat on me like running.”
Naturally, Utterson is worried when the will states that Jekyll’s entire estate will go to Hyde should he at some point disappear. Believing Hyde is forcing Jekyll to sign him into his will and then intends to bump him off, Utterson sets off to secure his friend. However, he soon finds that things get much more complicated when Jekyll insists that the will is as he wants it and that Hyde is not controlling him.
Before getting any further, I think it's necessary to talk separately about Jekyll and Hyde a moment.
Jekyll
Dr. Henry Jekyll is a fifty-year-old respectable gentleman and all-around a swell guy. Picture him as that quiet but nice person you know. He’s not super outspoken on a lot of things, but you have no reason not to like him. He represents what any person should be in public.
Hyde
Edward Hyde is young, selfish, and entirely unlikeable. Stevenson writes that upon seeing him people hate him for a reason they can’t explain. He seems to have a presence of evil that none can deny. He’s somewhat of a physical monstrosity as well, being described as apish: short with longer arms and hairy hands. His most lasting quality is having a sort of evil in his face. There is no person in the story that likes him. And while this may seem harsh, there is an easy explanation as to why.
“...all human beings, as we meet them, are commingled out of good and evil: and Edward Hyde, alone in the ranks of mankind, was pure evil.”
This statement came from Jekyll and describes perfectly Hyde’s conduct. He represents the things everyone wants to do but restrains from doing in public.
The 2-for-1 Combo
The mysterious and almost supernatural part of this is that Jekyll and Hyde are the same person. You see, like all of us, Jekyll has difficulty suppressing the darker side of human nature. But rather than deal with his temptations or seek help through the usual avenues, he develops a potion with the intent to separate the good from the bad. He plans to cast away his evil entirely, but instead, the potion transforms him and shoves all his malignity into his new persona: Edward Hyde. Luckily, one dose of the same potion turns him back. But rather than turn back into Jekyll and turn from Hyde forever, he sees an opportunity to indulge himself.
Through Hyde, he can do every wicked thing he is tempted to do and get away with it. No one would ever suspect the respectable Henry Jekyll to be the reproachable Edward Hyde. And so, Jekyll begins a double life.
When acting as Hyde, he makes no attempts to restrain himself and carries out every wicked thing Jekyll had ever been tempted to. At first, this is freeing. Jekyll is still a good man; he doesn’t do anything bad, Hyde does. However, Hyde eventually gets tired of being a scapegoat and starts to take hold of the reins as well. As you can guess, this overthrows Jekyll’s use for the strange duality. In the end, Hyde becomes as real a person as Jekyll and is entirely out of his control.
THEMES
"I can stop whenever I want."
One of the most fascinating things about Stevenson’s allegorical novella is that rather than do away with Hyde, Jekyll entertains the assumption that he can use him. He keeps the potion ready, should he ever need to break out and roam the streets as Hyde, and even purchases a house in Soho where Hyde can conduct his self-indulgence.
At first, Hyde does not mind this relationship and takes his freedom when he gets it. But the more Jekyll exercises Hyde, the more difficult it is to transform him back into the good-natured Jekyll. Originally it took a single dose of the potion, but by the end of the story it takes up to four. And even that isn’t enough to keep Hyde down forever.
This climaxes during Jekyll’s last narration when he attempts to rid himself of Hyde. He states that he’s finished and believes he’s conquered him. But, in a sudden horrifying moment, Hyde returns without the aid of the potion. It’s at this moment that the struggle between the two becomes most real, seeing as Jekyll is now fighting for control while in a body shared equally with Hyde. Being unable to keep Hyde down, Jekyll despairs, and it isn’t long before he ends it. It’s a shocking yet realistic conclusion to the illusion that we can play with temptation without it becoming a part of us. The longer we exercise indulgence, the more difficult it is for us to face and subdue our temptations.
All or Nothing
There’s a tight line when considering the dual personality Stevenson paints, and it brings up the question of how closely Jekyll and Hyde are connected. For example, at one point Jekyll states that he chose between the two, understanding that he could not be both. He chose Jekyll, but this sentence follows that statement:
“I made this choice perhaps with some unconscious reservation, for I neither gave up the house in Soho, nor destroyed the clothes of Edward Hyde, which still lay ready in my cabinet.”
When he abstained from donning the devil, he didn’t fully clean house. Thus, Jekyll was not entirely committed to his choice. Although, the word “unconscious” is very important here. It could suggest that Hyde kept him from removing the clothes and getting rid of the house, thus making Jekyll the better man because he wasn't in full control. But even then, he indulged himself to a point that he was not in full control of his body, thus allowing Hyde to easily slip in and become as much a part of him as Jekyll.
The Personal Reflection
The grim takeaway is that I would argue Jekyll is no less wicked than you or me. I think his dark counterpart is much more real than we'd like to imagine, and that Edward Hyde is present within each of us. If everyone was honest, I am certain there would be a unanimous agreement that everyone has (even for the slightest moment) been so mad that they could have acted violently. This is "our Hyde", the presence of negative intent that tempts us each. If we frequently gave into our Hyde, I believe we would meet an end very similar to that of Jekyll. The mind, as wonderful as it can be, is the dirtiest and most vile thing on the planet, and is where our Hyde lives. How is it then that we don’t just lash out or enact every evil thought that crosses us?
I think Stevenson intended for Jekyll to remain a positive side, a glimmer of hope in his claim against humanity. He’s the moral compass here, the note from Stevenson to remind us that humanity isn’t only evil, there’s a choice. Unfortunately, as Stevenson so vividly portrays, the battle between Jekyll and Hyde within us is incredibly difficult. At times, we can find ourselves acting almost instinctually, having become so used to indulging Hyde. At other times, we can try to make the right decisions and don Jekyll for as long as our strength holds out. I think something we need to consider when comparing this novella to reality is that if Jekyll had help, he might have been able to cast off Hyde. But Jekyll was as much afraid of society as he was of Hyde. The idea that someone might find out he was Hyde crushed him and drove him to his death. I would say that this is no more dramatic than a lot of the struggles we all face. In life, there are things we simply cannot deal with on our own. And even though we often tell ourselves that people will no longer respect us if we're honest, I believe we will have earned greater respect for admitting we’re human.
TECHNIQUE
Character
This is a really short book, meaning there isn’t much time to get into character. And while this seems like it would be a major hindrance, it works, mainly because that’s not the point of the story. Its focus is on the allegory it’s presenting. Each of the characters work well for the assignments Stevenson gives them, and the allegory is superbly relayed through the details they each share. I think we are able to place ourselves in the characters' shoes easily due to the lack of detail as well.
A Third-Party Observer
I am especially glad that Stevenson didn’t carry us with Jekyll through the entire story. If he would’ve, Jekyll and Hyde’s relationship would have been much less mysterious and horrifying. For the greater two-thirds of the novella we know they’re connected but not that they are one. We see them each through the lenses of Enfield and Utterson, and get to make character judgments based on what they and other people see rather than through Jekyll or Hyde's mind. What we are given is based on the perception of others, rather than the inside look at the characters' emotions. The very first time we hear mention of Hyde, we think yuck. When Utterson talks about Jekyll, however, we think poor guy. This leads us to separate perceptions of each character even though they are the same. Thus, the final reveal pulls off very well and Stevenson’s point of dual personality is driven home efficiently.
Inspiration
I think knowing the author's inspiration can add a lot to reading their work. It can give us a clearer picture as to what they are alluding to and why they write about certain things. In Stevenson's case, his inspiration for his novella is almost a horror story in itself.
Stevenson had a friend named Eugene Chantrelle. To Stevenson, this man had a pretty normal life, he was a teacher, happily married, and decent. In 1878, however, Eugene poisoned and murdered his wife. It turned out that Eugene was responsible for murders in both France and Britain as well, often poisoning victims with a “favorite dish of toasted cheese and opium.” Stevenson was present through the man’s trial and it is believed that Eugene was his inspiration for the allegorical Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
I think being so close to someone who is capable of such violence, and who has done it in the past, is a very frightening thing. But what's more frightening is that Stevenson had no idea Eugene would do anything like it. To be able to act so natural and happy after multiple murders is horrifying, and professes the truth that no one truly knows the heart or mind of another.
Conclusion
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is an excellent story and a powerful analogy. It is masterfully written and done so with confidence despite its strange nature. Stevenson's allegory is based on personal experience as well and proves there is truth in what he writes. Regarding allegorical novels, I have never read a better one. This book is a staple in gothic horror and a very convicting read.
The bottom line: gripping, convicting, and unforgettable.
Comments