Hyde And Seek : The Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde By R. L. Stevenson

It is that time of the year once again – exams! And I wish all candidates the very best of luck - I still feel their nerves - and all families as much sanity as the next few weeks will allow. I well remember the mum who drew the line at ‘post-it notes on the cheese box in the fridge’ when her son decided to stick revision notes all over the house. The bathroom mirror she could cope with, the fridge was out of bounds!

A popular text for Eng. Lit. courses is The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, which is not, I hasten to add, a metaphor for the different sides of a teenager – though some may think it could be!

Much is said about ‘context’ these days, especially historical context, and exam boards have reasoned for some time, that it is important for the modern reader to understand how books would have been received by a contemporary audience. It’s a good point. We are not shocked that Shakespeare’s Juliet is only thirteen when we know that in Elizabethan times, given the much lower age of mortality, it was normal for girls to be married, and even to become mothers, at that age.

Well, Jekyll and Hyde, as it is often referred to, is a book which requires some appreciation of the Victorian reader and the attitudes embraced at the time, to fully grasp some of the more subtle nuances and to appreciate the depth of the characters and the reasons for some of their actions.

Sci Fi has taken the modern reader to worlds previously unimagined; action adventure films and crime dramas show us a villainous side of people which many of us, thankfully, never witness first hand, and the psychological thriller can chill us to the bone even in the comfort of home. The media does not recoil from giving us gruesome details of horrific, real life crimes and so, some may say, as a society we are becoming, for good or ill, somewhat desensitized to horror.

The Victorian reader lived in times which were just as violent but they were exposed to far less detail of the heinous acts of violent criminals since the vehicles through which to share them were fewer. No television, few newspapers, no cinema and no social media. They had a strong belief in God and Christianity, and Darwin had shaken them to the core with his Theory of Evolution which threw doubt on the Creation story.

There was also, of course, an hypocrisy about the Victorians who appeared so moral and upright (or should that be uptight?), yet took a prurient delight in sharing the most shocking stories about which they could tut knowingly. The class system was still firmly in place, a gentleman was clearly defined and his reputation fiercely defended, and the penal code still included capital punishment despite the various Acts of Penal Reform which had passed through Parliament during the nineteenth century.

Stevenson himself was fascinated by the idea of duality in Man, that no one was perfect, and he believed that everyone shared his own longing to explore the darker side of their nature and to give it free rein – to a greater or lesser degree. In Dr Jekyll (first published on 5th January, 1886) he creates a scientist who, compelled by desire, goes a step further and undertakes research into the dual existence of Man. His friend, Dr Lanyon, declares it to be ‘unscientific balderdash’ and ‘heresy’ but against all the odds, Jekyll succeeds in creating the monstrous Mr Hyde, with ‘Satan’s signature written on his face’, a transformation of himself. In his alternative guise, Jekyll is able to satisfy his more base and carnal desires without harming that most important of things, his reputation as a gentleman. To an extent, some of these activities perhaps echo Stevenson’s own youth – his somewhat wilder days.

Jekyll’s motivations are not pure; he seeks to enjoy the more disgraceful pleasures in life: wine, women and song, with a few drugs and not a little gambling thrown in. He doesn’t want to pay the price, won’t accept the consequences, and since he can transform at will from Hyde back into Jekyll, thus hiding in plain sight, he can avoid disgrace and retribution. Until it all goes wrong of course. As Hyde, he oversteps the mark and, if captured, his certain punishment will be the hangman’s noose. Jekyll wants rid of Hyde but his confidence is shaken when this proves impossible. He becomes a ‘disconsolate prisoner’, not only ‘the chief of sinners’ but ‘the chief of sufferers’ also and ultimately pays the price for his actions.

The reader perhaps wonders whether Jekyll is a victim as well as a villain? How should Dr Jekyll be regarded by the end? Who are the victims? Certainly, the kindly Sir Danvers, a well-liked and highly respected MP who is so brutally murdered, and the innocent child so cruelly trampled; Dr Lanyon, so changed by what he sees that he cannot bear to live with the knowledge which has been shared with him, and even Utterson who loses two lifelong friends and is left shocked and incredulous by what he discovers.

As for Jekyll, is he simply a figure who wants to have it all (a dangerous ambition), or can the reader find some soupcon of sympathy for him as the flawed hero, a tragic figure? His research reveals two paths and he admits to giving in to temptation and choosing the easy one. There have been plenty of writers who have explored the concept of that choice, not least Bunyan in his allegory A Pilgrim’s Progress which makes clear the dangers of taking the path of least resistance.

Victorian readers may have been familiar with Shelley’s Frankenstein by this time but little else, and so, although the clues are dropped one at a time, they are not immediately aware of what is happening. Utterson, a lawyer, is Jekyll’s friend and it is through his eyes that the reader witnesses the tale as it unfolds. Gabriel Utterson, as his name suggests, is essentially a good man, but one who lacks imagination, and he cannot bring himself to even consider what a modern reader might have discerned much earlier in the novella.

cq[...is he simply a figure who wants to have it all (a dangerous ambition), or can the reader find some soupcon of sympathy for him as the flawed hero, a tragic figure?]

There needs to be an understanding of the Victorian class system to see why Hyde’s love of base entertainment would have seemed so reprehensible and so unacceptable in a Victorian gentleman. Utterson, the most honorable and trustworthy of men, fears for his friend’s reputation from the start, believing him to be in thrall to Mr Hyde. To the very end, Utterson expresses a desire to save what he can of his friend’s good name. It is something a Victorian reader would have appreciated and understood.

Stevenson describes Hyde as being ‘ape-like’, with his animalistic qualities emphasised not only in his behaviour but also in the way he communicates: ‘hissing’ and ‘snarling’. His lack of manners and ‘strange sense of deformity’, all heightened the fears of the Victorian reader who did not want to give credence to Darwin’s recent assertion that Man could have evolved from apes or that there could be something of the animal in all of us. Utterson knows he must be disciplined and lead a life of austerity yet even he hankers after some of the elements of a dissolute life and secretly harbours an envy for those who are able to revel in some of the more questionable activities which he denies himself. The reader must also admit, even if only inwardly, that there may be certain indulgences which he, too, craves and having given in to temptation, would rather keep private.

The first performance of the play of Jekyll and Hyde took place in Boston in May 1887. The lighting effects and makeup for Jekyll's transformation into Hyde provoked horrified reactions from the audience, and the play was so successful that a production opened in London. It was forced to close after just ten weeks, however, when the hysteria surrounding the Jack the Ripper serial murders led to even those who only played murderers on stage being considered suspects.

There have also been several attempts to transfer Jekyll and Hyde to both the large and small screen but, in my opinion, with little success. The best I have seen stars John Hannah in the eponymous role and even it does not stay true to Stevenson’s novella. Perhaps, the book benefits more from the solitary experience of reading, requiring readers to bring something of their own imagination to it, their own interpretation.

This is a novella of only ten chapters, some of which are very short. It’s not an easy read given the stately elevation of Victorian language and many may think the story is too familiar to bother even if they do not know the details, but since the term ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ has been accepted into modern parlance, it is perhaps a book which is worthy of the challenge and modern readers may enjoy it more than they think, with its revelations and understanding of human nature. It is so much more than just an incredible story of man and monster but has a lesson for us all, not least that actions have consequences.