Although Stevenson was a Christian like his readers, ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ is obviously about more than just the eternal battle between good and evil. Stevenson also uses this story to show the hypocrisy of Victorian society; the duality of what people say and what they do, and of appearance and reality. A large amount of the novella involves the protection of reputation. Utterson works hard at trying to prevent Dr Jekyll from being dragged into the affairs of Mr Hyde, to the extent that when sir Danvers Carew is murdered Utterson does not tell the police about Hyde’s connection with Dr Jekyll but confronts him himself. This also shows how Stevenson uses all his characters to convey duality because Utterson’s actions here directly contradict his legal profession, this also shows hypocrisy. Reputation is shown throughout the novella as being all important, all the characters are members of the Victorian upper class and are acutely aware of social expectations and the importance of status. This creates a number of silences within the text as all the characters are also aware that reputation is undone by words; “here is another lesson to say nothing” says Utterson in the first chapter as he and Mr Enfield decide not to be explicit about the name on the cheque, leaving the reader curious. The theme of hypocrisy or contradiction is even embodied in the setting; especially Jekyll’s house which in a way epitomises the idea used throughout the novella of an attractive, elegant surface or veneer that hides a sordid, sinister underside. In the way that Jekyll’s house contrasts with the dark, ominous dissecting rooms where Hyde lives, which we later find out is the back entrance. This is somewhat a metaphor for the Jekyll and Hyde relationship: two entities that seem to contrast each other to a great extent that we later find out are one and the same.
The Victorian emphasis on appearance and reputation is also what drives Jekyll to endeavour in his experiment- as he feels that his responsibilities as Dr Jekyll have prevented him in indulging in what he really wants to do. The tension between responsibility and freedom, between conscience and immorality is also prevalent in this text. “I had to drink the cup, to doff at once the body of the noted professor, and to assume like a thick cloak, that of Edward Hyde” Jekyll uses his alter ego to evade responsibility and almost as a scapegoat so that he is not forced to confront himself or his conscience. Although Jekyll’s actions as Hyde are in many ways shameful, his desperation to free himself from his uncontrollable urges is in many ways what makes Jekyll such a sympathetic and likable character. Because any reader, especially one living in Victorian times when social attitudes were much more restrictive than they are now, can relate to the constant internal struggle between principles and desires. Or the choice between constantly suppressing your instinct or living in moral shame; as Jekyll says: “to cast my lot with Jekyll was to die to those appetites which I had long secretly indulged”.
However, although Jekyll has no control over Hyde, he makes a conscious decision to become him, making him effectively responsible for everything he does. Therefore Stevenson has created another dual choice for the reader; is Jekyll a tragic hero or an anti-hero?
Stevenson’s dissection of the human psyche is remarkably similar to Freud’s fourteen years later. Freud came up with the theory that humans consist of three different parts: the ‘ego’, the ‘id’ and the ‘superego’. Although this plurality of the psyche seems to contradict Stevenson’s idea of duality these entire three elements do actually exist within Dr Jekyll. The ‘ego’ is the civilised, self-interested part governed by common sense and social convention; this is Dr. Jekyll as a composite. The ‘Id’ is the primitive, uncivilised part governed by subliminal and uncontrollable urges; this is obviously Mr Hyde. The ‘superego’ is the moral, idealistic part governed by duty, honour and principles; this part of Jekyll is not referred to until the very last chapter but it is arguably the “angel” that Jekyll was in fact trying to extract from the compound that is man.
“I learned to recognise the thorough and primitive duality of man… of the two natures that contended in the field of my consciousness, even if I could rightly be said to be either, it was only because I was radically both; and from an early date. . . I had learned to dwell with pleasure… on the thought of the separation of these elements.” In this quotation Jekyll talks about the years leading up to his discovery and his intentions. He wanted to separate the good and evil sides of his nature; to free his good side from his immoral urges, and his bad side from the restrictions of conscience. However he obviously fails to do this, instead he merely frees his evil side, Hyde, who then eventually becomes dominant. Freud’s theory alleged that the ‘ego’ and the ‘superego’ were needed to censor the ‘id’, in order to create a socially safe and stable human. Therefore maybe the reason that Hyde dominates Jekyll is because he needs jekyll’s ego and superego to control him. Or maybe Jekyll was wrong about man’s two sides being equally balanced; maybe he was slightly more evil than good, as he himself says: “had I risked the experiment while under the empire of generous or pious aspirations, all must have been otherwise, and from these agonies of death and birth I had come forth an angel instead of a fiend.” – Here he suggests that it was his selfish intentions that led to Hyde (the ‘id’) prevailing over the angel (the ‘superego’). There is no definite answer to this question and Stevenson deliberately leaves it open for the reader to make their own choice; thereby using duality of meaning in order to leave the reader questioning their own beliefs and morals.
