Both of these brutal attacks show malice and unspeakable cruelty; they share the common link of being completely unprovoked and having been inflicted on seemingly ‘innocent’ people.
It is also evident in the way he speaks. He is short with Utterson on their chance encounter, he only asks direct questions, and has little time for socialising. He appears rude, obnoxious, and vicious, lashing out verbally, as well as physically.
“What do you want?” “How did you know me?” “What shall it be?” “Whose description?” “Who are they?” ‘with a flush of anger, “I did not think you would have lied.”’
Jekyll, on the other hand is his almost exact opposite. He has a warm personality and is well liked by the people who know him.
‘the doctor gave one of his pleasant dinners,’
‘One’ tells us it is not uncommon for Jekyll to have dinner parties, showing he is quite out-going and sociable.
He is a well-respected chemist who is described as being ‘a large, well-made, smooth-faced man of fifty, with something of a slyish cast perhaps, but every mark of capacity.’
This description shows many layers to the character; his ‘smooth face’ is his public image that has been polished to perfection and is more of a mask that hides his true nature. The ‘slyish cast’ is a crack in this mask revealing his darker leanings. This has echoes of the description Poole gives of Jekyll/Hyde in the laboratory as having ‘a mask upon his face.’
However, apart from being a scientist he does only good and is generally well liked.
In this way Jekyll/Hyde represent inner conflict and the constant battle between good and evil. This is just one view; others believe he may also suffer from split personality complex. This is where people change personalities at random without knowing it.
The fact that he is a scientist means that some people won’t like him, as the era in which the book was written was a very controversial one for the concept of science. The book was written at a time when people were beginning to realise that God hadn’t created earth, that there were perfectly logical explanations for the existence of the world, such as Darwin’s theory of evolution, and were starting to question religion. However not everyone accepted this theory and many believed it to be false. This is the reason that some people thought scientists were blasphemous and frowned upon those who practised scientific experiments (especially if you were trying to do something as preposterous as undoing the Lord’s creations by separating good from evil).
In this way people could argue that Jekyll represents the fall of man, and how we were expelled from Eden. Jekyll gave in to temptation. I am reminded of this quote from another book “Adam didn’t want the apple because he thought it would taste good, he wanted it because it was forbidden.” Jekyll represents the will, as part of human nature, to do something bad. This can be related to a line from An Essay on Criticism by Alexander Pope “To err is human, to forgive divine.” He is saying that to make a mistake or to do something wrong is to be human and forgiveness and patience are god-like virtues worth having. Pope seems to have a similar view on human nature to Stevenson in that they both thought that human nature was what made us do bad things and that to be flawed is to be human.
Jekyll/Hyde truly is a mixture of good and evil. In this way Jekyll’s experiment failed. He set out to separate good and evil and rid himself of evil tendencies. Instead, in some ways he brought them closer together. Before the experiment he was a respectable gentleman, after the experiment he became reclusive, he forced his friends and trusted servants to be suspicious of him and eventually struggled to maintain his own form and state of mind.
Utterson and Enfield also represent human nature quite well. Utterson is another of the books complex characters.
‘never lighted by a smile; cold…embarrassed in discourse…dreary, yet somehow loveable…something eminently human beaconed from his eye…drank gin when he was alone, to mortify a taste for vintages; and though he enjoyed the theatre, he had not crossed the doors of one for twenty years…sometimes wondering, almost with envy’
This description tells us Utterson is dull and cold, untalkative. He is a strange character and it seems hard to believe that he could be loveable. It seems that he has suppressed his emotions and everything that makes him human. He has buried away all interests and indulgences, his taste for fine wines and love of the theatre, although ‘something eminently human beaconed from his eye.’ He drinks alone - is this a sign of depression and loneliness? After all he is ‘never lighted by a smile.’ He envies those less respectable scoundrels who live interesting lives and have fascinating experiences because they do what he was never able to do because of his place in the social class structure. Utterson has suppressed his human nature; he lives a life of self-denial and his joyful side has been pushed under a barrier to shade it from the outside world, revealing nothing
Stranger still is his relationship with Enfield.
‘the well-known man about town…what these two could see in each other, or what subject they could find in common…they said nothing, looked singularly dull.’
Enfield, being ‘the well-known man about town’ is the opposite of the decidedly dull Utterson. They have little in common and aside from being blood relations share few interests and similarities.
They place a high importance on privacy and reputation. This is why Enfield refuses to divulge the name of the cheque-holder: -
“signed with a name I can’t mention”
In the 19th century there was a rigid social class system. A rumour could, and would, ruin a man. In the 19th century upper class people thirsted for an interesting rumour. The saying ‘the idle rich’ tells us why. At the time the richest were those who made money through land ownership or inheritance. These people had no actual work to do and so got bored very quickly; rumours and gossip were therefore very appealing to the wealthy Victorians. This is why they are so secretive and it is the reason that Enfield forced Hyde to pay. He bribed Hyde with the prospect of telling everyone what had happened. No self-respecting gentleman would want this (although is Hyde really a gentleman?).
Utterson and Enfield portray human nature as the blackmailing gossipmongers of society, but also as ordinary people whose only misdeed is being concerned for their good friend, Jekyll. All the main characters have both good and bad sides in one way or another, this is part of Stevenson’s view on human nature. It is also further explored by what happens to Jekyll when the evil part of him (Hyde) takes over.
The minor characters’ thoughts and feelings also portray human nature. The little girl’s family show hatred and greed. They want a payment for the trampling and are disgusted by such a sneering man.
‘they were as wild as harpies. I never saw such a circle of hateful faces.’
The doctor who tends to the trampled girl also reveals the hateful side of human nature. He instantly takes a dislike to Hyde, and Stevenson even goes so far as to say the doctor has the desire to kill him.
‘turned sick and white with the desire to kill him.’
The police officer on the Carew murder case shows greed and ambition.
‘His eyes lighted up with professional ambition.’
It seems he was glad Carew had died because if he solved the murder and caught the killer, then the people who knew Carew in his high social circle would be grateful. This would help him get a promotion. Also I believe that it is part of the nastier side of human nature to want to see others hurt and exposed.
Hyde’s servant shows an unusual interest when she suspects he may be in trouble.
‘She had an evil face, smoothed by hypocrisy…a flash of odious joy appeared upon the woman’s face. “Ah!” said she, “he is in trouble!”’
I think she would be quite happy if he was caught because she hates him. Also due to the same part of human nature as exhibited by the police officer, the will to see others hurt.
All these characters show us the worst in human nature. I believe Stevenson was also commenting on social structure here, as all the people exhibiting the baser traits of human nature are lower middle and working class. Could it be that the average Victorian gentleman’s perception of human nature involved essentially attributing all the base instincts to the lower classes and all the nobler virtues to the upper classes?
The Microsoft Encarta World Dictionary describes human nature as:
‘The typical character that all human beings share, often seen as being imperfect.’
I believe this is what Stevenson was trying to say throughout the book. All human beings share the same basic instincts, and these instincts are what force us to do bad things occasionally. This nature is seen as imperfect because we have no control over it, and it relates to something primitive deep within us that cannot be contained.
This links to Freud’s theory of human nature. Freud’s theory was that there are 3 subconscious active states of the brain. These are the Superego – the typically good side; the Id – the darker evil side to the brain; and the Ego working as the mediator in the middle. His theory suggested that if the Id was totally repressed then human nature could not control it forever and eventually, in some form, it would explode, defying the socially acceptable Superego.
Stevenson’s view could also be linked to the Bible and religion generally, which were very important during the Victorian era. Morals were held in high regard and by having them you would gain great esteem. All his characters possess one or more of the 7 deadly sins: Anger, Envy, Lust, Greed, Gluttony, Vanity, and Sloth. These are things no righteous human being ought to have. They counter-balance the 7 virtues. All his characters possess at least one of these as well: Faith, Hope, Charity, Justice, Fortitude, Prudence, and Temperance. These are things all righteous human beings ought to have. Personally I find it difficult to subscribe to this blinkered and
one-dimensional view of good and evil. No real human being is completely free of sin, just as no human being is completely free of virtue. This is the very essence of human nature, that to be imperfect is to be human, and to some extent this is why Jekyll’s experiment failed. After all, what he was attempting to do was impossible. One cannot separate the two sides of human nature because they are so intrinsically bound together.
I conclude that Stevenson believed everyone had good and bad characteristics. You can’t escape human nature and I think Stevenson realised this. This was a view that was very ahead of its time as Freud was only just forming the basis of psychoanalytical practice.
By Andrew Parker
