Comparing Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde By Robert Louis Stevenson

Nathaniel Hawthorne once wrote, “No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.” Such proved to be the case in Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson. Stevenson’s strategic illustration of the dual nature of man asserted “man is not truly one, but truly two” (Stevenson 48). In people there existed a sort of “ever present but submerged” half that was far less refined than their other more reputable half. This dual nature, according to Walter Houghton’s excerpt, Hypocrisy, arose due to societies need for conformity and evasion: the hallmarks of the Victorian era. The Victorian era was notorious for its

Hyde undoubtedly fulfilled the “evil” part of man’s dual nature. In society, he was first regarded as the man who “trampled calmly over [a] child’s body and left her screaming on the ground” (Stevenson 9). Later, he became known as the man who brutally beat another man to death. Victorian men feared the ruthless Hyde and as a result, any man asked to give a description of him described a sort of unknown disgust and loathing within his appearance.

Mr. Hyde was pale and dwarfish, he gave an impression of deformity without any nameable malformation, he had a displeasing smile, he had borne himself to the lawyer with a sort of murderous mixture of timidity and boldness, and he spoke with a husky, whispering and somewhat broken voice; all these were points against him, but not all of these together could explain the hitherto unknown disgust, loathing and fear with which Mr. Utterson regarded him. (Stevenson 17)

Although he was not ugly in physical appearance, people were naturally repelled by him. Perhaps the reason men viewed Hyde with such disgust and terror was because they recognized him in a part of their own nature: the part they worked so hard to keep suppressed. Ultimately, Robert Louis Stevenson used Mr. Hyde as a representation of the suppressed part of man’s dual

Houghton wrote there existed “a process of deliberately ignoring whatever was unpleasant, and pretending it did not exist; which led in turn to the further insincerity of pretending that the happy view of things was the whole truth” (Houghton 148). Such a case of ignorance towards the unpleasant can be seen as Mr. Enfield and Mr. Utterson spoke about the door Hyde was seen entering after trampling a child. This circumstances of this event appeared to be a risky conversation topic because it challenged Victorian society by revealing an undesirable part of society. Mr. Enfield gave his reasoning behind never inquiring about the door:

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 have 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. (Stevenson