‘[M]an is not truly one, but truly two.’
‘Divided identity’ and the ‘duplicity of life’ (p81) form the central idea explored in Robert Louis Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In 1886, the same year as the novel’s publication, reviewer, James Ashcroft, observed that ‘Appearances are deceitful’ and that despite it being published as a ‘shilling-shocker’, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde provides a ‘marvellous exploration into the recesses of human nature’. Stevenson has expertly weaved ‘doubleness’ into all aspects of the novel, with some of the most striking depictions of this idea being presented through narrative voice and structure, symbolism and setting. ‘Divided identity’ in Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, presents
The way in which Stevenson structures his novel as a case study; a compilation of different documents placed in juxtaposition is significant when examining the novel in terms of its representation of ‘divided identity’. The novel is not divided into chapters but rather into ‘sections’, creating a fragmented narrative, full of contradictions and ambiguity. Stevenson also adds elements of the ‘detective novel’, with Utterson playing detective, attempting to solve the mystery of Hyde: ‘‘If he is Mr Hyde,’ he had thought, ‘I shall be Mr Seek.’’ (p38). Stevenson presents us with a piece of literature which simultaneously mimics a ‘high-brow’ scientific investigation and a ‘low-brow’ ‘shilling shocker’. The novel does not fit neatly into just one of these categories, reflecting Jekyll himself, who can be neither purely ‘good’ nor ‘evil’, but is ‘radically both’ (p82).
Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde contains many narrative perspectives, meaning the narrative voice itself has a ‘divided identity’. In the opening section of the novel, Stevenson uses third person narrative in the form of an omniscient narrator: ‘Mr Utterson the lawyer was a man of rugged countenance, that was never lighted with a smile.’ (p29). However, in the final section of the novel we see events from Jekyll’s perspective through his Confession. Jekyll speaks of the first time he used the formula to transform into Hyde: ‘I stole through the corridors, a stranger in my own house’ (p84). At this point, Jekyll refers to Hyde as ‘I’, recognising that Hyde is a part of his own identity, but later into the narrative Jekyll denounces that he and Hyde are connected and considers them as two completely separate identities: ‘He, I say- I cannot say I.’ (p94). This is a particularly poignant moment as it highlights that Jekyll has allowed Hyde’s individual identity to develop to the point where he is his own character and no longer simply an extension of Jekyll’s.
Stevenson uses symbolism to create physical manifestations of Jekyll’s sense of ‘divided identity’. The potion which Jekyll uses to transform into Hyde is perhaps the most significant symbol in the whole of the novel. Jekyll states that ‘The drug had no discriminating action […] but it shook the prisonhouse of [his] disposition; and […] that which stood within ran forth.’ (p85). Jekyll sees the potion as an escape from social constraints and a way to pursue his ‘undignifie[d]’ ‘pleasures’ (p86). The potion created a manifestation of ‘the lower elements in [his] soul’ (p83). Critics have pointed out that this idea bears striking resemblance to Freud’s theories on the ‘pleasure principle’ and the ‘reality principle’. To read Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in a Freudian context is to categorise Jekyll as the ‘superego’: the conscience in control of all conscious thought, and Hyde as the ‘id’; a creature that lives on instinct and impulse and represents our most primal desires. O’Keeffe argues that Jekyll is bound by social convention and represses his ‘dark impulses’ and that through the potion he is released from the burden of his conscience.
The mirror in Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde depicts the contrasting appearances of Jekyll and Hyde and the way in which Jekyll perceives this to be the contrast between good and evil. Though we seem to be seeing through Jekyll’s eyes, it is Hyde whose appearance is reflected back in the mirror. Jekyll sees the essence of Hyde’s character through his appearance and compares it to his own. He says that ‘Good shone on the countenance of one [Jekyll], evil was written broadly on the face of the other [Hyde].” (p84). Critic Kevin Mills observes the parallels between this moment and the ideas discussed by St Paul in Romans 7 in the New Testament :
19b For I do not do the good that I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want, cit is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Stevenson’s Presbyterian Calvinist upbringing impacts his portrayal of ‘divided identity’ here as he inherited a ‘sharply overdefined opposition between good and evil’. The idea that good and evil cannot co-exist in one person and that Jekyll’s attempt to separate them ultimately fails as whilst Hyde is ‘pure evil’ (p85), Jekyll is not entirely ‘good’. He succumbs to temptation and greed and refuses to accept responsibility for the misfortunes which have befallen him. This warped sense of his own identity further develops the idea of ‘divided identity’ because the reader can see the disparities between Jekyll’s perceived identity and reality.
The strict social conventions of Victorian society meant that people had to conceal aspects of their character which were in any way unconventional or did not fit in with Victorian values, thus effectively creating a totally separate identity to mask their ‘irregularities’ (p81) with. In Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, this idea is represented through doors. Over the years, critics such as O’Keeffe have suggested that Stevenson uses doors in the novel to imply homosexuality. Jekyll’s house has two entrances, one which he uses when he is Jekyll, and the other when he is Hyde. Whenever we see Hyde enter the house, he does so through the ‘back passage’ (p88), through a door described as ‘equipped with neither bell nor knocker, […] blistered and distained.’ (p30). It is clear that Stevenson wants us to look critically upon this unkempt and dilapidated entrance; to see it as below the standard expected in a civilised society and hence, outside the realm of respectability. Furthermore, O’Keeffe goes on to suggest that the ‘back passage’ (p88) is in fact a crude euphemism for homosexual intercourse. To analyse this idea using ‘Queer theory’, it can be suggested that this reflects the taboo nature of homosexuality in the nineteenth century. Jekyll in contrast, uses the front entrance, where ‘the door […] wore a great air of wealth and comfort’ (p40). This highlights that Jekyll actively upholds social values and at least maintains the facade of respectability. However, the reader knows that as Hyde, Jekyll continues ‘drinking pleasure with bestial avidity’ (p86). Therefore, Jekyll is not the ‘model-gentlemen’ he is perceived to be, stressing the idea of a division of identity which we are compelled to undertake in order to be accepted into society.
London is a key aspect to Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as it is a representation of the ‘profound duplicity of life’. The entire novel is based in London, with no characters leaving or coming in. Yet even though we stay in one place, the reader cannot help but notice the contrasting elements with co-exist within the city. The juxtaposition of both the light and darkness of London perhaps mirrors the ‘goodness’ and ‘evil’ which fight for dominance over the course of the novel. London is described as possessing both ‘an air of invitation’ (p30) and ‘Labyrinths of lamp-lighted city’ (p37). Nash points out that this may well be a comment on urban society; the division between rich and poor as despite their proximity, the two sides remain static from one another and thus London exists as two cities within one. This idea of two identities contained in one body mimics the representation of ‘divided identity’ in the characters of Jekyll and Hyde.
The representation of fog in Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde contributes significantly to the idea of a battle for dominance between two powerful forces of nature. The fog is presented as being almost human in its behaviour. It ‘lifted a little and showed him a dingy street […] next moment the fog settled down again upon that part’ (p48) The fog is presented as changeable and unpredictable, and in this sense, it embodies Hyde who acts out of pure impulse and instinct. However, the fog’s presence is constantly being threatened and attacked as ‘the wind was continually charging and routing these embattled vapours.’ (p48). If the fog represents Hyde at this moment, then it could reasonably be suggested that the wind is Jekyll; fighting for dominance over his darker self. Moreover, the suffocating, oppressive nature of the fog is claustrophobic and gives the sense of entrapment which reflects the fact that this is an internal power-struggle, with Jekyll and Hyde both trying to overpower the other and take control of their body as sole identity.
In Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Stevenson represents ‘divided identity’ in numerous ways and in fact there are so many different ideas through which these divisions are explored over the course of the novel further stresses the fragmented state of Jekyll’s identity. These divisions are contained however, within tight a framework of structure and further encased by London itself. Stevenson presents to us the idea that Jekyll is so fixated with the idea of becoming good, he neglects the fact that one needs both virtues and flaws to form a fully-rounded identity.