In thinking about The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and an earlier discussion we had about the book as a tragedy, it struck me that this book is in some ways similar to Oedipus Rex. In that play, there is a conflict between knowing and not knowing. Oedipus is put into a situation in which he has a great desire to acquire knowledge (discovering who killed the ex-King Laius will stop the town’s suffering). When characters begin to deduce that Oedipus himself is guilty, they begin counseling him against the acquisition of knowledge in this connection. They realize that, by his own edict, knowing this will be fatal to him. In Jekyll and Hyde, such a conflict is seen in the relationship between Lanyon and Jekyll/Hyde. For both Lanyon and Jekyll, coming to know what Jekyll discovers about the nature of humankind is fatal. They would have both been better not knowing.
A closer analogy, though, exists between this novel and a Christian idea about knowledge. In the following passage, Stevenson draws heavily upon the Biblical story of the temptation of Eve by the serpent:
"And now," said he, "to settle what remains. Will you be wise? will you be guided? will you suffer me to take this glass in my hand and to go forth from your house without further parley? or has the greed of curiosity too much command of you? Think before you answer, for it shall be done as you decide. As you decide, you shall be left as you were before, and neither richer nor wiser, unless the sense of service rendered to a man in mortal distress may be counted as a kind of riches of the soul. Or, if you shall so prefer to choose, a new province of knowledge and new avenues to fame and power shall be laid open to you, here, in this room, upon the instant; and your sight shall be blasted by a prodigy to stagger the unbelief of Satan."
"Sir," said I, affecting a coolness that I was far from truly possessing, "you speak enigmas, and you will perhaps not wonder that I hear you with no very strong impression of belief. But I have gone too far in the way of inexplicable services to pause before I see the end."
"It is well," replied my visitor. "Lanyon, you remember your vows: what follows is under the seal of our profession. And now, you who have so long been bound to the most narrow and material views, you who have denied the virtue of transcendental medicine, you who have derided your superiors -- behold!"
He put the glass to his lips and drank at one gulp. (p. 53)
Hyde, who is speaking to Lanyon in this excerpt, has been equated with Satan many times in the story to this point. He is the serpent to Lanyon’s Eve, and the terms of the two literary seductions are similar – a gain in knowledge and wisdom. Both “taste of the fruit”; both die as a direct result. The argument seems to be that there are some things that one shouldn’t know, and that Lanyon was wise in his earlier scientific disagreements with Jekyll, refusing to go with him into the realms of “transcendental medicine”.
The long passage just quoted has another important significance as well. At this point, even though Hyde is speaking, he is doing so from the perspective of Jekyll. Despite Jekyll’s explanation later that “Hyde was indifferent to Jekyll, or but remembered him as the mountain bandit remembers the cavern in which he conceals himself from pursuit” (p. 63), as Hyde speaks to Lanyon, it is with a full understanding and memory of the scientific dispute that has been simmering between them for years. Early in the story, Lanyon describes to Utterson his feelings about Jekyll:
"I suppose, Lanyon," said he, "you and I must be the two oldest friends that Henry Jekyll has?"
"I wish the friends were younger," chuckled Dr. Lanyon. "But I suppose we are. And what of that? I see little of him now."
"Indeed?" said Utterson. "I thought you had a bond of common interest."
"We had," was the reply. "But it is more than ten years since Henry Jekyll became too fanciful for me. He began to go wrong, wrong in mind; and though of course I continue to take an interest in him for old sake's sake, as they say, I see and I have seen devilish little of the man. Such unscientific balderdash," added the doctor, flushing suddenly purple, "would have estranged Damon and Pythias." (p. 12)
The sense of estrangement is, then, clear from Lanyon’s side. As for Jekyll -- just a few pages later he discusses his feelings for Lanyon with Utterson as well:
A close observer might have gathered that the topic was distasteful; but the doctor carried it off gaily. "My poor Utterson," said he, "you are unfortunate in such a client. I never saw a man so distressed as you were by my will; unless it were that hide-bound pedant, Lanyon, at what he called my scientific heresies. O, I know he's a good fellow -- you needn't frown -- an excellent fellow, and I always mean to see more of him; but a hide-bound pedant for all that; an ignorant, blatant pedant. I was never more disappointed in any man than Lanyon." (p. 19)
Jekyll speaks of a similar estrangement, then, though in stronger language. It is this background that underlies the sense of triumph as Hyde speaks to Lanyon about Jekyll’s discoveries, and that the knowledge he is about to reveal falls under the “seal of our profession” (p. 53). That profession is surely Jekyll’s, not Hyde’s, and the conflict with Lanyon concerns only Jekyll, not Hyde.
Why does Stevenson have Hyde speak so fully as Jekyll at this point? It seems to me there are two possible answers: he loses control of his characters with respect to what they should know, or, he is showing some kind of development in Hyde, who is becoming more fully Jekyll even as Jekyll is disappearing into thin air.
3 comments:
I agree with Dr. Adams point of saying that Hyde's begins to speak in more fully structured sentences as he begins to transform into Jekyll more often. This could be a sign that he is just losing control of the character as a result to maybe the increaing level of the impure subsatnce in the salt found in the potion that transforms Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde. However, I believe that as Dr. Jekyll begins to transform into Mr. Hyde more often, Hyde begins to take some of Jekyll's character. SInce Dr. Jekyll no longer turns into Mr. Hyde every so often, Hyde now is seeing more of Jekyll's character inside of him. We can not be certain about whether this is true or not but it is certain that as Dr. Jekyll begins to spontaniously transform into Mr. Hyde, Jekyll's character begins to show more and more in Mr. Hyde.
If you all would allow me to interject here and throw my two cents worth into the pot, I would be much obliged.
Of course I have not been able to hear your discussions of the parallels Dr. Adams is drawing between Jekyll and Hyde, and Eve and the serpent, but I think this is an extremely important concept that should be unpacked in your discussions.
We have all heard the cliche that "ignorance is bliss"; however, I think we overlook the impact this statement has upon our worldviews. Is this a legitimate statement? We all, at some time or another, reminisce about the bliss of childhood ignorance and yet are bombarded in academic environments with the idea that the "unexamined life is not worth living". Where, then, is the balance?
Is there even a distinction between wisdom and knowledge? We see, for example, that Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge while Dr. Jekyll feasted on the tree of scientific knowledge and fact. Surely we cannot equate fact with wisdom. What, then, are we doing in school? Is our purpose really to acquire wisdom and be formed as people? Or are we simply trying to build up our inventory of knowledge?
John Ortberg argues that humanity's greatest desire is to "know and be known". Where are we on our search for Truth? Are we even seeking it? Why is our society centred on knowledge? Why does the Western culture have more self help programs than any other culture?
Well there's my tangent for today. Perhaps not the most profound literary comment, but helpful philosophical questions and applications.
In my opinion, negative impact on the friendship between Lanyon and Jekyll is caused by the scientific discovery Jekyll made.
As we all know, both Jekyll and Lanyon are both scientists and very old friends ("you [Lanyon] and I must be the two oldest friends that Henry Jekyll has?"). As they both have the same profession, I think that there was always a small competition between those two. In the end, Jekyll finally discovers the portion- and who is the first person he demonstrates his success to? Right, Lanyon. This brought me to the conclusion that Jekyll's "breakthrough" is the final victory of the discussion which they might have had over the years. This would also explain the negative opinion and the frustration Lanyons demonstrates when Jekyll's name is mentioned by Utterson ("[Jekyll] began to go wrong, wrong in mind...", "Such unscientific balderdash.")
Furthermore, Jekyll's antipathy for Lanyon ("unless it were that hide-bound pedant") can also be described with the competition between them. When Jekyll finally demonstrates his victory (by sending Hyde and taking the portion) he probably expected his old friend to be impressed and astonished. Lanyon, however, does quite the opposite- he is frightened and does not want to believe what he saw, neither gives he credit to Jekyll's discovery. Moreover he first refuses to believe that he was proved wrong.
Post a Comment