Dr Hyde Frankenstein Analysis
Whereas Victor creates and then rejects his creation, Henry does not, he sees his creation as an alter ego, and whilst Edward lacks the innocence of Victors monster; ‘an unknown but not an innocent freedom of the soul. I knew myself, at the first breath of this new life, to be more wicked, tenfold more wicked, sold a slave to my original evil; and the thought, in that moment, braced and delighted me like wine. ’ His creation is embraced by Henry, as a means to escape from the Victorian necessity to conform as a member of the respectable, professional, upper middle class, and to be a public example of morality and strict virtue. Another fear of Victorian society at the time, was that Britain’s empire interests could lead to degeneration in the form of gentlemen travelling to the dark continent, subsequently ‘going native. ’ This is a theme that is
…show more content…
explored more fully in Joseph Conrad’s 1899 publication, A Heart of Darkness. However, Punter argues that Louis-Stevenson exploits this fear, to show that the empire is ‘founded not only on racial supremacy, but on moral superiority. ’ It is that superiority that delineates the civilised from the monsters and beasts, with Edward representing ‘an urban version’ of this fear, even in name he represents that part of Henry that must remain hidden, separated from his public responsibilities as a man of moral virtue and duty, Edward is the monstrous nature of Henry lurking beneath his respectable veneer.
In the same way that Frankenstein serves to highlight the undermining of the position of women in society, so do Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and The Island of Doctor Moreau. The novels largely exclude women, showing a world that is primarily composed of leisured upper middle class bachelors. The only real mention of women in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, is in relation to the actions of Edward, the incident with a young female child where Edward; ‘trampled calmly over the, child’s body and left her screaming on the ground. ’ Her purpose serves to highlight the difference between the civilised and morally virtuous public persona, and the possibility of the monster beneath, with the reaction of the doctor called to attend the child. Initially, Richard Enfield deems the man to be ‘as emotional as a bagpipe,’ however, as the scene progresses, Richard notices
that every time the doctor looks to Edward; ‘that sawbones turned sick and white with a desire to kill him. ’ Harriet Hustis posits, that at this point, the doctor’s loathing of Edward ‘vividly dramatizes Nietzsche’s suggestion that at this ‘threshold’ phase of the ‘extra moral,’ ‘decisive value,’ resides in the unintentional. ’ A scandal is avoided by payment of money to the father of the child, reinforcing the ethos of woman as property. Other instances of references to women in the novel are unflattering, Edward’s housekeeper is referred to as; ‘an ivory-faced and silvery-haired old woman[…] she had an evil face, smoothed by hypocrisy; but her manners were excellent. ’ Which would appear to indicate that whilst she is a less evolved character; and is not of high standard or with noble belief, at least she adheres to the Victorian ideal of standards in terms of her manners. Later, when Mr Utterson attends the property of Henry; ‘At the sight of Mr. Utterson, the housemaid broke into hysterical whimpering; and the cook, crying out, ‘Bless God! it’s Mr. Utterson,’ [...]. ’ The role of women throughout the novel serves to reinforce the view that women are subordinate to men and have a lower standing, as set out by Erasmus Darwin. This opinion was later reinforced in the writings of Charles Darwin, who along with George Romanes claimed that through evolution, women were increasingly less cerebral, more emotional, and less highly evolved than males.
Public fear of the reversion of the species, the fear of the threat that if evolution is a ladder, it might well be possible to travel down rather than up, gives great significance to Edward’s monstrous mien, and is highlighted in the novel as; ‘a punishment and a danger that I cannot name. ’ Edward is also consistently described as possessing deformities, although the deformities themselves are never fully described. In the second chapter of the novel, Utterson alludes to something from Henry’s past that may be coming to claim him: ‘my mind misgives me he is in deep waters! He was wild when he was young; a long while ago to be sure; but in the law of God, there is no statute of limitations. Ay, it must be that; the ghost of some old sin, the cancer of some concealed disgrace: punishment coming, PEDE CLAUDO, years after memory has forgotten and self-love condoned the fault. ’
Henry’s price for Edward, serves to confirm Victorian societies post Darwinian fears of degeneration, and the perils of what might happen should those lines of what is considered to be decent and morally superior be crossed.
Wells addressed some of the same concerns and anxieties in his 1896 novel, The Island of Doctor Moreau. The novel uses similar themes to those employed by Victor and Henry, to enable Moreau to cross the boundaries of what is normal. As with Victor, Moreau appropriates the position of God whilst violating the laws of nature by creating life without woman, with equally disastrous consequences. However, where Victor trawled graveyards and charnel houses for body parts for his creation. Moreau, vivisects live animals, splicing animal parts together to form his own human like creations. Wells uses scientific practices that were considered to be legitimate in his time to show that social anxieties had progressed, using similar themes and theories to Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, to example societies concerns regarding the practices of vivisectionists. The moral, social, and scientific aspirations are the same in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde as they are in Frankenstein. However, where Shelley and Wells seek to make a man separate from Victor and Moreau, Edward stems from the conflict between Henry’s private and public persona. Comparably, the novel relies and exploits, as do Frankenstein and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, the public anxieties regarding scientific progress and the direction of that progress in terms of moral guidance, or the lack thereof. Moreau does not consider the pain of his animals as something monstrous, to be enjoyed or celebrated. He does not consider their pain to be a relevant factor, viewing it as a necessary by product of the process of scientific achievement.
Moreau compares his creations to the surgical procedures applied to humans by surgeons, exampling the paramedian forehead flap procedure, used in nasal reconstruction, as his means of comparison to his animal merging experiments. Explaining that it is possible to merge animals, that his creations are; ‘monsters manufactured by transferring a slip from the tail of an ordinary rat to its snout, and allowing it to heal in that position. ’ This discourse, explicitly addresses the anxieties regarding scientific progress in the field of surgery and the danger of that crossing over to vivisection. Moreau further exacerbates those anxieties by inserting plausible similarities into the narrative with; ‘Such creatures as the Siamese Twins—And in the vaults of the Inquisition. No doubt their chief aim was artistic torture, but some at least of the inquisitors must have had a touch of scientific curiosity. ’ The comparison between his experiments and legitimate surgical procedures, serve to specifically highlight the growing public concerns regarding the lack of moral guidance with regard to scientific advancement. His allusion to the Inquisition, reaffirms Punters argument regarding; ‘the hidden violence of present social structures […].
The image of man as God, is compounded by Moreau, as he adopts the position of God passing his commandments to Moses, with the laws that he puts into place for his manufactured monsters; ‘Not to go on all-fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men? […] ’ Moreau takes his role as God further by indoctrinating his monsters with his own Eucharist, and by making them learn a litany of his own design; ‘His is the House of Pain. […] ’ Lyn Pickett argues that Moreau anchors the monsters’ imagination by fixing these laws into their minds, ‘beyond any possibility of disobedience or dispute. ’ Whilst, Prendick suspects as much, positing the possibility that Moreau has infected the brains of his monstrous creations with a deification of himself. Moreau, crosses the lines of normality by adopting this position, and as with Victor and Henry, his creations lead to his demise.
In conclusion, the main concerns in terms of the significance of monsters, is the ability to discern what is normal and what is monstrous. This can only be measured by which character is identified as the monster to begin with. Punter and Byron argue that this is through ‘appearance or behaviour. ’ However, this can only be gauged by an individual concept of what is normal and what is monstrous, as determined by the free will that is innately human. Which of the characters elicits sympathy or contempt, the reaction of which is governed by the unique response of an individual’s own moral compass. The characters serve to show the process by which human beings create and become monsters, that the monsters who are the most terrifying, are not the creations, but the men who create them themselves. Plausibly, the function of the female role in the three novels is to address the argument that women, being less evolved than men, and being created of Adams rib, are significant as monsters of man’s creation. As all three of the selected novels demonstrate, making any clear distinction between monstrosity and humanity is challenging. All of the monsters are significant, they represent the particular fears expressed by society at the time the novels were written, they are societies worst possible scenarios, demonstrated to their final conclusion. If any of the monster's appearances are a discernible warning to the society at the time in which they were written, it is predominantly a warning against the recklessness demonstrated with the portrayal of Victor, Henry and Moreau. The significance of each of the manufactured monsters, is as a visual representation of the public fears of their time. Conversely, the significance of the human monsters who created them, is that they serve as a warning against the lack of moral fortitude when engaging in scientific practices.
explored more fully in Joseph Conrad’s 1899 publication, A Heart of Darkness. However, Punter argues that Louis-Stevenson exploits this fear, to show that the empire is ‘founded not only on racial supremacy, but on moral superiority. ’ It is that superiority that delineates the civilised from the monsters and beasts, with Edward representing ‘an urban version’ of this fear, even in name he represents that part of Henry that must remain hidden, separated from his public responsibilities as a man of moral virtue and duty, Edward is the monstrous nature of Henry lurking beneath his respectable veneer.
In the same way that Frankenstein serves to highlight the undermining of the position of women in society, so do Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and The Island of Doctor Moreau. The novels largely exclude women, showing a world that is primarily composed of leisured upper middle class bachelors. The only real mention of women in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, is in relation to the actions of Edward, the incident with a young female child where Edward; ‘trampled calmly over the, child’s body and left her screaming on the ground. ’ Her purpose serves to highlight the difference between the civilised and morally virtuous public persona, and the possibility of the monster beneath, with the reaction of the doctor called to attend the child. Initially, Richard Enfield deems the man to be ‘as emotional as a bagpipe,’ however, as the scene progresses, Richard notices
that every time the doctor looks to Edward; ‘that sawbones turned sick and white with a desire to kill him. ’ Harriet Hustis posits, that at this point, the doctor’s loathing of Edward ‘vividly dramatizes Nietzsche’s suggestion that at this ‘threshold’ phase of the ‘extra moral,’ ‘decisive value,’ resides in the unintentional. ’ A scandal is avoided by payment of money to the father of the child, reinforcing the ethos of woman as property. Other instances of references to women in the novel are unflattering, Edward’s housekeeper is referred to as; ‘an ivory-faced and silvery-haired old woman[…] she had an evil face, smoothed by hypocrisy; but her manners were excellent. ’ Which would appear to indicate that whilst she is a less evolved character; and is not of high standard or with noble belief, at least she adheres to the Victorian ideal of standards in terms of her manners. Later, when Mr Utterson attends the property of Henry; ‘At the sight of Mr. Utterson, the housemaid broke into hysterical whimpering; and the cook, crying out, ‘Bless God! it’s Mr. Utterson,’ [...]. ’ The role of women throughout the novel serves to reinforce the view that women are subordinate to men and have a lower standing, as set out by Erasmus Darwin. This opinion was later reinforced in the writings of Charles Darwin, who along with George Romanes claimed that through evolution, women were increasingly less cerebral, more emotional, and less highly evolved than males.
Public fear of the reversion of the species, the fear of the threat that if evolution is a ladder, it might well be possible to travel down rather than up, gives great significance to Edward’s monstrous mien, and is highlighted in the novel as; ‘a punishment and a danger that I cannot name. ’ Edward is also consistently described as possessing deformities, although the deformities themselves are never fully described. In the second chapter of the novel, Utterson alludes to something from Henry’s past that may be coming to claim him: ‘my mind misgives me he is in deep waters! He was wild when he was young; a long while ago to be sure; but in the law of God, there is no statute of limitations. Ay, it must be that; the ghost of some old sin, the cancer of some concealed disgrace: punishment coming, PEDE CLAUDO, years after memory has forgotten and self-love condoned the fault. ’
Henry’s price for Edward, serves to confirm Victorian societies post Darwinian fears of degeneration, and the perils of what might happen should those lines of what is considered to be decent and morally superior be crossed.
Wells addressed some of the same concerns and anxieties in his 1896 novel, The Island of Doctor Moreau. The novel uses similar themes to those employed by Victor and Henry, to enable Moreau to cross the boundaries of what is normal. As with Victor, Moreau appropriates the position of God whilst violating the laws of nature by creating life without woman, with equally disastrous consequences. However, where Victor trawled graveyards and charnel houses for body parts for his creation. Moreau, vivisects live animals, splicing animal parts together to form his own human like creations. Wells uses scientific practices that were considered to be legitimate in his time to show that social anxieties had progressed, using similar themes and theories to Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, to example societies concerns regarding the practices of vivisectionists. The moral, social, and scientific aspirations are the same in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde as they are in Frankenstein. However, where Shelley and Wells seek to make a man separate from Victor and Moreau, Edward stems from the conflict between Henry’s private and public persona. Comparably, the novel relies and exploits, as do Frankenstein and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, the public anxieties regarding scientific progress and the direction of that progress in terms of moral guidance, or the lack thereof. Moreau does not consider the pain of his animals as something monstrous, to be enjoyed or celebrated. He does not consider their pain to be a relevant factor, viewing it as a necessary by product of the process of scientific achievement.
Moreau compares his creations to the surgical procedures applied to humans by surgeons, exampling the paramedian forehead flap procedure, used in nasal reconstruction, as his means of comparison to his animal merging experiments. Explaining that it is possible to merge animals, that his creations are; ‘monsters manufactured by transferring a slip from the tail of an ordinary rat to its snout, and allowing it to heal in that position. ’ This discourse, explicitly addresses the anxieties regarding scientific progress in the field of surgery and the danger of that crossing over to vivisection. Moreau further exacerbates those anxieties by inserting plausible similarities into the narrative with; ‘Such creatures as the Siamese Twins—And in the vaults of the Inquisition. No doubt their chief aim was artistic torture, but some at least of the inquisitors must have had a touch of scientific curiosity. ’ The comparison between his experiments and legitimate surgical procedures, serve to specifically highlight the growing public concerns regarding the lack of moral guidance with regard to scientific advancement. His allusion to the Inquisition, reaffirms Punters argument regarding; ‘the hidden violence of present social structures […].
The image of man as God, is compounded by Moreau, as he adopts the position of God passing his commandments to Moses, with the laws that he puts into place for his manufactured monsters; ‘Not to go on all-fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men? […] ’ Moreau takes his role as God further by indoctrinating his monsters with his own Eucharist, and by making them learn a litany of his own design; ‘His is the House of Pain. […] ’ Lyn Pickett argues that Moreau anchors the monsters’ imagination by fixing these laws into their minds, ‘beyond any possibility of disobedience or dispute. ’ Whilst, Prendick suspects as much, positing the possibility that Moreau has infected the brains of his monstrous creations with a deification of himself. Moreau, crosses the lines of normality by adopting this position, and as with Victor and Henry, his creations lead to his demise.
In conclusion, the main concerns in terms of the significance of monsters, is the ability to discern what is normal and what is monstrous. This can only be measured by which character is identified as the monster to begin with. Punter and Byron argue that this is through ‘appearance or behaviour. ’ However, this can only be gauged by an individual concept of what is normal and what is monstrous, as determined by the free will that is innately human. Which of the characters elicits sympathy or contempt, the reaction of which is governed by the unique response of an individual’s own moral compass. The characters serve to show the process by which human beings create and become monsters, that the monsters who are the most terrifying, are not the creations, but the men who create them themselves. Plausibly, the function of the female role in the three novels is to address the argument that women, being less evolved than men, and being created of Adams rib, are significant as monsters of man’s creation. As all three of the selected novels demonstrate, making any clear distinction between monstrosity and humanity is challenging. All of the monsters are significant, they represent the particular fears expressed by society at the time the novels were written, they are societies worst possible scenarios, demonstrated to their final conclusion. If any of the monster's appearances are a discernible warning to the society at the time in which they were written, it is predominantly a warning against the recklessness demonstrated with the portrayal of Victor, Henry and Moreau. The significance of each of the manufactured monsters, is as a visual representation of the public fears of their time. Conversely, the significance of the human monsters who created them, is that they serve as a warning against the lack of moral fortitude when engaging in scientific practices.