This chapter relates the last sighting of Dr Jekyll alive by his friend Gabriel Utterson. It is especially fascinating to me, because of the way Stevenson presents Jekyll partially transforming into Hyde before Utterson and Enfield, without either of them recognising the shift.Their horror at Jekyll’s ‘abject terror’ blinds them to his likely metamorphosis and perpetuates the suspense around the dual identity of Jekyll for a little longer. They do not acknowledge and decipher the change, because the change is impossible from any rational point of view. They do not thus countenance, what must not and cannot exist. They cannot bring such an event to language in any direct way. deferring the revelation of the incredible heightens suspense and leads the reader further into the ‘premature twilight’ of Jekyll’s fallen relationship with his doppleganger, Hyde.
When Dr Lanyon as the rational scientist, witnesses the impossible, the shock kills him. For once the illegibility of Hyde is translated into Jekyll, the consummate, Victorian gentleman, the understanding must destroy the fragile, even hypocritical fabric of self government/composure. Jekyll’s fall is not a singular, exclusive event as this analysis will show, but is a distorted reflection of the secret desires plaguing the Victorian gentlemen both within the novel and without it.
Interestingly, we never find out what Utterson feels about the final two letters in the novel. His reaction to the revelation of Hyde’s identity remains unspoken and unwritten. Stevenson cleverly leaves the reader to guess at what lies beyond the scope of even his imagination. The affection and loyalty that exists between Utterson and Jekyll culminates in Jekyll’s defiant rewriting of the incriminating will. Thus, Utterson’s goodness and enduring love, is rewarded by Jekyll and strangely escapes the condemnation of Hyde. Why, we never find out. Yet another secret in a novel riddled by secrets!
Ironically, as I shall show, this ‘incident at the window‘ bears a bizarre resemblance to the famous balcony scene of Romeo and Juliet and reveals the playfully grotesque intertextuality of Stevenson’s writing. Remember the similarity between Macbeth, Prospero, Jekyll and (His) Hyde, with the references to ill-fitting clothing and the infamous declaration, ‘‘You must suffer me to go on my own dark way.”
So let’s reread the chapter, noticing as ever, the self -conscious irony of the opening phrase, ‘It chanced on Sunday.‘ Why I wonder, do both Utterson and Enfield claim coincidence in the direction and destination of their walk, when the reader KNOWS their destination is by clear design? Perhaps, being a ‘gentleman’ requires the utmost discretion, even to the point of self-delusion?
Look at the narrative investment in finding your ‘way‘ or losing your ‘way ‘ in this novel. Moral and geographical direction appear to collide in this text and become uneasily entwined. So when Enfield and Utterson find their ‘way again‘ to Jekyll’s house, and step into Jekyll’s ‘court‘, perhaps we detect the irony of the setting and the inference perhaps, that Jekyll’s identity is finally ‘on trial’ before his friends.
But who or what is the real spectacle on trial , I wonder? Remember that as we gaze with the gentlemen upon the gloomy Jekyll, ‘Jekyll’ is gazing back and such a returned look, agitates Hyde into precipitate, desperate action. For if Jekyll rejoins the outside, lawful world of Utterson, then his Hyde must be denied expression and life.
This scene reveals Jekyll’s impossible choice and thus foreshdows his death.
So here’s the chapter.
It chanced on Sunday, when Mr. Utterson was on his usual walk with Mr. Enfield, that their way lay once again through the by-street; and that when they came in front of the door, both stopped to gaze on it.
“Well,” said Enfield, “that story’s at an end at least. We shall never see more of Mr. Hyde.”
“I hope not,” said Utterson. “Did I ever tell you that I once saw him, and shared your feeling of repulsion?”
“It was impossible to do the one without the other,” returned Enfield. “And by the way, what an ass you must have thought me, not to know that this was a back way to Dr. Jekyll’s! It was partly your own fault that I found it out, even when I did.”
“So you found it out, did you?” said Utterson. “But if that be so, we may step into the court and take a look at the windows. To tell you the truth, I am uneasy about poor Jekyll; and even outside, I feel as if the presence of a friend might do him good.”
The court was very cool and a little damp, and full of premature twilight, although the sky, high up overhead, was still bright with sunset. The middle one of the three windows was half-way open; and sitting close beside it, taking the air with an infinite sadness of mien, like some disconsolate prisoner, Utterson saw Dr. Jekyll.
“What! Jekyll!” he cried. “I trust you are better.”
“I am very low, Utterson,” replied the doctor, drearily, “very low. It will not last long, thank God.”
“You stay too much indoors,” said the lawyer. “You should be out, whipping up the circulation like Mr. Enfield and me. (This is my cousin — Mr. Enfield — Dr. Jekyll.) Come, now; get your hat and take a quick turn with us.”
“You are very good,” sighed the other. “I should like to very much; but no, no, no, it is quite impossible; I dare not. But indeed, Utterson, I am very glad to see you; this is really a great pleasure; I would ask you and Mr. Enfield up, but the place is really not fit.”
“Why then,” said the lawyer, good-naturedly, “the best thing we can do is to stay down here and speak with you from where we are.”
“That is just what I was about to venture to propose,” returned the doctor with a smile. But the words were hardly uttered, before the smile was struck out of his face and succeeded by an expression of such abject terror and despair, as froze the very blood of the two gentlemen below. They saw it but for a glimpse, for the window was instantly thrust down; but that glimpse had been sufficient, and they turned and left the court without a word. In silence, too, they traversed the by-street; and it was not until they had come into a neighbouring thoroughfare, where even upon a Sunday there were still some stirrings of life, that Mr. Utterson at last turned and looked at his companion. They were both pale; and there was an answering horror in their eyes.
“God forgive us, God forgive us,” said Mr. Utterson.
But Mr. Enfield only nodded his head very seriously and walked on once more in silence.
The pleasure that Utterson feels in saluting his friend Jekyll once more , is obvious. We sense the palpable relief he feels in conversing with Jekyll once again. Look at the contrast between the presentation of the world outside and within. The ‘sunset’ is still ‘bright’ outside, whilst within the gloomy world of Jekyll’s court environment, it is ‘premature twilight.‘ The use of sympathetic background or pathetic fallacy, subtly intensifies the disparity between the world of Utterson( respectability, stabilising routine and self composure) and the world of Jekyll,( secrecy, spiritual degradation and moral compromise) . The ‘premature twilight’ seems metaphorical, foreshadowing Jekyll’s early death and suicide. It also suggests the way that the innocence and goodness of light( and natural life), has been supplanted by Jekyll’s dangerous trangressions with his alter ego, Mr Hyde.
So, as Uttterson notices Jekyll within, we receive the distinct impression of temporary relief, delivered in an ephemeral, elegaic tone, a probable revisitation of their earlier friendship.
“What! Jekyll!” he cried. “I trust you are better.”
“I am very low, Utterson,” replied the doctor, drearily, “very low. It will not last long, thank God.”
Utterson is loyal and makes civil conversation with his lost friend. His lexical choices attempt to understand Jekyll’s bizarre behaviour in terms of illness, using a commonplace word such as ‘better‘ to heal Jekyll. Jekyll returns the civilities with the language of depression and ‘dis-ease’. Interestingly, the emotional direction of Jekyll is ‘very low‘ suggestive of both a moral and spiritual collapse. The claustrophobic weather inside the court with the premature twilight, is echoed by Jekyll’s ‘low’ state.
When Utterson tries to lure Jekyll away from his gloomy solitude inside, the langauge is again suggestive of physical health and well being. Physicality of a natural kind is seemingly linked to Utterson’s habitual’ public’ strolls with Enfield, as opposed to the furtive, dangerous walks presumably undertaken by Hyde. (I would imagine that for Utterson, walking helps to maintain self control and even holds in check sexual disquiet.This is probably why Utterson is keen to involve his sexually transgressive friend, Jekyll, as Utterson wants to get his friend, ‘better’ and thus cure him of his ‘illness which seems a probable code for homosexuality).
Even when rejected by Jekyll, Utterson continues with his aimable conversation, accepting Jekyll’s limitations and thus elevating Jekyll’s mood to a (transient) smile. Such a gift of human civility and friendship induces an antagonistic response from Jekyll’s secret other, Hyde, who slams the widnow shut after reducing the ‘smooth’ mask of Jekyll’s face to terror. The openness of the friendly exchange between Utterson and Jekyll, is halted violently but the closing of the window. This seems symbolic, as the threshold between the world of Utterson and his old friend Jekyll, is finally closed off forever.
I said this scene is bizarrrely suggestive of Romeo and Juliet, albeit in a macabre way. Utterson is literally paying ‘court’ to his old friend, in order to persuade him to return to a world of affection, stability and even love. The care of Utterson is initially well recieved and it is only when Hyde recognises the danger of the intimate ‘smile‘ between both men, that he intervenes like a jealous, petulant lover and slams the window shut against the world of Utterson with his enduring love and offer of accepting intimacy.
So terrible is the effect of this brutal action, that the two friends walk away silently, back into the world of other human beings as an antidote to the nightmarish hell of the fallen ‘court.’ Ironically, when they are safe again, Utterson does not say ‘God forgive ME‘ he says instead, ‘God forgive US ‘ suggesting that in a deeply disturbing and secret way, all the gentlemen of the novel are implicated in the downfall of Jekyll. Hyde is not just Jekyll’s ‘other’, he is all their ‘others’, hence the acute anxiety and blindness around the identification of Hyde.
Terrific writing: theatrical, unnnerving and utterly compelling!
Brilliant and persuasive on some of the subterranean implications of Jeckyll & Hyde. An identity is a palimpset of possible selves, made actual here as possible faces to the world – a rich story is a palimpset of resonant suggestive implications, creating the mystery and rich ambiguity of a brilliantly imaginative piece of storytelling. Thanks for digging around and resurfacing!
very cool.