Read the instructor’s introduction<\/a> It has been noted that Robert Louis Stevenson\u2019s 1886 novella, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde<\/em>, can be read as anything from a detective story to a religious allegory. Depending on one\u2019s perspective, the labels of Gothic novel and science fiction may also be justifiably applied (Linehan 124). Yet despite the breadth of these interpretations, it is curious to note that virtually none of them point out the striking similarity between the character of Mr. Edward Hyde and the archetypal figure of the golem from Jewish folklore. Strangely, this comparison has been readily made to another, equally famous character of the same genre: the monster from Mary Shelley\u2019s 1818 novel Frankenstein<\/em>. While there can be no doubt that these two works, though written some 68 years apart, bear a marked resemblance to one another, it is intriguing that Stevenson\u2019s novel has yet to be thoroughly analyzed for its use of the golem legend. Consequently, this paper will seek to establish an interpretation of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde<\/em> that treats Mr. Hyde as a golem figure. Furthermore, it will explore the repercussions such an interpretation would have on traditional readings of the novel and consider its effects on the work\u2019s placement within the larger continuum of science fiction literature.<\/p>\n The term \u201cgolem\u201d can be traced back to the Hebrew Bible, where, in Psalms 139:15, it is used to denote \u201cmy unshaped form\u201d (Cohen 1), referring to the primordial matter to which God has yet to give life. In a more practical context, \u201cgolem\u201d is used to describe a large creature fashioned from clay that is made with the purpose of accomplishing some task. While various forms of the golem legend appeared throughout the Middle Ages, the most famous is that associated with Rabbi Loew of Prague. In order to protect the Jewish ghetto from anti-Semitic attacks, the Rabbi is said to have built the golem with clay from a nearby riverbank and brought it to life by carving the word emet<\/em>, the Hebrew for \u201ctruth,\u201d onto its forehead. To destroy the golem, the letter \u201ce\u201d was erased, forming the word met<\/em>, the Hebrew for \u201cdeath.\u201d Other versions of the myth hold that the tetragrammaton was combined with every letter of the alphabet and pronounced with all possible vowel sounds so as to produce the correct permutation of the name of God, thus emulating creation. Still others simply state that instructions were written on a slip of paper that was placed into the golem\u2019s mouth, bringing it to life, but inhibiting its speech. Whatever the method, the remainder of the story tells of how the golem, required to rest on the Sabbath, is not deactivated by Rabbi Loew in time and goes on a rampage until he is eventually destroyed. It is in this form that the golem legend has made its way into popular culture. For instance, the word \u201cgolem\u201d is sometimes used to refer to someone who is dumb or slow, or who follows rules pedantically. The latter alludes to the golem\u2019s connection, especially within the realm of science fiction, to robots or automatons, which, by their very natures, can only interpret instructions literally (Cohen 1\u20134). More generally, however, golems, in their various forms, have become a staple of science fiction literature, and Stevenson\u2019s novel is no exception.<\/p>\n Though it is by way of Mr. Enfield\u2019s discourse with Mr. Utterson that Mr. Hyde is first introduced to the reader, it is not until Mr. Utterson\u2019s encounter with Hyde that the reader is given a good description of him. After the rather unpleasant meeting, Utterson remarks: \u201c\u2018God bless me, the man seems hardly human! Something troglodytic, shall we say? or can it be the old story of Dr. Fell? or is it the mere radiance of a foul soul that thus transpires through, and transfigures, its clay continent? The last, I think; for O my poor old Harry Jekyll, if ever I read Satan\u2019s signature upon a face, it is on that of your new friend\u2019\u201d (Stevenson 17). This characterization is fascinating, as it seems, even superficially, to contain many allusions to the golem legend. The most prominent of these is Utterson\u2019s description of Hyde as having a \u201cclay continent\u201d, which Katherine Linehan clarifies to mean \u201cearthly, i.e. the body\u201d (17 note 1). This bears a remarkable resemblance to not only the golem\u2019s physical composition, but also the root of the word itself. Moreover, Utterson\u2019s comment that he has \u201cread Satan\u2019s signature upon [Hyde\u2019s] face\u201d seems to directly parallel the notion that golems were controlled by carving instructions onto their foreheads. What is interesting, however, is that, should one choose to accept this theory, it presents an apparent contradiction on Stevenson\u2019s part, since the character of Satan does not exist in Judaism. How, then, should Utterson\u2019s comment be taken? One possibility is that Utterson is the product of a highly Christian society and therefore simply projects his own preconceived notions onto the narrative. This stance is easily supported by the fact that Utterson was previously described as, on Sunday evenings, customarily \u201csit[ting] close by the fire, a volume of some dry divinity on his reading desk, until the clock of the neighbouring church rang out the hour of twelve, when he would go soberly and gratefully to bed\u201d (12). Alternatively, Stevenson may merely be making an oblique reference to the Jewish notion of yetzer hara<\/em>, or the evil inclination that naturally exists in everyone. This possibility is favored by Jekyll\u2019s belief that everyone is composed of both good and evil parts.<\/p>\n Utterson\u2019s impression alone, however, does not constitute the entire body of evidence in support of an interpretation of Hyde as golem. Indeed, this similarity is noted by Dr. Jekyll, who, in his \u201cFull Statement of the Case,\u201d remarks, in the third person, that:<\/p>\n He had now seen the full deformity of that creature that shared with him some of the phenomena of consciousness, and was co-heir with him to death: and beyond these links of community, which in themselves made the most poignant part of his distress, he thought of Hyde, for all his energy of life, as of something not only hellish but inorganic. This was the shocking thing; that the slime of the pit seemed to utter cries and voices; that the amorphous dust gesticulated and sinned; that what was dead, and had no shape, should usurp the offices of life. (Stevenson 60)<\/p>\n Here again, Linehan provides context by observing that \u201cJekyll\u2019s vision of \u2018amorphous dust\u2019 masquerading as life invites comparison with Genesis 2:7, where \u2018the dust of the ground\u2019 is made man only when God gives it shape, breath, and immortal soul\u201d (60 note 2). Given this, the comparison drawn between Hyde, as deformed, and something that \u201cwas dead, and had no shape\u201d seems to clearly reference the golem, whose name literally means \u201cunshaped form.\u201d This is further supported by the images of \u201camorphous dust\u201d and \u201cslime of the pit\u201d which, in their depictions of primordial matter, also seem indicative of the golem, particularly its biblical origins. Moreover, Jekyll\u2019s description of Hyde as alive, yet \u201cnot only hellish but inorganic,\u201d again echoes the golem motif, since golems give the appearance of being alive, though they are made of clay, and can be quite destructive, under the right circumstances.<\/p>\n Jekyll\u2019s uncertainty about Hyde\u2019s true nature smacks of the phenomenon of the \u201cuncanny,\u201d which is discussed by the Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud at length in his essay of the same name. In his exploration of this singular feeling, Freud explores the origins of the word\u2019s German counterpart unheimlich<\/em>, which he explains refers not only to that which is \u201cunhomely\u201d or foreign, but to that which \u201cought to have remained secret and hidden but has come to light\u201d (200). Hyde certainly fits this bill, as Jekyll goes to great lengths to keep him out of the public eye, only letting him out at night and by way of the back door. Therefore, when Hyde is encountered, he immediately evokes an uncanny response in the viewer, since they know they are bearing witness to something that they were not meant to see. This effect is particularly evident following the \u201cIncident at the Window,\u201d in which Mr. Utterson and Mr. Enfield unwittingly see Jekyll involuntarily transform into Hyde. As the two gentlemen try to invite Jekyll on a walk, he begins to respond, only for the following to transpire:<\/p>\n But the words were hardly uttered, before the smile was struck out of his [Jekyll\u2019s] 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. (Stevenson 32)<\/p>\n This scene describes the type of uncanniness discussed by Freud to a T. Utterson and Enfield are both struck with a sense of literally unspeakable horror because they have seen something that Jekyll had meant to keep within his home but that had managed to escape. Moreover, Stevenson makes a point of saying that it is not until Utterson and Enfield have returned to a populated area, where \u201cthere were still some stirrings of life\u201d (32), that they can even begin to comprehend what they have just witnessed.<\/p>\n It is this last detail in particular that really bridges the gap between the uncanny and the golem. In his essay, Freud quotes the German psychologist Ernst Jentsch\u2019s supposition that feelings of uncanniness can be aroused by \u201c\u2018doubts [about] whether an apparently animate being is really alive; or conversely, whether a lifeless object might not be in fact animate\u2019\u201d (qtd. in Freud 201). Moreover, Freud notes that Jentsch cites \u201cwax-work figures, ingeniously constructed dolls and automata\u201d as good examples of this, as well as \u201cepileptic fits, and \u2026 manifestations of insanity, because [they] excite in the spectator the impression of the automatic, mechanical processes at work behind the ordinary appearance of mental activity\u201d (201\u20132). Jentsch\u2019s first point seems to mesh not only with Utterson and Enfield\u2019s reaction to Jekyll\u2019s transformation and their subsequent need for human contact, but also with Jekyll\u2019s own surprise that \u201cwhat was dead, and had no shape [referring to Hyde], should usurp the offices of life\u201d (Stevenson 60). The second, that the uncanny is something that displays mechanistic behavior in place of human emotion, is satisfied by Enfield\u2019s account of his first encounter with Hyde. He recounts an incident in which Hyde, \u201clike some Juggernaut,\u201d tramples a little girl in the street one evening, only to remain \u201cperfectly cool and [make] no resistance\u201d upon being stopped, \u201cbut giving me [Enfield] one look, so ugly that it brought out the sweat on me like running\u201d (9). This portrayal of Hyde is very reminiscent of the mechanistic and inhuman behavior described by Jentsch. Enfield\u2019s description of Hyde as a \u201cJuggernaut\u201d carries its own foreign and mechanistic connotations, while Hyde\u2019s lack of emotion suggests some sort of automaton devoid of feeling.<\/p>\n These characterizations of Hyde and his repeated evocations of uncanniness align perfectly with more contemporary notions of the golem. In the larger tradition of science fiction literature, golems are commonly regarded as precursors to automatons, androids, and later cyborgs (Cohen 1). It is, then, but a matter of mutual association to conclude that Hyde can himself be seen as a golem. Doing so helps to explain not only the mechanistic and unemotional variety of uncanniness he causes, but also the questioning of his origins and even life, as it were. Thus, interpreting Hyde as a golem is consistent with the uncanny nature of his character and, in fact, goes so far as to offer an explanation for its so being. Yet this conclusion serves to open up another parallel that helps to both resolve some of the contradictions in Jekyll and Hyde\u2019s character and place Stevenson\u2019s novella in a broader literary context.<\/p>\n Specifically, conceding that Hyde\u2019s unhuman uncanniness is a result of his similarity to a golem leads one to question whether other aspects of the uncanniness described by Freud can be explained by this solution. Indeed, such is the case with the idea of the double, which pervades both Freud and Stevenson\u2019s works. In his discussion, Freud explains that doubles come across as uncanny because they were \u201coriginally an insurance against the destruction of the ego,\u201d but over time, and with the advent of civilization and the forfeiture of more primitive ideas, \u201cthe \u2018double\u2019 reverses its aspect. From having been an assurance of immortality, it becomes the uncanny harbinger of death\u201d (210\u201311). More generally, doubles came to encompass two opposing identities inhabiting the same form. Karl Miller summarizes this best by observing that \u201c[o]ne self does what the other self can\u2019t. One self is meek while the other is fierce. One self stays while the other runs away. \u2026 Doubles may appear to come from outside, as a form of possession, or from inside, as a form of projection\u201d (126). Within Stevenson\u2019s novella, the double is obvious, yet there is a subtler one present in the golem legend. Recalling that the golem was made by Rabbi Loew to protect the Jewish ghetto of Prague from anti-Semitic attacks, it is apparent that a doubling relationship exists between Rabbi Loew and the creature that he creates. Just as Miller notes: \u201c[o]ne self does what the other self can\u2019t.\u201d Furthermore, Cohen states, albeit it in a different context, that \u201cthe golem is depicted as both domestic servant and resistance fighter, simultaneously protector and threat, emblematic of both the act of creation and the act of destruction\u201d (1). Thus, the golem interpretation expands upon the established notion that doubles are a central thematic element of the novella. Yet in so doing, it exposes yet another parallel that cannot go unnoticed. Namely, the doubling of creator and creature, present in the story of Rabbi Loew, reveals a thematic connection between Stevenson\u2019s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde<\/em> and Shelley\u2019s Frankenstein.<\/em><\/p>\n Commentators have noted many similarities between Stevenson and Shelley\u2019s novels, not the least of which is their utilization of the mad scientist archetype. Shelley\u2019s Victor Frankenstein is the classic unsettled genius, seeking to create life from inanimate matter. Eventually, he succeeds in creating a monster composed of an amalgam of reanimated body parts that is then inadvertently let loose upon the world, only to return and wreak havoc on Victor and his family and friends. A similar, albeit internal, trajectory is followed by Stevenson\u2019s Jekyll, who is also prone to study arcane science while this time attempting to separate his being into its good and evil components. However, things go wrong, and his creation ends up coming back to destroy him, or so it seems. Indeed, while Victor is left to chase his creation through the Arctic, Jekyll, in the ultimate inversion, is locked in his cabinet with himself, now transformed involuntarily and permanently into Hyde, with the prospect of either suicide, or arrest and execution. In the final scene chronologically, the reader is left with Utterson breaking down Jekyll\u2019s door to a cry of \u201cfor God\u2019s sake, have mercy!\u201d only to find Hyde dead on the floor after apparently committing suicide with cyanide (Stevenson 38\u20139). While these events are clear enough, their perpetrators are not. Specifically, there is significant debate as to who cries out at the last and who commits suicide. In his narrative, Jekyll contemplates suicide as a way of stopping Hyde, but hypothesizes that it will be to no avail given the involuntary transformations. Before breaking down the door, Poole remarks that the voice is not his master\u2019s, and Utterson similarly concludes it is Hyde\u2019s. Yet this creates a fundamental contradiction that makes it impossible to tell who is responsible for what. If Poole and Utterson are correct and Hyde is the last man standing, as it were, then he would have committed suicide himself, which seems at odds with his rebellious character. Applying the golem interpretation helps to resolve this paradox. If Hyde can, in fact, be seen as a golem, then it would be up to his creator, Jekyll, to stop him, just as Rabbi Loew did. The cry for mercy, then, could be interpreted as Hyde\u2019s plea to Jekyll, who may have retained some amount of mental dominion, rather than Utterson. Interpreting the story thus provides a neat application of the golem theory while differentiating the story from Frankenstein<\/em>, since Victor himself is not responsible for the monster\u2019s death.<\/p>\n Given the remarkable amount of evidence in favor of interpreting Hyde as a golem, it remains perplexing that Frankenstein<\/em> has received practically all of the attention in this regard, while Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde<\/em> has received virtually none. Perhaps this is a result of the swaths of Christian allegory that cloak Stevenson\u2019s story, obscuring some of its more Jewish elements. Or perhaps, as Christopher Toumey (414) points out, it is the utter lack of detail regarding the monster\u2019s creation in Frankenstein <\/em>that allows at least some room for speculation. After all, Frankenstein\u2019s monster quite literally is a re-shaped form, whereas Hyde is merely a deformation of Jekyll. Thus, it is perhaps this difference in imagery that separates the two stories and leads scholars to primarily interpret Frankenstein<\/em> as a reimagining of the golem legend. Yet if anything, the corpus of evidence presented here in favor of a similar treatment of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde<\/em> should warrant a reevaluation of this convention. Not only do many details of the story suggest that Hyde is, in fact, a golem, but this theory is consistent with the Freudian psychological elements of the story and is useful in elucidating certain points of the plot. Indeed, the use of the golem legend in the story is one of many aspects that go into securing its place as a cornerstone of science fiction literature.<\/p>\n Cohen, Simchi. \u201cA Living Man, A Clay Man: Violence, The Zombie, And The Messianic in\u00a0H.\u00a0Leivick\u2019s The Golem<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0Cultural Critique<\/em>\u00a090.1 (2015): 1\u201321. MLA International Bibliography<\/em>. Web. 7 Feb. 2016.<\/p>\n Freud, Sigmund. \u201cThe \u2018Uncanny\u2019.\u201d The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of\u00a0<\/em>Sigmund Freud<\/em>. Ed. James Strachey. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997. Print.<\/p>\n Miller, Karl. \u201cThe Modern Double.\u201d Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde<\/em>. Ed. Katherine Linehan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2003. 124\u2013126. Print.<\/p>\n Stevenson, Robert Louis. Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde<\/em>. Ed. Katherine Linehan. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2003. Print.<\/p>\n Toumey, Christopher P. \u201cThe Moral Character of Mad Scientists: A Cultural Critique of Science.\u201d\u00a0Science, Technology, & Human Values<\/em>\u00a017.4 (1992): 411\u2013437. JSTOR<\/em>. Web. 7 Feb. 2016.<\/p>\n Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein<\/em>. Ed. Maurice Hindle. New York: Penguin Classics, 1992. Print.<\/p>\n Spiro, Mi. \u201cContaining The Monster: The Golem In Expressionist Film And Theater.\u201d\u00a0Space Between: Literature & Culture, 1914-1945<\/em>\u00a09.1 (2013): 11\u201336.\u00a0Humanities Full Text (H.W. Wilson)<\/em>. Web. 7 Feb. 2016.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Daniel Collins Read the instructor’s introduction Read the writer’s comments and bio Download this essay It has been noted that Robert Louis Stevenson\u2019s 1886 novella, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, can be read as anything from a detective story to a religious allegory. Depending on one\u2019s perspective, the labels of Gothic novel […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4801,"featured_media":0,"parent":10827,"menu_order":9,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10849"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4801"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10849"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10849\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15735,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10849\/revisions\/15735"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10827"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10849"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nRead the writer’s comments and bio<\/a>
\nDownload this essay<\/a><\/p>\nWorks Cited<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Works Consulted<\/strong><\/h2>\n