Victor Colome
In the context of literature, a story rarely has no effect on the reader. Intentionally or not, authors always leave behind lessons of some kind. This logic can be applied to all tales but most notably to those stories which concern moral corruption. Many perceive these tales as cautionary, warning readers to avoid the mistakes of morally corrupt protagonists. However, these supposedly immoral characters can sometimes serve as figures of admiration rather than criticism. For example, this is true of the protagonists in Feodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment (1866) and Robert Louis Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886). While some believe Dostoevsky’s Raskólnikov and Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll are dangerous and crazed individuals, they are martyrs who seek to improve society through their transgressions.
The narratives of both Crime and Punishment and Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde follow men who commit acts considered horrendous by society. They are thus labeled as evil, or, as Nicholas Berdyaev writes regarding Raskólnikov, “pitiless, impious, and inhuman.” (584). Many contend that both Raskólnikov and Dr. Jekyll do not act according to moral law, which provides the rationale to consider both characters morally bankrupt. However, this position oversimplifies the complex ideas of these novels, and it is necessary to analyze the motives of the protagonists, as well as examine the classifications themselves.
Confirming or disproving Raskólnikov and Dr. Jekyll as unjust characters calls for an evaluation of definitions. The term “morality” refers to “behaviour conforming to moral law or accepted moral standards, esp. in relation to sexual matters,” while “moral” is partly defined as “of or relating to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil.”¹ These definitions suggest that “moral” includes the ability to distinguish right and wrong, as well as to abide by the unspoken rules and values of society. “Corruption” is more challenging to define as it relates to morality, since it is both “[c]hanged from the naturally sound condition, esp. by decomposition or putrefaction developed or incipient” and “[d]ebased in character; infected with evil; depraved; perverted; evil, wicked.”² While both definitions add to our understanding of the concept of corruption, neither encompasses the term. A more fitting definition for corruption is “depravity.” The word “deprave” means to “make bad; to pervert in character or quality; to deteriorate, impair, spoil, vitiate,” which connects both character and moral behavior.³ Therefore, to be morally corrupt is to be changed from a condition where one can determine right from wrong and follow societal standards to a position where one does neither or does them improperly.
If one adheres to these definitions, Raskólnikov and Dr. Jekyll are indeed morally corrupt. However, the characters’ complexity, especially when one considers the definitions in parts, leaves much unaddressed. On one hand, the characters are not morally corrupt because they are able to determine right from wrong. Raskólnikov, for example, clearly differentiates the two. At the start of the novel, when he contemplates murdering Alëna Ivánovna, he expresses his fear, exclaiming, “How could such a horrible idea enter my mind? What vileness my heart seems capable of! The point is, that it is vile, filthy, horrible, horrible!” (6). He acknowledges that even considering murder is immoral and just as frightening as the action itself. Even after murdering the sisters, Raskólnikov’s conscience never falters. He clearly criticizes Svidrigáylov, telling Razumíkhin, “Dúnya must be protected from” Svidrigáylov because he is “very much afraid of that man” (248-49). He also foils Lúzhin’s manipulations to become Dúnya’s benefactor and savior through financial means. If Raskólnikov were morally corrupt, he might have considered Svidrigáylov and Lúzhin friends rather than enemies. The same logic can be applied to Dr. Jekyll, who, like Raskólnikov, recognizes the evil that resides within him, stating “I was slowly losing hold of my original and better self, and becoming slowly incorporated with my second and worse” (55). Even when he reverts once again to his alter-ego, Dr. Jekyll is conscious of Hyde’s actions and experiences, such as the trampling of the young girl and the murder of Sir Danvers Carew. He laments these transgressions, stating, “Into the details of the infamy at which I thus connived (for even now I can scarce grant that I committed it) I have no design of entering” (53). His aversion to Hyde’s shameful actions demonstrates that his moral compass remains unimpaired.
On the other hand, one could contend that Raskólnikov and Dr. Jekyll are morally corrupt simply because they act outside of societal norms. However, this argument is problematic because any action not conforming to society’s expectations might be considered immoral. Also, morals generally are established based on the collective rather than the individual; what is just for one community may be unjust for another, making social definitions of good and evil unreliable. In Victorian England (1837-1901), during which time Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was written, social definitions were especially problematic given this era of mercurial, judgmental, and hypocritical sentiments. As Walter Houghton notes,
One, [Victorian-era people] concealed or suppressed their true convictions and natural tastes. They said the “right” thing or did the “right” thing: they sacrificed sincerity to propriety. Second, and worse, they pretended to be better than they were. They passed themselves off as being incredibly pious and moral; they talked noble sentiments and lived―quite otherwise. Finally, they refused to look at life candidly. They shut their eyes to whatever was ugly or unpleasant and pretended it didn’t exist. Conformity, moral pretension, and evasion―those are the hallmarks of Victorian hypocrisy. (146)
Victorians went great lengths to safeguard their values, often turning to science for rational explanations. Criminal anthropology was established as a profession, and experiments were conducted that claimed to have “[identified] born criminals because they [bore] anatomical signs of their apishness” but were later found to have no merit (Gould 133). Although Houghton’s observations are specific to Victorian society, historically most populations strive to portray themselves as just, compassionate, and understanding, while simultaneously condemning others and ignoring their own inner desires. However, during a discussion of good and evil in Plato’s Republic (c. 375 B.C.E), Glaucon proposes that if one were to give “the just man and the unjust license to do whatever he wants [we] would catch the just man red-handed going the same way as the unjust man out of a desire to get the better. […] No one is willingly just unless compelled to be so” (359c-60c). In this way, morality is fluid, and the perspective of the masses is subject to change. Perhaps we blame men like Raskólnikov and Dr. Jekyll to escape the uncomfortable truth these novels address: regardless of one’s place in social hierarchy, all are capable of unjust behavior.
Whether just or unjust, Raskólnikov and Dr. Jekyll prove to be necessary elements in society. These protagonists, and others like them, shock the middle class out of their fictional, shared utopia and into harsh reality through exposure to taboo subjects like murder, manipulation, abuse, and criminality. The characters are both intimidating and appealing due to their relatability. Most consider themselves like Dr. Jekyll, “[learning] to dwell with pleasure, as a beloved daydream” (49), or like Raskólnikov, who “[amused himself] with fancies, children’s games” (2). Their dreams, however fantastical, are admirable, coherent, and above all, well-intentioned. Raskólnikov’s experiments on himself and human nature test if he is fit for power. As Sergei V. Belov states, “Raskolnikov does not seek power out of vanity. He wants to acquire power in order to devote himself entirely to service to human beings; he wants to use power only for the good of the people” (490). Similarly, Dr. Jekyll hopes the potion that creates Mr. Hyde will make it so “life would be relieved of all that was unbearable” (49). Both characters’ willingness to dedicate themselves to serving humankind is hardly worth condemning. However, their ability to act out these dreams make them both dangerous to and unique in society.
This uniqueness stems from the characters’ extended capacity to do more than is allowed. They transcend or, in Raskólnikov’s case, transgress beyond society’s structure and restrictions to benefit both themselves and others. These characters are comparable to Plato’s philosopher-kings as demonstrated in his cave analogy. In the Republic, Socrates describes prisoners bound by their legs and necks from childhood and facing the wall in a cave. They are only shown shadow puppets projected by a fire behind them, and the prisoners begin “naming these things going by before them that they see” and eventually “hold that the truth is nothing other than the shadows of artificial things” (515b-515c). Socrates continues that if a prisoner were to exit the cave and see the truth for himself rather than accept the information conveyed through the puppets, he would surely return as “the source of laughter” and that it would be “said of him that he went up and came back with his eyes corrupted” (517a). Like this enlightened prisoner, Raskólnikov and Dr. Jekyll deviate from accepted standards in the pursuit of truth. Plato holds that few people can be true philosophers because most are led by the irrational parts of their souls that pine for the luxurious lifestyle of food, drink, and sexual pleasures. Philosophers, on the other hand, are insatiable “[desirers] of wisdom,” “willing to taste every kind of learning with gusto and [approaching] learning with delight” (475b-475c). Plato deems such individuals who favor knowledge and self-discovery as necessary in forming and ruling a just city. Similarly, these philosopher-kings, Raskólnikov and Dr. Jekyll, as morally corrupt as they seem, lead us to new and clearer understanding.
As poet William Blake notes in “Proverbs of Hell,” “the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.” Raskólnikov, Dr. Jekyll, and other morally corrupt characters fulfill the role of philosopher-king through their mistakes and transgressions, thereby extending the boundaries of knowledge. These characters return to the cave in order to reveal truth about society’s deceptive culture. Their actions impact readers and, in turn, impact the public, providing the tools necessary to escape the lies society thrives on. Thus, it could be said that although the murders committed are evil, they could be justified out of the notion of necessity. Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde shows that evil is equally as necessary and natural as good, that evil should be accepted as a natural part of life, and that disturbing the ties between them yields drastic consequences.
Just as their transgressions serve to bring about truth, the downfalls of Raskólnikov and Dr. Jekyll present yet another lesson. Nicholas Berdyaev notes that the pains the characters endure serve as a test of freedom and faith: “Dostoevsky believed firmly in the redemptive and regenerative power of suffering: life is the expiation of sin by suffering. Freedom has opened the path of evil to man, it is a proof of freedom, and man must pay the price. The price is suffering, and by it the freedom that has been spoiled and turned into its contrary is reborn and given back to man” (581). Like good and evil, society and such transgressors are destined to be intertwined. Without transgressors, the structure and morality of civilizations would never be questioned or transformed. It is also the transgressor’s destiny to be martyred and to complete the cycle of transgression and redemption that Berdyaev mentions. Sometimes this process is overtly religious. Konstantin Mochulsky notes that the purpose of Doestoevsky’s novel is to assert that “there is no freedom other than freedom in Christ” (512). Redemption can be found in other, non-religious forms, as well. Dr. Jekyll finds redemption through acceptance of his fault and the relinquishing of his freedom, stating, “Here then, as I lay down the pen and proceed to seal up my confession, I bring the life of that unhappy Henry Jekyll to an end” (62). Similarly, Raskólnikov is saved by his love of Sonya. This cycle of redemption allows readers to transgress vicariously while the fictional transgressors fulfill their roles as the philosopher-kings.
Though widely seen as evil, Raskólnikov and Dr. Jekyll are complex heroes who seek to improve their world. Judging them based on subjective concepts like morality diminishes their overall value. As characters who transgress society’s deceptive structures, they highlight the hypocrisy that many, knowingly or otherwise, try desperately to preserve. While their actions are horrific, their crimes help us better understand the nature of mankind; all people, no matter how just, possess evil within them.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Belov, Sergei V. “The History of the Writing of the Novel.” Gibian, pp. 488–493.
Berdyaev, Nicholas. “Dostoevsky, the Nature of Man, and Evil.” Gibian, pp. 578–584.
Blake, William. “Proverbs of Hell.” Poets.org, Academy of American Poets, poets.org/poem/proverbs-hell.
Bragg, Melvin, host. “Crime and Punishment” In Our Time, BBC Radio 4, 14 Nov. 2019. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000b6sc
Gibian, George, ed. Crime and Punishment by Feodor Dostoyevsky. Translated by Jesse Senior Coulson, Norton Critical Edition, 3rd ed., Norton, 1989.
Gould, Stephen Jay. “Post-Darwinian Theories of the Ape Within.” Linehan, pp. 132–134.
Houghton, Walter. “Hypocrisy.” Linehan, pp. 146–149.
Linehan, Katherine, ed. Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson, Norton Critical Edition, Norton, 2003.
Mochulsky, Konstantin. “The Five Acts of Crime and Punishment.” Gibian, pp. 500–512.
Myers, Frederic W. H. “Multiplex Personalities.” Linehan, pp. 134–136.
Plato. The Republic of Plato. Edited and Translated by Allan Bloom. 3rd ed., Basic Books, 2016.
[1] Oxford English Dictionary, “morality,” 3. a. and “moral,” 1. a.
[2] Oxford English Dictionary, “corruption,” II., 2, a. and II., 4.
[3] Oxford English Dictionary, “deprave,” 1. a.