Horrific Janus: doctor by day, monster by night.
DID is currently and formally recognized as a psychiatric condition (DSM-5), formerly known under the multiple personality label and often misidentified with the split personality (Zimbardo et al 2006). The general excitement and curiosity around this popular disorder is only tempered by the skepticism regarding its genuineness within the field of clinical psychology. Some authors have taken extreme stances in this debate and argued that DID is a reified concept or that this is an iatrogenic condition that is usually shaped by psychiatrists and ingrained on the--usually more suggestible--patients, and should not at all be treated as valid. (Piper & Merskey 2004)
Still, DID is officially recognized as an entity. Characteristic for this type of mental disorder is the alternative manifestation of multiple identities or personalities (also known as "alters") in the same individual that often hijack the person's behaviour and cannot be directly attributed to substance abuse or other medical conditions (Kluft 2003). The fragmentation of the personhood is manifested as "sudden alterations or discontinuities in sense of self and sense of agency, and recurrent dissociative amnesia" (DSM-5: 293)
The different alters or alternate personalities (Comer 2007) dwelling inside the same individual typically possess different genders, ages, memories, life histories, preferences, habits, handwriting and usually display different character traits or even patterns of cognitive function or physiological response. The switches in the person's behaviour may sometimes occur abruptly, other times gradually, and they are readily triggered by stress. In some cases, one or more of the identities are aware of these shifts, more often the main one, or the identity for which the individual is recognized most often by the others--also known as the "host personality." These striking shifts have become the object of several art forms and the bizarre twist they were given, rather than a sympathetic one, contributed to the proliferation of sensationalistic depictions.
The disorder elicits the impression of inconsistent behavior, also characteristic for borderline or bipolar disorder, for which it is mistakenly interpreted due to the changes in moods and dispositions. It is frequently not until the person starts complaining of memory losses or reports unexplainable occurrences, that the problem of multiple identities is discussed. These gaps in memories are more often the case when alters are not aware of the other's existence, situation described as the "mutually amnestic" pattern (Comer 2007). There are also situations in which only one of the alters (usually the more aggressive and dominant one) knows of the existence of the other(s), often despising that second identity, cases defined as "asymmetric" or "one-way amnestic" relationships. (Comer 2007)
Also frequently documented, another conspicuous feature of the diagnostic picture is an antithetical organization, following a good-bad dichotomy, with the main personality inclined to be more passive, repressed or contained, in contrast to the alters that tend to seize the individual rationality and act in a more outgoing, careless, vulgar, sensation-seeking and aggressive manner. Although not necessarily a basic feature of the disorder, the organization of the shifts along this moral evaluative dimension endorses the suspicion that these alters are fabricated in order to render the individual the license for debauchery. Popular culture symbols associated with this disorder such as Nunnally Johnson's The Three Faces of Eve, Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, David Fincher's Fight Club or Brian de Palma's Raising Cain, usually emphasize this issue of morality.
The interest for this bizarre condition, fueled by all such fictional characters and many others, more or less plausible from a diagnostic standpoint, has given birth to a "multiple personality epidemic" (Boor 1982). Emphasizing the iatrogenic and sociocultural sources of the condition, the sociocognitive model of DID (Spanos 1994) holds that patients tend to adopt and enact different personalities, based on information received from media reports or portrayals of cases, suggestions made by therapists or exposure to individuals afflicted by the disorder. Popular fictional characters, mores and religious rituals are also important suspects for the false cases, in which patients are believed to emulate the DID symptoms.
The fascination with multiplicity and the need to understand it has been present in the Western thought, most evident in the attempts to grasp the nature of phenomena such as dedoublement, demonic possession, somnambulism, or hysteria. While the first case of dissociated identity was described by a German physician, Ellenberger at around 1791 (cf. Cave 2002), the most popular is that of Sybil Isabel Dorsett, a 22-year old college student who partially lent her story to a movie screenplay (Cohen et al 1995), a production suspected to be responsible for the overemphasized link between the disorder and the history of early sexual abuse.
Not surprisingly, the best known and discussed model of MPD or DID is the trauma dissociation model that places a special role on the presence of a history of abuse in the development of the problems (Davies & Frawley 1991; Lev-Wiesel 2005; Zimbardo et al 2006; DSM-5). This model emphasizes the idea that the transformation or the switch between the alternate personalities has a protective function, by preventing the experience or recollection of menacing or fearful states or by enabling other identities to face the threatening situations or overwhelming emotions (Lev-Wiesel 2005). The critics of this model indicate that reviews of empirical studies conducted on DID patients do not support the relationship between trauma and symptoms, suspecting a rather reversed relationship, in the sense that traumatic memories could be the result of the therapeutic process. (Giesbrecht et al 2008)
The above-mentioned contradictions are still rife and give rise to intense debates in the clinical realm (Bremner 2010; Lilienfeld, 1999; McAllister 2000). In this context, our choice to present the Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as a literary case study was dictated by two main reasons. Firstly, the novella represents one of the first attempts to illustrate this bizarre entity that became the most notorious depiction of a dissociative disorder (Lovenstein & Putnam 2004), and secondly, it was created prior to the emergence of the public obsession with the condition. Writing the novella in an era when mental afflictions were generally poorly understood, Robert Louis Stevenson offered a bewildering insight into what was, until then, a rarely discussed phenomenon. The writer was a friend of Pierre Janet (1859-1947), one of the first psychiatrists who described the symptoms of the "hysterical dissociation of consciousness" a concept with which he replaced the familiar phrase "split personality." Janet pioneered the modern study of this group of disorders, by proposing a stress-distress diathesis explanation that emphasized the role of trauma. Since the emergence of Janet's account, there has been a widespread conviction, both in pop production and scientific approaches, that this trauma is linked to the changes observable in DID. However, without trying to speculate on Stevenson's familiarity with Janet's complex observations, [The] Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde seems to elude this connection between the switches and trauma. Dr Jekyll's failed "solution" for extracting the evil seems to be more an attempt to come to terms with the pressures of a repressed society, rather than an escape from inner conflicts and unbearable memories.
The double never vanishes
Pathological case, literary myth, doppelganger--this is the modern A perception of Dr. Henry Jekyll / Mr. Edward Hyde's "existence." Linked to the anthropological conception of the native duality of man as it is, the motif of the "double," the splitting of personality into a dark and malefic alter ego, has been widely used in literature, especially in the Gothic fiction of the 19th century, being often considered a symbol of the universal conflict (based on the "normality"--"abnormality" dichotomy) between individual and society (Tudor & Tudor 2012: 67). The "double" can be an unhuman being (Gil-Martin, the fiend with identical traits who gradually drives Robert Wringham to commit murders--James Hogg, The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner, 1824), it can represent but a "shadow" of normality (Monster-without-aname, a grotesque alter ego of his creator, Victor Frankenstein--Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, 1818), a "pair" with different or similar affinities and concerns (Sherlock Holmes / Watson, Sherlock Holmes / Moriarty), or a "good personality" and a "bad personality," the latter revealing the darkest aspects of the human nature, as in [The] Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, a novella published by Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-1894) on January 5th, 1886.
In an interview for the New York Herald (September 8th, 1887) the Scottish writer credited the idea for the story as emerging from his dreams and nightmares:
All I dreamed about Dr. Jekyll was that one man was being pressed into a cabinet, when he swallowed a drug and changed into other being. I woke and said at once that I had found the missing link for which I had been looking so long, and before I went to sleep almost every detail of the story, as it stands, was clear to me. (apud Danahay 2005: 14)
Dreams were and would always be a gold mine for authors (Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Kubla Khan, 1816, Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, 1818, Stephen King, Misery, 1987). In A Chapter on Dreams (1888) Stevenson spoke about the role of dreams in the composition of his novella:
I had long been trying to write a story on this subject, to find a body, a vehicle, for that strong sense of man's double being which must at times come in upon and overwhelm the mind of every thinking creature. ... For two days I went about racking my brains for a plot of any sort; and on the second night I dreamed the scene at the window, and a scene afterward split in two, in which Hyde, pursued for some crime, took the powder and underwent the change in the presence of his pursuers. All the rest was made awake, and consciously, although I think I can trace in much of it the manner of my Brownies [Scottish house nocturnal dream-spirits, meaning here the author's unconscious mind]. (Stevenson 2006: 159-160)
Stevenson's interest in the motif of the "double" is obvious from some of his earlier works: Markheim (1885), a story of murder and repentance; Olalla (1885), a Gothic story similar to Carmilla [Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu, 1872] or The Hound of the Baskervilles [Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1902]; Deacon Brodie; or The Double Life, 1888, with W. E. Henley, a drama in which a respectable Edinburgh cabinet-maker by day is a professional burglar by night. Moreover, around 1875 he told his friend, writer and critic Andrew Lang (1844-1912), of his idea of a story about "a Man who was Two Men" (apud Dury 2006: XIX).
In his final statement of the case, Dr. Henry Jekyll considers that "man is not truly one, but truly two" (Stevenson 2006: 52) because of the primitive duality of men:
If each, I told myself, could but be housed in separate identities, life would be relieved of all that was unbearable; the unjust might go his way, delivered from the aspirations and remorse of his more upright twin; and the just could walk steadfastly and securely on his upward path, doing the good things in which he found his pleasure, and no longer exposed to disgrace and penitence by the hands of this extraneous evil. It was the curse of mankind that these incongruous faggots were thus bound together--that in the agonized womb of consciousness, these polar twins should be continuously struggling. How, then, were they dissociated? (Stevenson 2006: 53)
The term Jekyll and Hyde has become a familiar description of conflicting personalities within a single individual (D'Ammassa 2006: 95), the novella representing the record of a split personality, outlined according to a post-Freudian period, and done by multiple narration and epistolary modes.
Dr. Jekyll and his double, Mr. Hyde, are portrayed comparatively by pairs of secondary characters. Doubles are present everywhere in Stevenson's masterpiece. Jekyll and Hyde are portrayed by Gabriel Utterson, Jekyll's lawyer, and Richard Enfield, his cousin; Utterson and Dr. Hastie Lanyon, Jekyll's friend and physician; Utterson and Poole, Jekyll's butler, all terrified by something beyond their power of understanding (Luckhurst 2006: XII). These pairs are set by family relationship (Utterson / Enfield) or old friendship (Jekyll / Utterson), by the same profession or marital status (Jekyll / Lanyon), by common feelings (Utterson / Enfield, Utterson / Jekyll, Jekyll / Hyde) or by repeating the same words or acting in a similar way (Utterson / Poole, Poole / Guest, Utterson's clerk). (Dury 2006: XXXI) The late 19th century was characterized by the ever increasing scientific and medical attempts to enlarge the understanding of the normal and criminal behaviour of human beings. Starting from a basic Darwin-derived model that criminals were similar to primitive humans, thus, closer to their animal origin, Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909) classified criminals and delinquents as distinctive biological and physiological types (LUomo delinquente / Criminal Man, 1876), Max Nordau (1849-1923) extended Lombroso's model to the behaviour of Bohemian or "decadent" artists (Entartung / Degeneration, 1892), Richard von Krafft-Ebbing (1840-1902) classified the pathological sexuality (Psychopathia Sexualis, 1886), while Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) tried to discover the essential facial form of criminality by means of the so-called "composite portraiture", a technique produced by superimposing multiple photographic portraits of individual faces to create an average face (Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, 1883). Consequently, Henry Jekyll is the image of the self-defined non-deviant, while Edward Hyde possesses the physical and moral attributes of the excluded "criminal type" (Dury 2006: XL).
Face of kindness, face of horror
Worshipping the idea of perfectibility, as any self-respecting scholar does, Dr. Henry Jekyll tries in good faith to create in himself a person from which all evil has been extracted. The result of this division of the self is Edward Hyde, Jekyll's alter ego, who contains all the physical, emotional and sexual evils the doctor has always hoped to expunge from his system. His experiment ultimately fails because Jekyll does not understand that every man is essentially ambiguous and ambivalent, and that good and evil are mutually dependent (Chambers 2004: 193). Jekyll does not even think about the possible dangers of his experiments and, thus, succeeds to free the bestial elements of his personality (Snodgrass 2005: 94). In this he is, like like Victor Frankenstein and Dr. Moreau (Herbert G. Wells, The Island of Dr. Moreau, 1896) one of the first prototypes of literary mad doctors. Stevenson's novella can be therefore considered a cautionary tale warning people against scientific experiments that ignore the morality of the experimenter's choices and that fail to properly anticipate the outcome. (D'Ammassa 2006: 95)
A large, well-made, smooth-faced man of fifty, with something of a slyish cast perhaps, but every mark of capacity and kindness (Stevenson 2006: 18),
Dr. Jekyll is a labile individual. Depending on certain circumstances, his behaviour is constantly changing either for the better
Now that the evil influence had been withdrawn, a new life began. ... He came out of his reclusion, renewed relations with his friends, became once more their familiar guest and entertainer; and whilst he had always been known for charities, he was now no less distinguished for religion; He was busy, he was much in the open air, he did good; his face seemed to open and brighten, as if with an inward consciousness of service; and for more than two months, the doctor was at peace. (Stevenson 2006: 28),
or for the worse
The door was shut against the lawyer. 'The doctor was confined to the house' Poole, said, 'and saw no one'. (Stevenson 2006: 28)
Dr. Jekyll seems to submit to his fate and to seclude himself for his entire future life:
I mean from henceforth to lead a life of extreme seclusion; you [Utterson] must not be surprised, nor must you doubt my friendship, if my door is often shut even to you. You must suffer me to go my own dark way. (Stevenson 2006: 29)
because he is the only one responsible for his own deeds:
I have brought on myself a punishment and a danger that I cannot name. I am the chief of sinners, I am the chief of sufferers also. I could not think that this earth contained a place for sufferings and terrors so unmanning. (Stevenson 2006: 29-30)
The change is so abrupt that his lawyer cannot understand the reason, and considers that there must be at least some temporary madness:
Utterson was amazed; the dark influence of Hyde had been withdrawn, the doctor had returned to his old tasks and amities; a week ago, the prospect had smiled with every promise of a cheerful and an honoured age; and now in a moment, frienship, and peace of mind and the whole tenor of his life were wrecked. So great and unprepared a change pointed to madness; but in view of Lanyon's manner and words, there must lie for it some deeper ground. (Stevenson 2006: 30)
After Lanyon's death, Poole declares:
The doctor, it appeared, now more than ever confined himself to the cabinet over the laboratory, where he would sometimes even sleep; he was out of spirits, he had grown very silent, he did not read; it seemed as if he had something on his mind. (Stevenson 2006: 31)
Only a moment after Jekyll talks from the window to Utterson and Enfield
I am very low, Utterson, ... very low. It will not last long, thank God. ... No, no, no, it is quite impossible [to go on a walk]; I dare not. (Stevenson 2006: 32),
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 gentleman. They saw it but for a glimpse, for the window was instantly thrust down; but the glimpse had been sufficient. (Stevenson 2006: 33)
After Utterson seems to consider Jekyll's voice "much changed" (Stevenson 2006: 36), Poole declares without restraint both that this is true and that his master has been killed, an evil thing taking his place:
'Changed? Well, yes, I think so'. ... 'Have I been twenty years in this man's house, to be deceived about the voice? No, sir; master's made away with; he has made away with, eight days ago, when we heard him cry out upon the name of God; and who's in there instead of him, and why it stays there, is a thing that cries to Heaven!' (Stevenson 2006: 36)
Poole goes on complaining about new and peculiar events such as medicines being constantly asked for only by slips of papers, or meals being taken stealthily from the front closed door of the cabinet:
Whatever it is that lives in that cabinet, has been crying night and day for some sort of medicine and cannot get it to his mind. It was sometimes his way--the master's, that is--to write his orders on a sheet of paper and throw it on the stair. We've had nothing else this week back; nothing but papers, and a closed door, and the very meals left there to be smuggled in when nobody was looking. Well, sir, every day, ay, and twice and thrice in the same day, there have been orders and complaints, and I have been sent flying to all the wholesale chemists in town. Every time I brought the stuff back, there would be another paper telling me to return it, because it was not pure, and another order to a different firm. This drug is wanted bitter bad, sir, whatever for. (Stevenson 2006: 37)
As time passes, the notes left--presumably by Dr. Jekyll--on the corridor, become more and more "touching," imploring the chemists to find some of the old "pure" samples of a certain medicine he had once bought: "'For God's sake,'" he had added, "'find me some of the old'" (Stevenson 2006: 37). It is now that Poole gives a weird description of his "master":
It seems he had slipped out to look for this drug or whatever it is; for the cabinet door was open, and there he was at the far end of the room digging amoung the crates. He looked up when I came in, gave a kind of cry, and whipped upstairs into the cabinet. It was but for one minute that I saw him, but the hair stood upon my head like quills. Sir, if that was my master, why had he a mask upon his face? Why did he cry out like a rat, and run from me? (Stevenson 2006: 37-38).
Utterson tries to set the butler at ease by speaking about a possible illness:
Your master, Poole, is plainly seized with one of those maladies that both torture and deform the sufferer; hence, for aught I know, the alteration of his voice; hence the mask and his avoidance of his friends; hence his eagerness to find this drug, by means of which the poor soul retains some hope of ultimare recovery. (Stevenson 2006: 38)
However, the laywer cannot change the servant's mind:
That thing was not my master, and there's the truth. My master ... is a tall fine build of a man, and this was more of a dwarf. ... That thing in the mask was never Doctor Jekyll--God knows what it was, but it was never Doctor Jekyll; and it is the belief of my heart that there was murder done. (Stevenson 2006: 38)
The butler goes on describing a terrifying creature, resembling Edward Hyde, jumping to and fro like a monkey:
It went so quick, and the creature was so doubled up, that I could hardly swear to that. ... But if you mean, was it Mr. Hyde?--why, yes, I think it was! You see, it was much of the same bigness; and it had the same quick light way with it; and then who else could have got in by the laboratory door? ... at the time of the murder he had still the key with him ... you [Utterson] must know as well as the rest of us that there was something queer about that gentleman--something that gave a man a turn--... that you felt it in your marrow kind of cold and thin. ... when that masked thing like a monkey jumped from among the chemicals and whipped into the cabinet, it went down my spine like ice ... but a man has his feelings, and I give you my bible-word it was Mr. Hyde! (Stevenson 2006: 39)
The "creature" is always restless, sometimes whimpering, and can sit still only when the medicine is being brought in:
The stillness was only broken by the sound of a footfall moving to and fro along the cabinet floor. ... 'So it will walk all day, ... ay, and the better part of the night. Only when a new sample comes from the chemist, there's a bit of a break. Ah, it's an ill-conscience that's such an enemy to rest! Ah, sir, there's blood foully shed in every step of it! Hark again, a little closer--put your heart in your ears, Mr. Utterson, and tell me, is that the doctor's foot?' ... The steps fell lightly and oddly, with a certain swing, for all they went so slowly; it was different indeed from the heavy creaking tread of Henry Jekyll. ... 'Once I heard it weeping ... like a woman or a lost soul.' (Stevenson 2006: 40)
Having known Dr. Jekyll for many years, Lanyon comes to consider his friend "insane; but till that was proved beyond the possibility of doubt" (Stevenson 2006: 46), because "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." (Stevenson 2006: 12)
The potion is described in Lanyon's letter:
The powders were neatly enough made up, but not with the nicety of the dispensing chemist; so that it was plain they were of Jekyll's private manufacture; and when I opened one of the wrappers, I found out what seemed to me a simple, crystalline salt of a white colour. The phial, to which I next turned my attention, might have been about half-full of a blood-red liquor, which was highly pungent to the sense of smell and seemed to me to contain phosphorus and some volatile ether. At the other ingredients, I could make no guess. (Stevenson 2006: 47)
Dr. Lanyon also writes about his friend's diary and experiments:
The book was an ordinary version book and contained little but a series of dates. These covered a period of many years, but I observed that the entries ceased nearly a year ago and quite abruptly. Here and there a brief remark was appended to a date, usually no more than a single word: 'double' occuring perhaps six times in a total of several hundred entries; and once very early in the list and followed by several marks of exclamation, 'total failure!!!' ... Here were a phial of some tincture, a paper of same salt, and the record of a series of experiments that had led (like too many of Jekyll'a investigations) to no end of practical usefulness. ... The more I reflected, the more convinced I grew that I was dealing with a case of cerebral disease. (Stevenson 2006: 47)
Pale, dwarfish, troglodyte
Edward Hyde, whose name implies the act hiding and the hide that covers a beast, acts out the primitive, murderous-stalking urges of a monster. (Snodgrass 2005: 94-95). Gradually portrayed as a sinister gothic villain, living in a rear wall-protected house in the ill-famed Soho, he gains everything he wants from the ability of shape-shifting at will his abnormal self into Jekyll's "normal" one. (Snodgrass 2005: 95). Hyde bears the sign of a criminal degeneracy, his vices being endemic to the upper classes and his lifestyle that of a well-off gentleman (Arata 1996: 33, 35). Thus, the novella "turns the class discourses of atavism and criminality back on the bourgeoisie itself." (Arata 1996: 36)
His first portrait is drawn by Enfield:
He is not easy to describe. There is something wrong with his appearance; something displeasing, something downright detestable. I never saw a man I so disliked, and yet I scarce know why. He must be deformed somewhere; he gives a strong feeling of deformity, although I couldn't specify the point. He's an extraordinary looking man, and yet I really can name nothing out of the way. No, sir; I can make no hand of it; I can't describe him. And it's not want of memory; for I declare I can see him this moment. (Stevenson 2006: 9)
The same impression of distaste follows from Utterton's brief description:
He was small and very plainly dressed, and the look of him, even at that distance, went somehow strongly against the watcher's inclination. (Stevenson 2006: 14)
Reluctant to show his face, defiant, snarling aloud with savage laughs and extremely fast-moving,
Mr Hyde was pale and dwarfish, he gave an impression of deformity without any nameable malformation, he had a displeasing smile, he had borne himself to the lawyer with a sort of murderous mixture of timidity and boldness, and he spoke with a husky, whispering and somewhat broken voice; all these were points against him, but not all of these together could explain the hitherto unknown disgust, loathing and fear with which Mr. Utterson regarded him. (Stevenson 2006: 15)
There is something more, if I could find a name for it. God bless me, the man seems hardly human! Something troglodytic, shall we say? ... or is it the mere radiance of a foul soul that thus transpires through, and transfigures, its clay continent? (Stevenson 2006: 16),
and a real embodiment of Satan
O my poor old Harry Jekyll, if ever I read Satan's signature upon a face, it is on that of your new friend. (Stevenson 2006: 16),
This Master Hyde, if he were studied, must have secrets of his own: black secrets, by the look of him; secrets compared to which poor Jekyll's worst would be like sunshine. (Stevenson 2006: 17)
When Utterson describes Hyde as "troglodytic," he refers to the "deep fear of regression to a violent animality in us that soon appeared again in reactions to Jack the Ripper murders so associated with the book, in the London of 1888." (Hogle 1998: 223)
Hyde's "dwelling place" is described both by Poole
He never dines here. Indeed we see very little of him on this side of the house; he mostly comes and goes by the laboratory. (Stevenson 2006: 17)
and by the silvery-haired, ivory-evil-faced landlady after the murder of Sir Danvers Carew:
[Mr. Hyde] was not at home; he had been in that night very late, but had gone away in less than an hour; there was nothing strange in that; his habits were very irregular, and he was often absent; for instance, it was nearly two months since she had seen him till yesterday. (Stevenson 2006: 22)
The portrait by the maid who happens to see the murder of Sir Danvers Carew reveals the sudden changes in Hyde's temper during the accidental meeting with the old gentleman:
A certain Mr. Hyde, ... had in his hand a heavy cane, with which he was trifling; but he answered never a word, and seemed to listen with an ill-contained impatience. And then all of a sudden he broke out in a great flame of anger, stamping with his foot, brandishing the cane, and carrying on ... like a madman. The old gentleman took a step back, with the air of one very much surprised and a trifle hurt; and at that Mr. Hyde broke out of all bounds and clubbed him to the earth. And next moment, with ape-like fury, he was trampling his victim under foot, and hailing down a storm of blows, under which the bones were audibly shattered and the body jumped upon the roadway. (Stevenson 2006: 20-21)
Jekyll's double looks like an insignificant individual coming out of nowhere:
Mr. Hyde had numbered few familiars--even the master of the servant maid had only seen him twice; his family could nowhere be traced; he had never been photographed; and the few who could describe him differed widely, as common observers will. Only on one point, were they agreed; and that was the haunting sense of unexpressed deformity with which the fugitive impressed his beholders. (Stevenson 2006: 23)
Dr. Lanyon gives in his letter a complex portrait of Hyde from various viewpoints:
1) General appearance:
He was small; I was struck besides with the shocking expression of his face, with the remarkable combination of great muscular activity and great apparent debility of constitution, and--last but not least--with the odd, subjective disturbance caused by his neighbourhood. This bore some resemblance to incipient rigor, and was accompanied by a marked sinking of the pulse. At the time, I set it down to some idiosyncratic, personal distaste, and merely wondered at the acuteness of the symptoms; but I have since had reason to believe the cause to lie much deeper in the nature of man, and to turn on some nobler hinge than the principle of hatred. (Stevenson 2006: 48)
This person ... was dressed in a fashion that would have made an ordinary person laughable; his clothes, that is to say, although they were of rich and sober fabric, were enormously too large for him in every measurement--the trousers hanging on his legs and rolled up to keep them from the ground, the waist of the coat below his haunches, and the collar sprawling wide upon his shoulders. Strange to relate, this ludicrous accoutrement was far from moving me to laughter. Rather, as there was something abnormal and misbegotten in the very essence of the creature that now faced me--something seizing, surprising and revolting--this fresh disparity seemed but to fit in with and to reinforce it. (Stevenson 2006: 48)
3) Impatient individual:
My visitor was, indeed, on fire with sombre excitement. 'Have you got it?' he cried. 'Have you got it?' And so lively was his impatience that he even laid his hand upon my arm and sought to shake me. (Stevenson 2006: 48)
4) Sudden changes in temper, from fits of rage to apparent calmness and mastered voice:
He sprang to [the drawer], and then paused, and laid his hand upon his heart; I could hear his teeth grate with the convulsive action of his jaws; and his face was so ghastly to see that I grew alarmed both for his life and reason. ... He turned a dreadful smile to me, and as if with the decision of despair, plucked away the sheet. At sight of the contents, he uttered one loud sob of such immense relief that I sat petrified. And the next moment, in a voice that was already fairly well under control, 'Have you a graduated glass?' (Stevenson 2006: 49)
5) Skilled in preparing drugs:
[He] measured out a few minims of the red tincture and added one of the powders. The mixture, which was at first of a reddish hue, began, in proportion as the crystals melted, to brighten in colour, to effervesce audibly, and to throw off small fumes of vapour. Suddenly and at the same moment, the ebullition ceased and the compound changed to a dark purple, which faded again more slowly to a watery green. My visitor, who had watched these metamorphoses with a keen eye, smiled, set down the glass upon the table. (Stevenson 2006: 49)
6) Ability to transform into Jekyll:
He put the glass to his lips and drank at one gulp. A cry followed; he reeled, staggered, clutched at the table and held on, staring with injected eyes, gasping with open mouth; and as I looked there came, I thought a change--he seemed to swell--his face became suddenly black and the features seemed to melt and alter--and the next moment, I had sprung to my feet and leaped back against wall, my arm raised to shield me from that prodigy, my mind submerged in terror. 'O God!' I screamed; ... for there before my eyes--pale and shaken, and half fainting, and groping before him with his hands, like a man restored from death--there stood Henry Jekyll. (Stevenson 2006: 50)
7) Final result:
The creature who crept into my house that night was, on Jekyll's own confession, known by the name of Hyde and hunted for in every corner of the land as the murderer of Carew. (Stevenson 2006: 51)
Utterson's imagination goes wild on Hyde as a forewarning of horrors to come:
As he lay and tossed in the gross darkness of the night and the curtained room, Mr. Enfield's tale went by before his mind in a scroll of lighted pictures. He would be aware of the great field of lamps of a nocturnal city; then of the figure of a man walking swiftly; then of a child running from the doctor's; and then these met, and that human Juggernaut trod the child down and passed on regardless of her screams. Or else he would see a room in a rich house, where his friend lay asleep, dreaming and smiling at his dreams; and then the door of that room would be opened, the curtains of the bed plucked apart, the sleeper recalled, and lo! there would stand by his side a figure to whom power was given, and even at that dead hour, he must rise and do its bidding. The figure in these two phases haunted the lawyer all night; and if at any time he dozed over, it was but to see it glide more stealthily through sleeping houses, or move the more swiftly and still the more swiftly, even to dizzinesss, through wider labyrinths of lamp-lighted city, and at every street corner crush a child and leave her screaming. And still the figure had no face by which he might know it; even in his dreams, it had no face, or one that baffled him and melted before his eyes; and thus it was that there sprang up and grew apace in the lawyer's mind a singularly strong, almost an inordinate, curiosity to behold the features of the real Mr. Hyde. ... It would be a face worth seeing: the face of a man who was without bowels of mercy: a face which had but to show itself to raise up, in the mind of the unimpressionable Enfield, a spirit of enduring hatred. (Stevenson 2006: 13)
Dr. Jekyll describes his "relationship" with Hyde, trying to set Utterson at ease, amend things and help "secure" the future of his alter ego:
It [the way Hyde is seen by others] can make no change. You do not understand my position; ... I am painfully situated; my position is a very strange--a very strange one. It is one of those affairs that cannot be mended by talking. ... [However] it is no so bad as that; ... the moment I choose, I can be rid of Mr. Hyde, I give you my hand upon that; ... this is a private matter and I beg of you to let it sleep. ... I have really a very great interest in poor Hyde. I know you have seen him; he told me so; and I fear he was rude. But I do sincerely take a great, a very great interest in that young man; and if I am taken away, Utterson, I wish you to promise me that you will bear with him and get his rights for him. I think you would, if you knew all; and it would be a weight off my mind if you would promise [to help him]. ... I only ask for justice; I only ask you to help him for my sake, when I am no longer here. (Stevenson 2006: 19)
The horror of my other self
The final statement of Dr. Henry Jekyll reads like something written by any scientist or scholar who has ever attempted to make an outstanding discovery, be it a good or a disastrous one. Although he knows well he may be risking "death" (Stevenson 2006: 54), Jekyll cannot help developing and testing the drug he has been working on for years, a potion which is to change his entire life for the worse, making him a vicious murderer:
I not only recognised my natural body for the mere aura and effulgence of certain of the powers that made up my spirit, but managed to compound a drug by which these powers should be dethroned from their supremacy, and a second form and countenance substituted, none the less natural to me because they were the expression, and bore the stamp, of lower elements in my soul. (Stevenson 2006: 53-54)
The potion having been made and drunk
I purchased at once, from a firm of wholesale chemists, a large quantity of a particular salt which I knew, from my experiments, to be the last ingredient required; and late one accursed night, I compounded the elements, watched them boil and smoke together in the glass, and when the ebullition had subsided, with a strong glow of courage, drank off the potion. Stevenson 2006: 54),
its effects are devastating:
The most racking pangs succeeded: a grinding in the bones, deadly nausea, and a horror of the spirit that cannot be exceeded at the hour of birth and death. Then these agonies began swiftly to subside, and I came to myself as if out of a great sickness. There was something strange in my sensations, something indescribably new and, from its very novelty, incredibly sweet. I felt younger, lighter, happier in body; within I was conscious of a heady recklessness, a current of disordered sensual images running like a mill race in my fancy, a solution of the bonds of obligation, 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. I stretched out my hands, exulting in the freshness of these sensations; and in the act, I was suddenly aware that I had lost in stature. (Stevenson 2006: 54)
And thus, Henry Jekyll becomes, for the first time, Edward Hyde; thus, good is changed into evil:
The evil side of my nature, to which I had now transferred the stamping efficiency, was less robust and less developed than the good which I had just deposed. Again, in the course of my life, which had been, after all, nine tenths a life of effort, virtue and control, it had been much less exercised and much less exhausted. And hence, as I think, it came about that Edward Hyde was so much smaller, slighter and younger than Henry Jekyll. Even as good shone upon the countenance of the one, evil was written broadly and plainly on the face of the other. Evil besides (which I must still believe to be the lethal side of man) had left on that body an imprint of deformity and decay. And yet when I looked upon that ugly idol in the glass, I was conscious of no repugnance, rather of a leap of welcome. This, too, was myself. It seemed natural and human. In my eyes it bore a livelier image of the spirit, it seemed more express and single, than the imperfect and divided countenance I had been hitherto accustomed to call mine. And in so far I was doubtless right. I have observed that when I wore the semblance of Edward Hyde, none could come near to me at first without a visible misgiving of the flesh. This, as I take it, was because all human beings, as we meet them, are commingled out of good and evil; and Edward Hyde, alone in the ranks of mankind, was pure evil. (Stevenson 2006: 55)
The change is but a cup away
I had but to drink the cup, to doff at once the body of the noted professor, and to assume, like a thick cloak, that of Edward Hyde (Stevenson 2006: 56),
the drug having "no discriminating action", being "neither diabolical nor divine", but shaking "the doors of the prisonhouse of my disposition" (Stevenson 2006: 56). Not being able to resist his ever growing attraction to evil
at that time my virtue slumbered; my evil, kept awake by ambition, was alert and swift to seize the occasion; and the thing that was projected was Edward Hyde. Hence, although I had now two characters as well as two appearances, one was wholly evil, and the other was still the old Henry Jekyll, that incongruous compound of whose reformation and improvement I had already learned to despair. The moment was thus wholly toward the worse (Stevenson 2006: 56),
Dr. Jekyll takes advantage of the change without fear he may be exposed:
I began to profit by the strange immunities of my position. ... In my impenetrable mantle, the safety was complete. Think of it--I did not even exist! (Stevenson 2006: 56)
In just a trice he "magically" becomes somebody else, he shape-shifts into a person nobody can accuse of bad deeds:
Let me but escape into my laboratory door, give me but a second or two to mix and swallow the draught that I had always standing ready; and whatever he had done, Edward Hyde would pass away like the stain of breath upon a mirror; and there in his stead, quietly at home, trimming the midnight lamp in his study, a man who could afford to laugh at suspicion, would be Henry Jekyll. (Stevenson 2006: 56-57)
Although Jekyll enjoys being Hyde
In the hands of Edward Hyde, [the pleasures] soon began to turn towards the monstrous. When I would come back from these excursions, I was often plunged into a kind of wonder at my vicarious depravity. This familiar that I called out of my own soul, and sent forth alone to do his good pleasure, was a being inherently malign and villainous; his every act and thought centered on self; drinking pleasure with bestial avidity from any degree of torture to another; relentless like a man of stone (Stevenson 2006: 57), the doctor is sometimes truly frightened by his alter ego
Henry Jekyll stood at times aghast before the acts of Edward Hyde; but the situation was apart from ordinary, and insidiously relaxed the grasp of conscience. It was Hyde, after all, and Hyde alone, that was guilty (Stevenson 2006: 57),
trying to his best to redress the other's wrongdoings
Jekyll was no worse; he woke again to his good qualities seemingly unimpaired; he would even make haste, where it was possible, to undo the evil done by Hyde. And thus his conscience slumbered. (Stevenson 2006: 57)
Gradually, there is a change taking place:
Some two months before the murder of Sir Danvers, I had been out for one of my adventures, had returned at a late hour, and woke the next day in bed with somewhat odd sensations. It was in vain I looked about me; in vain I saw the decent furniture and tall proportions of my room in the square; in vain that I recognized the pattern of the bed curtains and the design of the mahogany frame; something still kept insisting that I was not where I was, that I had not wakened where I seemed to be, but in the little room in Soho where I was accustomed to sleep in the body of Edward Hyde. I smiled to myself, and, in my psychological way, began lazily to inquire into the elements of this illusion, occasionally, even as I did so, dropping back into a comfortable morning doze. I was still so engaged when, in one of my more wakeful moments, my eye fell upon my hand. Now the hand of Henry Jekyll ... was professional in shape and size; it was large, firm, white and comely. But the hand which I now saw, clearly enough, in the yellow light of a mid-London morning, lying half shut on the bed clothes, was lean, corded, knucky, of a dusky pallor and thickly shaded with a swart growth of hair. It was the hand of Edward Hyde. ... Before terror woke up in my breast as sudden and startling as the crash of cymbals; and bounding from my bed, I rushed to the mirror. At the sight that met my eyes, my blood was changed into something exquisitely thin and icy. Yes, I had gone to bed Henry Jekyll, I had awakened Edward Hyde. (Stevenson 2006: 57-58)
And thus Hyde takes over Jekyll:
That part in me which I had the power of projecting, had lately been much exercised and nourished; it had seemed to me of late as though the body of Edward Hyde had grown in stature, as though (when I wore that form) I were conscious of a more generous tide of blood; and I began to spy a danger that, if this were much prolonged, the balance of my nature might be permanently overthrown, the power of voluntary change be forfeited, and the character of Edward Hyde become irrevocably mine. (Stevenson 2006: 59)
Due to the different effects of the potion, correlated with the self-administered quantity
The power of the drug had not been always equally displayed. Once, very early in my career, it had totally failed me; since then I had been obliged on more than one occasion to double, and once, with infinite risk of death, to treble the amount; and these rare uncertainties had cast hitherto the sole shadow on my contentment. ... Whereas, in the beginning, the difficulty had been to throw off the body of Jekyll, it had of late, gradually but decidedly transferred itself to the other side. (Stevenson 2006: 59),
the change into Hyde becomes more permanent:
All things therefore seemed to point to this: that I was slowly losing hold of the original and better self, and becoming slowly incorporated with my second and worse. (Stevenson 2006: 59).
However, Jekyll strives to choose whom he wants to be, and by a dichotomy of thinking, draws a parallel between himself and his doppelganger:
My two natures had memory in common, but all other faculties were most unequally shared between them. Jekyll (who was composite) now with the most sensitive apprehensions, now with a greedy gusto, projected and shared in the pleasures and adventures of Hyde; but Hyde was indifferent to Jekyll, or but remembered him as the mountain bandit remembers the cavern in which he conceals himself from pursuit. Jekyll had more than a father's interest; Hyde had more than a son's indifference. To cast in my lot with Jekyll, was to die to those appetites which I had long secretly indulged and had of late begun to pamper. To cast it in with Hyde, was to die a thousand interests and aspirations, and to become, at a blow and forever, despised and friendless. The bargain might appear unequal; but there was still another consideration in the scales; for while Jekyll would suffer smartingly in the fires of abstinence, Hyde would not be even conscious of all that he had lost. (Stevenson 2006: 59)
Immediately after Dr. Jekyll chooses to remain himself
I chose the better part and was found wanting in the strength to keep to it (Stevenson 2006: 60),
an inner torment sets in
I began to be tortured with throes and longings, as of Hyde struggling after freedom (Stevenson 2006: 60),
and Hyde wins:
My devil had been long caged, he came out roaring. I was conscious, even when I took the draught, of a more unbridled, a more furious propensity to ill. It must have been this, I suppose, that stirred in my soul that tempest of impatience with which I listened to the civilities of my unhappy victim; I declare at least, before God, no man morally sane could have been guilty of that crime upon so pitiful a provocation ... I had voluntarily stripped myself of all those balancing instincts, by which even the worst of us continues to walk with some degree of steadiness among temprations; and in my case, to be tempted, however slightly, was to fall. (Stevenson 2006: 60)
After Sir Danvers Carew's murder
Instantly the spirit of hell awoke in me and raged. With a transport of glee, I mauled the unresisting body, tasting delight from every blow; and it was not till weariness had begun to succeed, that I was suddenly, in the top fit of my delirium (Stevenson 2006: 60-61),
Jekyll / Hyde has no remorses, only fears for his own safety as he was
struck through the heart by a cold thrill of terror. A mist dispersed; I saw my life to be forfeit; and fled from the scene of these excesses, at once glorying and trembling, my lust of evil gratified and stimulated, my love of life screwed to the topmost peg. (Stevenson 2006: 61)
There will be gratitude and more remorse:
The pangs of transformation had not done tearing him, before Henry Jekyll, with streaming tears of gratitude and remorse, had fallen upon his knees and lifted his clasped hands to God. The veil of self-indulgence was rent from head to foot, I saw my life as a whole. ... I could have screamed aloud; I sought with tears and prayers to smother down the crowd of hideous images and sounds with which my memory swarmed against me; and still, between the petitions, the ugly face of my iniquity stared into my soul. As the acuteness of this remorse began to die away, it was succeeded by a sense of joy. The problem of my conduct was solved. Hyde was thenceforth impossible; whether I would or not, I was now confined to the better part of my existence. (Stevenson 2006: 61)
And, suddenly, the change in broad daylight in Regent's Park:
A qualm came over me, a horrid nausea and the most deadly shuddering. These passed away, and left me faint; and then as in its turn the faintness subsided, I began to be aware of a change in the temper of my thoughts, a greater boldness, a contempt of danger, a solution of the bonds of obligation. I looked down; my clothes hung formlessly on my shrunken limbs; the hand that lay on my knee was corded and hairy. I was once more Edward Hyde. A moment before I had been safe of all men's respect, wealthy, beloved--the cloth laying for me in the dining room at home; and now I was the common quarry of mankind, hunted, houseless, known murderer, thrall to the gallows. (Stevenson 2006: 62)
Jekyll makes some pertinent notes on his abilities after change:
I have more than once observed that, in my second character, my faculties seemed sharpened to a point and my spirits more tensely elastic; thus it came about that, where Jekyll perhaps might have succumbed, Hyde rose to the importance of the moment. (Stevenson 2006: 62-63)
He also sketches a terrifying portrait of Hyde, of his murderous state of mind, and of the evil impression he makes on others:
At my appearance (which was indeed comical enough, however tragic a fate these garments covered) the driver could not conceal his mirth. I gnashed my teeth upon him with a gust of devilish fury; and the smile withered from his face--happily for him--for in another instant I had certainly dragged him from his perch. At the inn, as I entered, I looked about me with so black a countenance as made the attendants tremble; not a look did they exchange in my presence; but obsequiously took my orders, led me to a private room, and brought me wherewithal to write. Hyde in danger of his life was a creature new to me: shaken with inordinate anger, strung to the pitch of murder, lusting to inflict pain. Yet the creature was astute; mastered his fury with a great effort of the will; composed his two important letters, one to Lanyon, and one to Poole. (Stevenson 2006: 63)
Deeply disturbed and totally inhuman
He, I say--I cannot say, I. That child of Hell had nothing human; nothing lived in him but fear and hatred (Stevenson 2006: 63),
Hyde travels, by cab or on foot, all over the town in the dead of night:
[He] ventured on foot, attired in his misfitting clothes, an object marked out for observation, into the midst of nocturnal passengers, these two base passions raged withim him like a tempest. He walked fast, hunted by his fears, chattering to himself, skulking through the less frequented thoroughfares, counting the minutes that still divided him from midnight. (Stevenson 2006: 64)
Mentally tortured, Jekyll tries in vain to escape from the desires of his alter ego:
A change had come over me. It was no longer the fear of the gallows, it was the horror of being Hyde that racked me. (Stevenson 2006: 64)
As the changes take place more often
I was stepping leisurely across the court after breakfast, drinking the chill of the air with pleasure, when I was seized again with those indescribable sensations that heralded the change; and I had but the time to gain the shelter of my cabinet, before I was once again raging and freezing with the passions of Hyde (Stevenson 2006: 64),
more of the drug is needed to reverse the process:
It took on this occasion a double dose to recall me to myself; and alas, six hours after, as I sat looking sadly in the fire, the pangs returned, and the drug had to be re-administered. From that day forth it seemed only by a great effort as of gymnastics, and only under the immediate stimulation of the drug that I was able to wear the countenance of Jekyll. At all hours of the day and night, I would be taken with the premonitory shudder; above all, if I slept, or even dozed for a moment in my chair, it was always as Hyde that I awakened. (Stevenson 2006: 64)
Thus, Henry Jekyll becomes for ever the prisoner of Edward Hyde, his doppelganger:
I became, in my own person, a creature eaten up and emptied by fever, languidly weak both in body and mind, and solely occupied by one thought: the horror of my other self. But when I slept, or when the virtue of the medicine wore off, I would leap almost without transition (for the pangs of transformation grew daily less marked) into the possession of a fancy brimming with images of terror, a soul boiling with causeless hatreds, and a body that seemed not strong enough to contain the raging energies of life. The powers of Hyde seemed to have grown with the sickliness of Jekyll. (Stevenson 2006: 64-65)
At the same time, the mutual hatred develops more and more between the scholar and his "creation," maybe one similar to that between Victor Frankenstein and the Monster-without-a-name:
And certainly the hate that now divided them was equal on each side. With Jekyll, it was a thing of vital instinct. 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 what was dead, and had no shape, should usurp the offices of life. And this again, that this insurgent horror was knit to him closer than a wife, closer than an eye; lay caged in his flesh, where he heard it mutter and felt it struggle to be born; and at every hour of weakness, and in the confidence of slumber, prevailed against him, and deposed him out of life. The hatred of Hyde for Jekyll, was of different order. His terror of the gallows drove him continually to commit temporary suicide, and return to his subordinate station of a part instead of a person; but he loathed the necessity, he loathed the despondency into which Jekyll was now fallen, and he resented the dislike with which he was himself regarded. ... Had it not been for his fear of death, he would long ago have ruined himself in order to involve me in the ruin. But his love of life is wonderful; I go further: I, who sicken and freeze at the mere thought of him, when I recall the abjection and passion of this attachment, and when I know how he fears my power to cut him off by suicide, I find it in my heart to pity him. (Stevenson 2006: 65)
Finally, Jekyll decides he has to get rid of Hyde by the only means available to him, namely, by committing suicide:
This is my true hour of death, and what is to follow concerns another than myself. Here then, ... I bring the life of that unhappy Henry Jekyll to an end. (Stevenson 2006: 66)
A house of horrors background
The evolution of the main characters is inseparably linked with the backgrounds drawn by Robert Louis Stevenson.
The story begins in the typical late 19th century London, with small, quiet, commercial streets, full of happy and wealthy people, on the one hand, and gloomy by-streets full of tramps and dirty children, lined by sinister-looking houses and empty courts, on the other hand. However, many critics consider that the atmosphere and the tone is that of the Edinburgh of Old and New Towns. (Frayling 1996: 160)
Two doors from one corner, on the left hand going east, the line was broken by the entry of a court; and just at that point, a certain sinister block of building thrust forward its gable on the street. It was two storeys high; showed no window, nothing but a door on the lower storey and a blind forehead of discoloured wall on the upper; and bore in every feature, the marks of prolonged and sordid negligence. The door, which was equipped with neither bell nor knocker, was blistered and distained. (Stevenson 2006: 6)
Background 2. Before Hyde's attack on the child, the atmosphere becomes overwhelmingly sinister according to Mr. Enfield:
I was coming home from some place at the end of the world, about three o'clock of a black winter morning, and my way lay through a part of town where there was literally nothing to be seen but lamps. Street after street, and all the folks asleep--street after street, all lighted up as if for a procession and all as empty as a church--till at last I got into that state of mind when a man listens and listens and begins to long for the sight of a policeman. (Stevenson 2006: 6-7)
Background 3. Hyde's dwelling place as described by Mr. Enfield:
It seems scarcely a house. There is no other door, and nobody goes in or out of that one, but, once in a great while, the gentleman of my adventure. There are three windows looking on the court on the first floor; none below; the windows are always shut but they're clean. And then there is a chimney which is generally smoking; so somebody must live there. And yet it's not so sure; for the buildings are so packed together about that court, that it's hard to say where one ends and another begins. (Stevenson 2006: 9)
Background 4. The calm aspect of a London night foreshadows and strongly contrasts with the second portrait of Mr. Hyde:
It was a fine dry night; frost in the air; the streets as clean as a ballroom floor; the lamps, unshaken by any wind, drawing a regular pattern of light and shadow. By ten o'clock, when the shops were closed, the by-street was very solitary and, in spite of the low growl of London from all round, very silent. Small sounds carried far; domestic sounds out of the houses were clearly audible on either side of the roadway; and the rumour of the approach of any passenger preceded him by a long time. (Stevenson 2006: 14)
Background 5. We are provided with a description of Jekyll's house on the outside, and partially on the inside, namely the large hall warmed by a good fire whose flickering flames seem to foreshadow the future destiny of the master of house, just as the flames in Sir Leoline's fireplace accompany Geraldine entering, revealing her true evil character (Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Christabel, 1816):
Round the corner from the by-street, there was a square of ancient, handsome houses, now for the most part decayed from their high estate and let in flats and chambers to all sorts and conditions of men: map-engravers, architects, shady lawyers and the agents of obscure enterprises. One house, however, second from the corner, was still occupied entire; and at the door of this, which wore a great air of wealth and comfort, though it was now plunged into darkness except for the fan-light, Mr. Utterson stopped and knocked, [being then admitted] into a large, low-roofed, comfortable hall, paved with flags, warmed (after the fashion of a country house) by a bright, open fire, and furnished with costly cabinets of oak. ... Tonight there was a shudder in his blood; the face of Hyde sat heavy on his memory; he felt (what was rare with him) a nausea and distaste of life; and in the gloom of his spirits, he seemed to read a menace in the flickering of the firelight on the polished cabinets and the uneasy starting of the shadow on the roof. (Stevenson 2006: 16)
Background 6. After Sir Danvers Carew's murder, the reader is given the description both of a bleak foggy day and of Hyde's house:
A great chocolate-coloured pall lowered over heaven, but the wind was continually charging and routing these embattled vapours; so that as the cab crawled from street to street, Mr. Utterson beheld a marvellous number of degrees and hues of twilight; for here it would be dark like the back-end of evening; and there would be a glow of a rich, lurid brown, like the light of some strange conflagration; and here, for a moment, the fog would be quite broken up, and a haggard shaft of daylight would glance in between the swirling wreaths. The dismal quarter of Soho seen under these changing glimpses, with its muddy ways, and slatternly passengers, and its lamps, which had never been extinguished or had been kindled afresh to combat this mournful reinvasion of darkness, seemed, in the lawyer's eyes, like a district of some city in a nightmare. ... As the cab drew up before the address indicated, the fog lifted a little and showed him a dingy street, a gin palace, a long French eating house, a shop for the retail of penny numbers and twopenny salads, many ragged children huddled in the doorways, and many women of many different nationalities passing out, key in hand, to have a morning glass; and the next moment the fog settled down again upon the part, as brown as umber, and cut him off from his blackguardly surroundings. This was the home of Henry Jekyll's favourite; of a man who was heir to quarter of a million sterling. (Stevenson 2006: 22)
Background 7. Hyde's abode is visited by Utterson and Scotland Yard inspector Newcomen:
In the whole extent of the house, which but for the old woman remained otherwise empty, Mr. Hyde had only used a couple of rooms; but these were furnished with luxury and good taste. A closet was filled with wine; the plate was of silver, the napery elegant; a good picture hung upon the walls, a gift (as Utterson supposed) from Henry Jekyll, who was much of a connoisseur; and the carpets were of many plies and agreeable in colour. At this moment, however, the rooms bore every mark of having been recently and hurriedly ransacked; clothes lay about the floor, with their pockets inside out; lockfast drawers stood open; and on the hearth there lay a pile of gray ashes, as though many papers had been burned. From these embers the inspector disinterred the butt end of a green cheque book, which had resisted the action of the fire; the other half of the stick was found behind the door. (Stevenson 2006: 23)
Background 8. Mr. Utterson visits Henry Jekyll's laboratory and meets the sick-looking doctor:
[Mr. Utterson was] carried down by the kitchen offices and across a yard which had once been a garden, to the building which was indifferently known as the laboratory or the dissecting rooms. The doctor had bought the house from the heirs of a celebrated surgeeon; and his own tastes being rather chemical than anatomical, had changed the destination of the block at the bottom of the garden. ... [Mr. Utterson] eyed the dingy windowless structure with curiosity, and gazed round with a distasteful sense of strangeness as he crossed the theatre ... now lying gaunt and silent, the tables laden with chemical apparatus, the floor strewn with crates and littered with packing straw, and the light falling dimly through the foggy cupola. At the further end, a flight of stairs mounted to a door covered with red baize; and through this, Mr. Utterson was at last received into the doctor's cabinet. It was a large room, fitted round with glass presses, furnished, among other things, with a cheval-glass and a business table, and looking out upon the court by three dusty windows barred with iron. The fire burned in the grate; a lamp was set lighted on the chimney shelf, for even in the houses the fog began to lie thickly; and there, close up to the warmth, sat Dr. Jekyll, looking deadly sick. He did not rise to meet his visitor, but held out a cold hand and bade him welcome in a changed voice. (Stevenson 2006: 24)
Background 9. While Poole takes Mr. Utterson to Hyde's house crossing streets as empty as Jekyll's soul, the lawyer has gloomy presentiments:
It was a wild, cold, seasonable night of March, with a pale moon, lying on her back as though the wind had tilted her, and a flying wrack of the most diaphanous and lawny texture. The wind made talking difficult, and flecked the blood into the face. It seemed to have swept the streets unusually bare of passengers, besides; for Mr. Utterson thought he had never seen that part of London so deserted. ... Struggle as he might, there was borne in upon his mind a crushing anticipation of calamity. The square, when they got there, was all full of wind and dust, and the thin trees in the garden were lashing themselves along the railing. (Stevenson 2006: 34-35)
Background 10. Frightened servants in Jekyll's residence:
The hall, when they entered in, was brightly lighted up; the fire was built high; and about the hearth the whole of the servants, men and women, stood huddled together like a flock of sheep. At the sight of Mr. Utterson, the housemaid broke into hysterical whimpering; and the cook, crying out, 'Bless God!', ... ran forward as if to take him [Utterton] in her arms. ... 'They're all afraid', said Poole. (Stevenson 2006: 35)
Background 11. We are introduced to the quiet cabinet, the sinister mirror, the contorted body of Hyde:
There lay the cabinet before [Utterson's and Poole's] eyes in the quiet lamplight, a good fire glowing and chattering on the hearth, the kettle singing its thin strain, a drawer or two open, papers neatly set forth on the business table, and nearer the fire, the things laid out for tea: the quietest room, you would have said, and, but for the glazed presses full of chemicals, the most commonplace that night in London. Right in the midst there lay the body of a man sorely contorted and still twitching. They drew near on tiptoe, turned it on its back and beheld the face of Edward Hyde. He was dressed in clothes far too large for him, clothes of the doctor's bigness; the cords of his face still moved with a semblance of life, but life was quite gone; and by the crushed phial in the hand and the strong smell of kernels that hung upon the air, Utterson knew that he was looking on the body of a self-destroyer. (Stevenson 2006: 41)
Background 12. The description of the cabinet follows:
At one table, there were traces of chemical work, various measured heaps of some white salt being laid on glass saucers, as though for an experiment in which the unhappy man had been prevented." ... "The searchers came to the cheval glass, into whose depths they looked with an involuntary horror. But it was turned as to show them nothing but the rosy glow playing on the roof, the fire sparkling in a hundred repetitions along the glazed front of the presses, and their own pale and fearful countenances stooping to look in. 'This glass have seen some strange things, sir,' whispered Poole. 'And surely none stranger than itself,' echoed the lawyer in the same tones. 'For what did Jekyll ... what could Jekyll want with it?' he said. (Stevenson 2006: 42)
In spite of the weird atmosphere, Mr. Utterson is certain that Henry Jekyll must be alive although he cannot be found anywhere in the house or court:
He was alive and here this day. He cannot have been dispposed of in so short a space, he must be still alive, he must have fled! And then, why fled? And how? And in that case, can we venture to declare this suicide? (Stevenson 2006: 43)
Stevenson's novella had, immediately after publication, positive reviews. By the end of January 1886, a critic wrote in The Times:
Nothing Mr. Stevenson has written as yet has so strongly impressed us with the versatility of his very original genius as this sparcely-printed little shilling volume. From the business point of view we can only marvel in these practical days at the lavish waste of admirable material, and what strikes us as a disproportionate expenditure on brain-power, in relation to the tangible results. Of two things, one, either the story was a flash of intuitive psychological research, dashed off in a burst of inspiration; or else it is the product of the most elaborate forethought, fitting together all the parts of an intricate and inscrutable puzzle. The proof is, that every connoisseur who reads the story once, must certainly read it twice. (apud Frayling 1996: 119)
Before stating that the narrative was a "parable" of the struggle between good and evil, James Ashcroft Noble (1844-1896), author of Morality in English Fiction (1886), wrote in the Academy magazine:
In spite of the paper cover and the popular price, Mr Stevenson's story distances so unmistakable its three-volume and one-volume competitors that its only fitting place is the place of honour. (apud Frayling 1996:119-120)
Reviewers underlined the novella's originality ("strikingly bold and original in design," The Brighton Telegraph; "a story of extraordinary novelty," The Derby Mercury; " remarkable ... for the extreme and startling and wholly novel motif of the book" The Washington Post; "a perfectly original production", The Contemporary Review), and the manner in which the suspense is maintained ("For the life of us, we cannot make out how such and such an incident can possibly be explained on grounds that are intelligible or in any way plausible," The Times; "it was not until we reached the Doctor' confession that we understood the mysterious power which bound him to Mr Hyde," Court and Society Review; "the denouement is concealed almost up to the end very cleverly," The Brighton Herald). (apud Dury 2006: XXIII-XXIV)
Critical opinions (January-February 1886) were divided. Some underlined the conventional moral messages, reading the story as "an allegory, illustrative of the two-sidedness of human nature, the constant struggle between good and bad, the higher and the lower being in man, and how when he yields to his natural inclination towards the latter, it gradually asserts itself more and more" (The Brighton Telegraph); others referred to the "intuitive psychological research" behind the tale (The Times), to the "psychological speculation" (The Evening Telegram), or to a "remarkable psychological hypothesis" (The Brooklyn Times). (apud Dury 2006: XXIV)
Specialists have given various interpretations lately. Traditionally, the novella has been read as the classic struggle between good and evil, or between the spirit and the flesh. It has also been regarded as the literary result of the disastrous Victorian life conception as well as of the people's daily hyprocrisy which made everybody ignore and repress secret desires, passions and pleasures. Thus, "Stevenson's Hyde and Stoker's Dracula share the throne of cruelty and lust as symbols of the unleashing of desires stiffled by Victorian repression" (Miller 1995: 254). Considering Stevenson's constant conflicts with his father on different grounds (family profession, literary career over law practice, love affair with a married woman, Fanny Osborne, later to become his wife), Henry Jekyll is seen as the social man, Edward Hyde as the rebel soul (Williamson 1992: 61).
Old and new Janus
However, as it often happens in literature, a character or a myth never truly dies, Edward Hyde is resurrected--as Mrs. Kirby, a former patient of Dr. Jekyll's--in The Jekyll Legacy (1991), a direct sequel imagined by Robert Bloch [1917-1994] and Andre Norton [1912-2005], a novel in which the main character is Hester Lane, none other than Dr. Jekyll's niece, just arrived from Canada to become a governess in London. Taking by mistake the mixture concocted by Dr. Jekyll for himself instead of the medicine prescribed by the physician for her usual headaches, Mrs. Kirby gradually became a "female-Hyde," a conscienceless and remorseless creature with "bulging brows, slanting cheekbones, and jutting jaws" and "twisted lips" that rendered the "face feral" (Bloch & Norton 1991: 233). Officially running an establishment for the homeless orphans or abused children, and therefore considered a "saint--one o' them angels" (Bloch & Norton 1991: 99), described, during the first meeting with Hester, as having a plump face, dark eyes and shrewd gaze, in reality the cold-blooded killer of Edgar Poole and Gabriel Utterson, Mrs. Kirby considers that which "we call 'evil' is only our natural state. The truth is that we're animals with animal instincts that cry out for gratification." (Bloch & Norton 1991: 236)
A reading of Stevenson's story from a different viewpoint is done by Valerie Martin in Mary Reilly (1990), a diary written by Dr. Jekyll's loyal and trusted servant, romantically involved with her master. The novel makes readers think about some possibilities about the real fate of Henry Jekyll. The first one:
It is difficult to credit Mary's own conclusion, that her beloved Dr. Jekyll and his murderous assistant Edward Hyde were one and the same person, but not for the reasons Mary gives us: 'How could one man be two, one kind, gentle, generous, the other with no care but his own pleasure and no pleasure but the suffering of his fellows?' ... What is unexplained and incomprehensible in Henry Jekyll's case is the physical transformation, which, if we are to believe Mary's account, was considerable, and given Mr. Poole's panic driven search for as certain chemical as well as Jekyll's own remarks about his experiments, was achieved by the administration of some drug. (Martin 2001: 260)
The second possibility
is that Mary is correct and that Henry Jekyll did somehow come upon a way of transforming himself into the thoroughly unrecognizable and reprehensible Edward Hyde. That this involved losing a foot or so in height, a total change of features and coloring, as well as a stripping away of the effects of age (for all who see him agree that Hyde is small and young) strains credulity. (Martin 2001: 261)
A conclusion is suggested:
The experiment, begun out of curiosity by the kindly, aging philanthropist, must then gradually have gotten out of control, requiring more and more of the chemical to effect the transformation back into Jekyll, until at last no amount would do. It does seem clear, and rather sad as well, that Jekyll closed himself up in his cabinet in a state of despair, knowing that he could no longer keep Edward Hyde at bay. To share one's body with a dangerous criminal is not a fate anyone would willingly embrace, but to share one's consciousness as well, which it seems was in some degree Jekyll's unhappy condition, this must be terror indeed. The curious psychological relationship of Dr. Jekyll to Edward Hyde might be best explained by some student of human psychology adept of untangling the complex threads that so loosely knit the conscious to the unconscious. It is a mysterious connection and one that would surely repay study, for who among us has not felt at some moment the press of an unconscious desire to create havoc? Is it not the fear of this impulse that drives us to insist upon social order? (Martin 2001: 262)
The Jekyll and Hyde motif in literature, music and film
Stevenson s novella has been taken to screen many times, the double part being a tour de force for great actors such as, alphabetically, John Barrymore (1882-1942), Michael Caine (1933-), Kirk Douglas (1916-), David Hemmings (1941-2003), Boris Karloff (1887-1969), Christopher Lee (1922-), Fredric March (1897-1975), Jack Palance (1919-2006), Anthony Perkins (1932-1992), Spencer Tracy (1900-1967) and Conrad Veidt (1893-1943).
After Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1913, director Frank E. Woods), the first horror film made in colour, not by hand-tinting, but by using a system of two interlocked double-speed projectors fitted with revolving red and green filters (Jones 1999: 123), the first great American horror movie was screened on March 18-th, 1920, directed by John S. Robertson, starring John Barrymore. His portrayal of the dual character has remained outstanding for many years. In spite of a minimum of make-up, but taking advantage of his exceptional facial mobility, Barrymore succeeded in playing a "maniacally leering Hyde [growing] progressively more hideous with each transformation" (Jones 1999: 123). One horrific nightmare scene shows Barrymore as a man-sized spider with Hyde's head crawling across Jekyll's bed.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931), directed by Rouben Mamoulian (1897-1987), still remains a classic representation of Stevenson's narrative due to its inventive visual image, its famous character transformation without dissolves by using coloured make-up and filters, the highly effective wipes to split the screen, not to mention the sexual frankness crucial for the doctor's conflicting character. Jekyll is seen as a conflict between the civilized and the primitive sides of man, while Hyde--with his Neanderthal appearance--as a regressive creature, a result of Jekyll's repressed sexuality. (Fischer 1991: 847)
The version signed by Victor Fleming (1889-1949) in 1941 fails to fully develop and explain the sexual violence that Dr. Jekyll (Spencer Tracy), once transformed into Hyde, exhibits when indulging his darkest fantasies with Ivy Peterson, a prostitute (Ingrid Bergman). One of the reasons may be the strict censorship imposed by the Motion Picture Production Code, usually known as the Hays Code (adopted in 1930, but really enforced between 1934 and 1968). However, one should not forget the bizarre, Freudian dream sequence where Hyde is whipping two horses that suddenly transform into Ivy and Beatrix Emery (Lana Turner).
The Hammer Films version (I, Monster, 1971), although shot in the newly developed 3-D process, and casting Christopher Lee as Dr. Charles Marlowe / Mr. Edward Blake, and Peter Cushing (1913-1994) as Frederick Utterton, did not have the success expected by the producers Milton Subotsky (1921-1991) and Max J. Rosenberg (1914-2004). Subotsky's adaptation lacks the mystery and suspense of Stevenson's novella, but gives instead a strong Freudian interpretation. The drug that Dr. Marlowe injects into himself gradually arrests his moral, critical, and guilt-forming superego, thus allowing his primitive and amoral side to run berserk with an ever increasing freedom; Marlowe becomes a newly changed, physically and morally uglier Blake every time he uses the drug. (Miller 1995: 258)
A short survey of the Jekyll and Hyde "double" motif as reflected in literary creations and in films is given below.
Original novella: Robert Louis Stevenson, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1886 [January 9th], London, Longmans, Green, and Co., 141 pages, fawn-coloured paper cover, price 1 shilling; Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1886 [January 5th], price I dollar, 3,000 copies. The English edition was sold in about 40,000 copies by June 1886, the American one in about 75,000 copies by June 1886.
Critical editions (selected titles): Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Jenni Calder, editor, 1979; Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Claire Harman, editor, 1992; The Annotated Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Richard Dury, editor, 1993, reprinted 2005; The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Martin A. Danahay, editor, 1999, reprinted 2005; Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Katherine B. Linehan, editor, 2002; The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Other Tales of Terror, Robert Mighall, editor, 2002; Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Richard Dury, editor, 2006; Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Other Tales, Roger Luckhurst, editor, 2006.
Novels (sequel, adaptation, selected titles): Horace J. Elias, Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (novelization), 1976; Loren D. Estleman [as John H. Watson], Dr Jekyll and Mr. Holmes, 1979; Jeremy Scott [Kay Dick], Doctor Jekyll and Miss Hyde, 1983; Donald Thomas, Jekyll, Alias Hyde. A Variation, 1988; Emma Tennant, Two Women of London: The Strange Case of Ms Jekyll and Mrs Hyde, 1989; Robert Bloch, Andre Norton, The Jekyll Legacy, 1990; Valerie Martin, Mary Reilly, 1990; Amarantha Knight [Nancy Kilpatrick], The Darker Passions: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1995; Robert Johnson, Joanne L. Mattern, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1996; Robert Swindells, Jacqueline Hyde, 1996; Jean-Pierre Naugrette, Le crime etrange de Mr. Hyde, 1998; R. L. Stine, Jekyll and Heidi, 1999; Jason Pettus, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Reimagined for Modern Times, 2003; Luciano Vandelli, Il dottor Jekyll e mister Holmes, 2004; Beth Fantaskey, Jekel Loves Hyde, 2010; M. Elias Keller, Strange Case of Mr. Bodkin and Father Whitechapel, 2012.
Dramatization (selected titles): Thomas Russell Sullivan, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1887 (Boston, May 9th, New York, September 12-th, London, August 4th, 1888); John McKinney, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1888; Luella Forepaugh Fish, George F. Fish, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Or a Mis-Spent Life, 1904; Campbell Stratton, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1904; E. Morton, F. J. Cunniver, The Mysterious Case of Lord Jekyll and Edward Hyde, 1908; John E. Kellard, The Strange of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1923; Betty Rolands, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1932 (radio dramatization); Richard Abbott, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1941; Jerome Lawrence, Robert E. Lee, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1946 (radio dramatization); Lance Sieveking, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1956 (radio dramatization); J. Maxwell, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1957; Ed Thompson, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1973; Jim Marvin, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1980; Leonard H. Caddy, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1981; Christopher Martin, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1984; Donald Campbell, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1985; Robin Brooks, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1990; David Edgar, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1991; Robert Forrest, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1997 (radio dramatization); Mark Redfield, Stuart Voytilla, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 2001; Yvonne Antrobus, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 2007 (radio dramatization); Jeffrey Hatcher, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 2008; Gareth Tilley, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 2012 (radio dramatization); Chris Dolan, The Strange Case of Dr. Hyde, 2012 (radio dramatization).
Short story (selected titles): Ray Russell, Sagittarius, 1962; John Rackham [John Phillifent], Dr. Jeckers and Mr. Hyde, 1963; Thomas Berger, Professor Hyde, 1971; Susan Sontag, Doctor Jekyll, 1974; Kim Newman, Further Developments in the Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1999.
Comics (selected titles): Jerry Kramsky, Lorenzo Mattotti, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 2002; Alan Grant, Cam Kennedy, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 2008; Daniel Pertez, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 2008; Cole Haddon, M. S. Corley, The Strange Case of Mr. Hyde, 2011; C. E. L. Welsh, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 2011.
Music (selected titles): Norman Sachs, Leonora Thuna, After You, Mr. Hyde, 1968 (musical); Wallace Earl De Pue, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1974 (opera); Barry O'Neal, Robin Jones, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1980 (opera); Jack Sharkey, Dave Reiser, Jekyll Hides Again!, 1984 (musical); Leslie Bricusse, Frank Wildhorn, Jekyll and Hyde, 1990 (musical); David Levy, Leslie Eberhard, Phil Hall, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 1995 (musical); Tony Rees, Gary Young, Jekyll. Musical Thriller, 1996; Roger Van Fleteren, Thomas Helms, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The Ballet, 1999.
Filmography: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United States, 1908, producer: William Nicholas Selig, director: Otis Turner, writing credits: George F. Fish, Luella Forepaugh, cast: Hobart Bosworth, Betty Hart; Den skaebnesvangre opfindele / Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Denmark, 1910, producer: Ole Olsen, director: August Blom, writing credits: August Blom, cinematography: Axel Graatkjaer, cast: Alwin Neuss, Oda Alstrup, August Blom, Victor Fabian, Julie Henriksen, Emilie Sannom; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United States, 1912, director: Lucius Henderson, cast: James Cruze, Florence La Badie, Jane Gail, Harry Benham; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United States, 1913, producer: Carl Laemmle, director: Herbert Brenon, writing credits: Herbert Brenon, cast: King Baggot, Jane Gail, Matt Snyder, Howard Crampton, William Sorelle, Herbert Brenon; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United States, 1913, producer: William Nicholas Selig, director: Frank E. Woods, cast: Murdock MacQuarrie; Horrible Hyde, United States, 1915, producer: Siegmund Lubin, director: Howell Hnasel, writing credits: Epes W. Sargent, cast: Jerold T. Hevener, Mae Hotely, Billie Reeves, Eva Bell; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United States, 1920, producer: Adolph Zukor, director: John S. Robertson, writing credits: Clara S. Beranger, cinematography: Roy Overbaugh, art director: Clark Robinson, set decoration: Charles O. Seessel, Robert M. Haas, music: John Scott, cast: John Barrymore, Nita Naldi, Brandon Hurst, Martha Mansfield, Charles Lane, Cecil Clovelly, Nita Naldi, Louis Wolheim, J. Malcolm Dunn, George Stevens; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United States, 1920, producer: Louis Meyer, director: J. Charles Hayden, writing credits: J. Charles Hayden, cast: Sheldon Lewis, Alexander Shannon, Dora Mills Adams, Gladys Field, Harold Forshay, Leslie Austin; Der Januskopf / Doktor Warren und Mr. O 'Connor / Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde / The Janus Head / The Two-Faced Man, Germany, 1920, producer: Erich Pommer, director: F. W. Murnau, writing credits: Hans Janowitz, cinematography: Karl Freund, Carl Hoffman, Carl Weiss, set decoration: Heinrich Richter, cast: Conrad Veidt, Magnus Stifter, Margarete Schlegel, Willy Kaiser-Heyl, Bela Lugosi, Margarete Kupfer, Danny Guertler, Gustav Botz, Marga Reuter; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United States, 1931, producer: Adolph Zukor, director: Rouben Mamoulian, writing credits: Samuel Hoffenstein, Percy Heath, cinematography: Karl Struss, film editing: William Shea, make-up: Wally Westmore, art director: Hans Dreier, cast: Fredric March, Miriam Hopkins, Rose Hobart, Holmes Herbert, Halliwell Hobbes, Edgar Norton, Tempe Pigott, Arnold Lucy; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United States 1941, producers: Victor Fleming, Victor Saville, director: Victor Fleming, writing credits: John Lee Mahin, Samuel Hoffenstein, Percy Heath, cinematography: Joseph Ruttenberg, film editing: Harold F. Kress, special effects:Warren Newcombe, Peter Ballbusch, make-up: Jack Dawn, art directors: Cedric Gibbons, Daniel B. Cathcart, set decoration: Edwin B. Willis, music: Franz Waxman, cast: Spencer Tracy, Ingrid Bergman, Lana Turner, Donald Crisp, Ian Hunter, Barton MacLane, C. Aubrey Smith, Peter Godfrey, Sara Allgood; Frederic Worlock, William Tannen, Frances Robinson, Denis Green, Lumsden Hare, Lawrence Grant; The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United Kingdom, 1950, producer: Fred O'Donovan, writing credits: John Keir Cross, cast: Alan Judd, Desmond Llewelyn, Jack Livesey, Stanley Drewitt, Douglas Jefferies, Kenneth MacKintosh, Patrick Macnee; Son of Dr. Jekyll, United States, 1951, director: Seymour Friedman, writing credits: Edward Heubsch, Mortimer Braus, Jack Pollexfen, cinematography: Henry Freulich, film editing: Gene Havlick, art director: Walter Holscher, set decoration: William Kiernan, make-up: Clay Campbell, music: Paul Sawtell, Paul Mertz, cast: Louis Hayward, Jody Lawrence, Alexander Knox, Lester Matthews, Gavin Muir, Paul Cavanagh, Rhys Williams; Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United States, 1953, producer: Howard Christie, director: Charles Lamont, writing credits: Lee Loeb, John Grant, Howard Dimsdale, story Sidney Fields, Grant Garrett, cinematography, film editing: Russell F. Schoengarth, special effects: David S. Horsley, make-up: Bud Westmore, Jack Kevan, art director: Bernard Herzbrun, Eric Orborn, set decoration: Russell A. Gausman, music: Joseph Gershenson, cast: Bud Abbott, Lou Costello, Boris Karloff, Craig Stevens, Helen Westcott, Reginald Denny, John Dierkes; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United States 1955, TV series Climax!, producer: Edgar Peterson, director: Allen Reisner, writing credits: Gore Vidal, art directors: Albert Heschong, Robert Tyler Lee, set decoration: Anthony Mondell, music: Jerry Goldsmith, cast: Michael Rennie, Cedric Hardwicke, Mary Sinclair, Lowell Gilmore, John Hoyt, Karen Scott, Gil Stuart, Keith McConnell; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United Kingdom, 1956, TV series (Good Evening, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Utterson's Encounter), producer: Philip Saville, director: Philip Saville, writing credits: James Parish, art director: Bertram Tyrer, cast: Dennis Price, Ian Fleming, Renee Goddard, Oliver Johnston, Philip Ray, Nancy Nevinson, Helena Pickard, Nicholas Bruce, Hilda Barry, John Falconer; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United States, 1957, TV series Matinee Theatre, producers: George M. Cahan, Frank Price, director: Allan A. Buckhantz, writing credits: Robert Esson, cast: Douglass Montgomery, Chet Stratton, Lumsden Hare, Lisa Daniels, Patrick Macnee; The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll / House of Fright, United Kingdom, 1960, producers: Michael Carreras, Anthony Nelson-Keys, director: Terence Fisher, writing credits: Wolf Mankowitz, cinematography: Jack Asher, film editing: James Needs, Eric Boyd-Perkins, make-up: Roy Ashton, art director: Don Mingaye, set decoration: Bernard Robinson, music: David Heneker, Monty Norman, cast: Paul Massie, Dawn Addams, Christopher Lee, David Kossoff, Francis de Wolff, Norma Marla, Magda Miller, Oliver Reed, William Kendall, Helen Goss; The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde / Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Canada, United States, 1968, producers: Dan Curtis, Michael Santangelo, Allan Wallace, Victor Ferry, Roy Moe, director: Charles Jarrott, writing credits: Ian McLellan Hunter, make-up: Dick Smith, Nicki Balch, art director: Trevor Williams, set decoration: Fred Brown, music: Robert Cobert, cast: Jack Palance, Delholm Elliott, Leo Genn, Torin Thatcher, Rex Sevenoaks, Gillie Fenwick, Elizabeth Cole, Duncan Lamont, Paul Harding, Oscar Homolka, Billie Whitelaw, Donald Webster; Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde, United Kingdom, 1971, producers: Albert Fennell, Brian Clemens, director: Roy Ward Baker, writing credits: Brian Clemens, cinematography: Norman Warwick, film editing: James Needs, special effects: Michael Collins, make-up: Trevor Crole-Rees, art director: Robert Jones, music: David Whitaker, cast: Ralph Bates, Martine Beswick, Gerald Sim, Lewis Fiander, Susan Brodrick, Ivor Dean, Tony Calvin, Dorothy Alison, Anna Brett; I, Monster, United Kingdom, 1971, producers: Max J. Rosenberg, Milton Subotsky, director: Stephen Weeks, writing credits: Milton Subotsky, cinematography: Moray Grant, film editing: Peter Tanner, make-up: Harry Frampton, Peter Frampton, art director: Tony Curtis, set decoration: Peter Young, music: Carl Davis, cast: Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Mike Raven, Richard Hurndall, George Merritt, Kenneth J. Warren, Susan Jameson, Marjie Lawrence; The Man with Two Heads, United States, 1972, producer: William Mishkin, director: Andy Milligan, writing credits: Andy Milligan, cinematography: Andy Milligan, film editing: Gerald Jackson, make-up: Walter Moody, set decoration: James Fox, music: Carl Davis, cast: Dennis DeMarne, April Conners, Gay Feld, Jaqueline Lawrence, Jeremy Brooks, Berwick Kaler, Jennifer Summerfield, Laurence Davies, Bryan Southcombe, William Barrel; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United Kingdom, United States, 1973, producers: Burt Rosen, David Winters, director: David Winters, writing credits: Sherman Yellin, film editing: Stuart Baird, make-up: Neville Smallwood, music: Lionel Bart, cast: Kirk Douglas, Susan George, Stanley Holloway, Michael Redgrave, Donald Pleasence, Susan Hampshire, Judi Bowker, Geoffrey Moore, Nicholas Smith; El hombre y la bestia / The Man and the Beast, Mexico, 1973, director: Julian Soler, writing credits: Alfredo Ruanova, cinematography: Javier Cruz Ruvalcaba, film editing: Raul J. Castro, special effects: Ricardo Sainz, music: Ernesto Cortazar, cast: Enrique Lizalde, Sasha Montenegro, Carlos Lopez Moctezuma, Eduardo Noriega, Nancy Compare, Julian Pastor, Mauricio Ferrari; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United Kingdom, 1980, producer: Jonathan Powell, director: Alastair Reid, writing credits: Gerald Savory, film editing: Dan Rae, Alan Goddard, special effects: Ian Scoones, A. J. Mitchell, make-up: Sylvia Thornton, set decoration: Tony Abbott, music: Dave Greenslade, cast: David Hemmings, Lisa Harrow, Ian Bannen, Diana Dors, Clive Swift, Toyah Willcox, Roland Curram, Ben Aris, Desmond Llewelyn, Gaye Brown, Roger Davidson; Dr. Jekyll et les femmes / Le cas etrange de Dr. Jekyll et de Miss Osbourne / The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Miss Osbourne / Dr. Jekyll and His Women / The Blood of Dr. Jekyll / The Bloodbath of Dr. Jekyll / The Experiment, France, West Germany, 1981, producers: Ralph Baum, Robert Kuperberg, Jean-Pierre Labrande, director: Walerian Borowczyk, writing credits: Walerian Borowczyk, cinematography: Noel Very, film editing: Khadicha Bariha, make-up: Christine Fornelli, set decoration: Walerian Borowczyk, music; Bernard Parmegiani, cast: Udo Kier, Marina Pierro, Patrick Magee, Gerard Zalcberg, Howard Vernon, Clement Harari, Jean Mylonas; Edge of Sanity, United Kingdom, France, Hungary, United States, 1989, producers: Harry Alan Towers, Edward Simons, Jacques Fiorentino, Peter A. McRae, Maria Rohm, James Swann, director: Gerard Kikoine, writing credits: Ron Raley, J. P. Felix, Edward Simons, cinematography: Tony Spratling, film editing: Malcolm Cooke, special effects: Ian Wingrove, make-up: Gordon Kaye, set decoration: Jean Charles Dedieu, music: Frederic Talgorn, cast: Anthony Perkins, Glynis Barber, Sarah Maur-Thorp, David Lodge, Ben Cole, Ray Jewers, Jill Melford, Lisa Davis, Noel Coleman, Briony McRoberts, Mark Elliot, Harry Landis, Jill Pearson; The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United States, 1989, TV series Nightmare Classics, producers: Bridget Terry, Christopher Toyne, director: Michael Lindsay-Hogg, writing credits: J. Michael Straczynski, film editing: Brian Q. Kelley, cast: Anthony Andrews, Nicholas Guest, George Murdock, Gregory Cooke, J. M. Hobson, Lisa Langlois, Rue McClanahan, Laura Dern, Denholm Elliott; Jekyll and Hyde, United Kingdom, United States, 1990, producers: Patricia Carr, Gerald W. Abrams, David Wickes, Nick Elliott, director: David Wickes, writing credits: David Wickes, cinematography: Norman Langley, film editing: John Shirley, special effects: Craig Chandler, Alan Church, Chris Fitzgerald, make-up: Lois Burwell, Stuart Conran, Mark Jones, Chris Lyons, art director: Keith Pain, set decoration: William Alexander, music: John Cameron, cast: Michael Caine, Cheryl Ladd, Joss Ackland, Ronald Pickup, Diane Keen, Kim Thomson, Kevin McNally, Lee Montague, Miriam Karlin, Lance Percival, Lionel Jeffries; Mary Reilly, United States, 1996, producers: Ned Tanen, Nancy Graham Tanen, Norma Heyman, Lynn Pleshette, Iain Smith, director: Stephen Frears, writing credits: Christopher Hampton, novel Valerie Martin, cinematography: Philippe Rousselot, film editing: Leslie Walker, special effects: Richard Conway, Simon Quinn, Richard Darwin, Kent Houston, Mark Nelmes, Colin Shulver, make-up: Richard Dean, Ivana Primorac, Jenny Shircore, art director: John King, Michael Lamont, Jim Morahan, set decoration: Stuart Craig, Stephenie McMillan, music: George Fenton, cast: Julis Roberts, John Malkovich, George Cole, Michael Gambon, Kathy Staff, Glenn Close, Michael Sheen, Bronagh Gallagher, Linda Bassett, Ciaran Hinds; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United States, 2002, producers: Mark Redfield, Terry Woods,Thomas E. Cole, director: Mark Redfield, writing credits: Mark Redfield, cinematography: Karl E. deVos, film editing: Sean Paul Murphy, special effects: Norman Gagnon, Doug Retzler, Barry Clompus, Clay Supensky, Eric Supensky, Tom Supensky, make-up: Bob Yoho, art director: Mark Redfield, set decoration: Dorian Brown, music: Nalin Taneja, cast: Mark Redfield, Elena Torrez, Kosha Engler, Carl Randolph, Howell Roberts, R. Scott Thompson, E. John Edmonds, Jeff Miller, R. J. Lyston, James Nalitz, Jennifer Cortese; Jekyll + Hyde, United States, Canada, 2006, producers: Nick Stillwell, David Court, Ean Thorley, Paolo Bugliari Goggia, Sandra S. Hughes, director: Nick Stillwell, writing credits: David T. Reilly, Nick Stillwell, cinematography: Philip Robertson, film editing: David Barrett, special effects: A. Scott Hamilton, Maya Kulenovic, make-up: Kelly Kavanagh, art director: Greg Chown, set decoration: Ken Sinclair, Bob Sher, music: Patrick Doyle, cast: Bryan Fisher, Bree Turner, Jeff Roop, Zachary Bennett, Maria del Mar, Jamie Chirgwin, Katrina Matthews, Landy Cannon, Amanda Row; The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United States, 2006, producers: Peter Davy, Bob Myers, Rick Nicolet, director: John Carl Buechler, writing credits: John Carl Buechler, cinematography: James M. LeGoy, film editing: Norman Apstein, special effects: John Carl Buechler, Kai Shelton, Michelle Chung, make-up: John Carl Buechler, Michelle Farmer, John Paul Fedele, Jenn Rose, art director: Laird Pulver, set decoration: Jaeson Kay, Emily Perez, music: Andy Garfield, cast: Tony Todd, Tracy Scoggins, Vernon Wells, Danielle Nicolet, Steve Wastell, Deborah Shelton, Judi Shekoni, Tim Thomerson, Peter Jason, Peter Lupus III, Tyler Kain, Nicholle Tom; Jekyll, United States, 2007, producers: Scott Zakarin, Steven Jay Fogel, Peter Jaysen, Eric Mittleman, Mark Headly, director: Scott Zakarin, writing credits: Scott Zakarin, cinematography: William MacCollum, film editing: Joe Vallero, special effects: Donn Dean, Matt Heffner, Sean C. Cunningham, Mark Teague, Evan Unruh, Joe Vallero, make-up: Marie-Flore Beaubien, Zee Graham, art director: Laura Paddock, set decoration: Mark Teague, music: Ivan Koutikov, cast: Matt Keeslar, Jonathan Silverman, Alanna Ubach, Siena Goines, Desmond Askew, Abigail Spencer, John Rubinstein, Brian Palermo, Steve Fogel, Mike Baldridge; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Canada, 2008, producers: Irene Litinsky, Francois Sylvestre, Robert Halmi Sr., Robert Halmi Jr., Jesse Prupas, director: Paolo Barzman, writing credits: Paul B. Margolis, cinematography: Pierre Jodoin, film editing: Annie Ilkow, special effects: Gary Coates, Mario Rachiele, make-up: Marianne Bobet, art director: Pierre Perrault, set decoration: Zoe Sakellaropoulo, music: F. M. Le Sieur, cast: Dougray Scott, Krista Bridges, Tom Skerritt, Danette Mackay, Cas Anvar, Ellen David, Vlasta Vrana, Ian Finlay, Kathleen Fee, Patrick Costello.
Critical studies (selected titles): Graham Balfour, The Life of Robert Louis Stevenson, 1901; Isobel Strong, Robert Louis Stevenson, 1920; Arthur St. John Adcock, editor, Robert Louis Stevenson: His Work and His Personality, 1924; Lloyd Osbourne, An Intimate Portrait of R. L. Stevenson, 1924; John A. Stewart, Robert Louis Stevenson, 1924;Jean Marie Carre, La vie de Robert Louis Stevenson, 1929; Lettice Cooper, Robert Louis Stevenson, 1947; Janet Adam Smith, Henry James and Robert Louis Stevenson: A Record of Friendship and Criticism, 1948; Malcolm Elein, The Strange Case of R. L. Stevenson, 1950; Edwin M. Eigner, Robert Louis Stevenson and the Romantic Tradition, 1966; Jenni Calder, R. L. Stevenson, A Life Study, 1980, reprinted 1990; Jenni Calder, editor, The Robert Louis Stevenson Companion, 1980; Roger C. Swearingen, The Prose Writings of R. L. Stevenson, 1980; Paul Maixner, Robert Louis Stevenson, The Critical Heritage, 1981; Jenni Calder, editor, Stevenson and Victorian Scotland, 1981; Harry M. Geduld, The Definitive Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' Companion, 1983; Karl Miller, Doubles: Studies in Leterary History, 1985; William Veeder, Gordon Hirsch, editors, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde after One Hundred Years, 1988; Paul Coates, The Double and the Other: Identity as Ideology in Post-Romantic Fiction, 1988; Ian Bell, R. L. Stevenson: Dreams Of Exile, A Biography, 1993; Frank McLynn, Robert Louis Stevenson, A Biography, 1994; Scott Allen Nollen, Robert Louis Stevenson, Life, Literature and the Silver Screen, 1994, reprinted 2011; Brian A. Rose, Jekyll and Hyde Adapted: Dramatizations of a Cultural Anxiety, 1996; R. C. Terry, Robert Louis Stevenson. Interviews and Recollections, 1996; Robert Fraser, Victorian Quest Romance: Stevenson, Haggard, Kipling and A. Conan Doyle, 1998; Philip Callow, Louis: A Life of R. Louis Stevenson, 2001; Raymond McNally, Radu Florescu, In Search of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: The True Story Behind the Ultimate Tale of Horror, 2001; William B. Jones Jr., Robert Louis Stevenson Reconsidered: New Critical Perspectives, 2003; Claire Harman, Robert Louis Stevenson: A Biography, 2005; Renata Kobetts Miller, Recent Interpretations of Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'. Why and How This Novel Continues to Affect Us, 2005.
Documentary films (selected titles): Nightmare: The Birth of Horror. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United Kingdom, 1996, producer: Derek Towers, director: Derek Towers, narrator: Christopher Frayling; 100 Years of Horror: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, United States, 1996, producer Ted Newsom, director: Tom Forrester, writing credits: Ted Newsom, narrator: Christopher Lee.
Acknowledgments Parts of this paper (The double never vanishes; Face of kindness, face of horror; Pale, dwarfish, troglodyte; The horror of my other self; A house of horrors background; Old and new Janus; The Jekyll and Hyde motif in literature, music and film) have been financially supported within the project entitled Doctorate: an Attractive Research Career, contract number POSDRU/107/1.5/S/77946, co-financed by European Social Fund through Sectoral Operational Programme for Human Resources Development 2007-2013. Investing in people!
American Psychiatric Association (2013), Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed., Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Arata S (1996) Fiction of loss in the Victorian fin de siecle: identity and empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloch R, Norton A (1991) The Jekyll legacy. New York: Tor Books.
Boor M (1982) The multiple personality epidemic: additional cases and inferences regarding diagnosis, dynamics and cure. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 170: 302-304.
Bremner JD (2010) Cognitive processes in dissociation: comment on Giesbrecht et al (2008). Psychological Bulletin 136 (1): 1-6.
Cave S (2002) Classification and diagnosis of psychological abnormality. London: Routledge.
Chambers dictionary of literary characters (2004). Edinburgh: Chambers.
Cohen LM, Berzoff J, Elin MR (1995) Dissociative identity disorder: theoretical and treatment controversies. New Jersey: Jason Aronson.
Comer R (2007) Abnormal psychology, 6th ed. New York: Worth Publishers.
D'Ammassa D (2006) Encyclopedia of fantasy and horror fiction. New York: Facts On File, Infobase.
Danahay MA (2005) Introduction. In: Robert Louis Stevenson, The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Danahay MA, ed. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview.
Davies J, Frawley M (1991) Dissociative processes and transference--countertransference paradigms in the psychoanalytically oriented treatment of adult survivors of child sexual abuse. Psychoanalytic Dialogues 2: 5-36.
Dury R (2006) Introduction. In: Robert Louis Stevenson, Strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Dury R, ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fischer D (1991) Horror film directors, 1931-1990. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Frayling C (1996) Nightmare: the birth of horror. London: BBC Books.
Giesbrecht T, Lynn SJ, Lilienfeld SO, Merckelbach H (2008) Cognitive processes in dissociation: an analysis of core theoretical assumptions. Psychological Bulletin 134: 617-647.
Hogle JE (1998) Robert Louis Stevenson. The handbook to gothic literature. Mulvey-Roberts E, ed. London: MacMillan.
Janet P (1989) L 'automatismepsychologique. Paris: Balliere. Jones S (1999) The essential monster movie guide: a century of creature features on film, tv and video. London: Titan Books.
Kluft RP (2003) Current issues in dissociative identity disorder. Bridging Eastern and Western psychiatry 1: 71-87.
Lev-Wiesel R (2005) Dissociative identity disorder as reflected in drawings of sexually abused survivors. Journal of the Arts in Psychotherapy 32: 372-381.
Lilienfeld SO, Lynn SJ, Kirsch I, Chaves JF, Sarbin TR, Ganaway GK (1999) Dissociative identity disorder and the sociocognitive model: Recalling the lessons of the past. Psychological Bulletin 125(5): 507-523.
Loewenstein RJ, Putnam FW (2004) The dissociative disorders. Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry, pp 1884-1901. Sadock BJ, Sadock VA, eds. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
Luckhurst R (2006) Introduction. In: Robert Louis Stevenson, Strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and other tales. Luckhurst R, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin V (2001) Mary Rally. New York: Vintage Books.
McAllister M (2000) Dissociative identity disorder, a literature review. Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health 7: 25-33.
Miller MA (1995) Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing and horror cinema: a filmography of their 22 collaborations. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Piper A, Merskey H (2004). The persistence of folly: critical examination of dissociative identity disorder, vol 2: The defense and decline of multiple personality disorder or dissociative identity disorder. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (49)10: 678-683.
Snodgrass ME (2005) Encyclopedia of gothic literature. New York: Facts On File, Infobase.
Spanos N P (1994) Multiple identity enactments and multiple personality disorder: A sociocognitive perspective. Psychological Bulletin 116: 143-165.
Stevenson RL (2006) Strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and other tales. Luckhurst R, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tudor FM, Tudor LA (2012) Enciclopedie horror, vol 2. Iasi: Institutul European.
Williamson J (1992) The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Horror: 100 best books. Jones S, Newman K, eds. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Zimbardo PG, Johnson RL, Weber AL (2006) Psychology: core concepts, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Stefan cel Mare University
Ana Maria Hojbota
Alexandru loan Cuza University
Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Mental disorders|
|Author:||Tudor, Lucia-Alexandra; Hojbota, Ana Maria|
|Publication:||Romanian Journal of Artistic Creativity|
|Date:||Jun 22, 2013|
|Previous Article:||Lifting the veil off Old Thunder: the rise of Leviathan.|
|Next Article:||Foodwise creativity.|