Yadira Aguillon
When it comes to Bram Stoker’s Dracula, most of us can readily agree with the idea that the novel has found its way into today’s popular culture. Along with Polidori’s The Vampyre (1819) and Sheridan Le Fanu’s Carmilla (1872), the subject of vampires is one of the central features of gothic fiction and it has become a particular point of interest for readers, viewers, and even doctors alike. In fact, those in the medical field have looked exclusively into a psychiatrical disease that follows vampiric characteristics and have tried to piece how it could be central to Stoker’s character, Renfield.
As Régis Olry and Duane E. Haines have found in their research, “the etiology of Renfield’s syndrome…remains unknown,” but many of the symptoms of the psychiatrical disease lead them to believe that it could be inspired by Stoker’s Renfield, the mentally ill character that is being watched and studied by Dr. Seward (368). Olry and Haines go on to explain that Herschel Prins introduced the idea of vampirism as a clinical condition in the 1980s, but it was not named Renfield’s syndrome until 1992 by psychologist Richard Noll, who discovered “the progression of Renfield’s syndrome” (369). In 1992, Noll concluded the symptoms of Renfield’s syndrome “follows a typical course” of autovampirism, zoophagia, and vampirism (369). When the syndrome first develops as autovampirism, it comes in the form of self-induced “scrapes or cuts in the skin to produce blood,” and it slowly develops into zoophagia, or the consumption of living animals, to satisfy the individual’s blood craving (369).
Vampirism is the last development of Renfield’s syndrome, and it moves from the consumption of animal blood to human blood, which can be obtained through directly drinking from the individual or through stealing from hospitals and labs (369). In other words, Renfield’s syndrome focuses on the individual’s fascination for blood through the behaviors they exhibit, which classifies it as a psychiatrical disease. Furthermore, knowing the symptoms allows us to see how severe they can appear to be in the person who is affected. Ultimately, Olry and Haines acknowledge that Renfield exhibits the syndrome in the novel, but could we argue that Renfield does not suffer from Renfield’s syndrome at all? Instead, Renfield’s madness comes as a by-product of the characters’ increased wariness of the events that are happening. This, in turn, makes Renfield one of the sanest characters in Stoker’s novel because he is focused on making sure that the characters know the truth behind his madness.
Before we can acknowledge Renfield’s insanity as something other than Renfield’s syndrome, we should be aware of the different treatments of insanity during the Victorian era. According to an 1888 article published in The British Medical Journal, there were three different treatments mentally ill patients might experience: surgical, medical, or mental treatment (500). Based on how severe the patient’s mental stability appears to be, doctors might choose to operate on the brain to get it back to its “aseptic state” (500). Doctors would remove the so-called bacteria that is formed in a state of madness and bring the individual to a new state of mind. Furthermore, for a patient to undergo medical treatment, doctors had to make a “comparatively accurate estimate of the whole pathological state and tendencies, of the individual lunatic” (500). In short, doctors must carefully examine every aspect of the mad patient before pharmaceuticals can be provided.
The last treatment for the mentally ill focuses on the mental aspect of psychiatry. Under a mental treatment, the patient takes “temporary residence in an asylum” and is separated from “the scenes and conditions under which the insanity arose” (500). The essence of the mental treatment is to get the patient away from what caused the madness and bring them to solitude. In the end, the doctors “control over the production of insanity” by watching the patient’s every move so that “members of the community” do not feel threatened by the individual (500). This is all to say that doctors want to make sure the patient does not become a threat to others, so they quarantine the patient. Although discussions of the treatment of insanity during the Victorian era may seem trivial, it is in fact crucial to our understanding of Bram Stoker’s Dracula because it is one of the central topics present in our characters. Many of us will readily jump at the idea that Renfield is insane because Dr. Seward shows us otherwise through the way that he takes care of Renfield. Yet this solitude that Dr. Seward creates for Renfield brings him more madness than control, and the kindness he believes he is providing by taking Renfield in for personal study should not be seen as such.
Of course, many will probably disagree with the assertion that Renfield is not a madman, but I would like to urge readers to focus on the way that the treatment of Renfield first starts in our introduction. From the moment we start to learn about R.M. Renfield, we understand that his demeanor is unlike the rest of the patients. Dr. Seward tells us that he visits the asylum and chooses a patient “who has afforded [him] a study of much interest” because “he is so quaint in his ideas, and so unlike the normal lunatic” (Stoker 84). Through Dr. Seward’s diary, we know that he picks Renfield: a fifty-nine-year-old patient who is “morbidly excitable, [of] sanguine temperament; [and] great physical strength” with “periods of gloom ending in some fixed idea” (84). In other words, Renfield is unlike any of the other patients in Dr. Seward’s asylum because he is so complex in his mannerisms and ideas.
Moreover, Valerie Pedlar—author of “The Most Dreadful Visitation”: Male Madness in Victorian Fiction—asserts, “Seward presumes that Renfield’s madness is the result of some disturbing influence” and it “gives the impression that once all the operative factors have been determined, the case of Renfield will become comprehensible” (137). What Pedlar means is that Seward has classified Renfield’s madness as something that stems from a specific moment, and once he can figure it out, then he will get to understand him better. This, in turn, causes Dr. Seward to question Renfield “more fully than [he] had ever done, with a view to making [himself] master of the facts of his hallucination” (84). It follows, then, that all the questioning that Renfield is going through has a purpose, and Seward has made it his mission to know every detail about him.
Following the introduction of Renfield, we see how his mind works as well as the behaviors he exhibits. As Dr. Seward notes in his diary, Renfield “has certain qualities very largely developed: selfishness, secrecy, and purpose” (Stoker 92). Dr. Seward goes on to explain that Renfield’s “redeeming quality is a love of animals,” but even then “his pets are of odd sorts” (92). From choosing to keep flies as pets and requesting “a nice little, sleek, playful kitten,” it is no wonder that Dr. Seward—and many readers in general—might doubt the likelihood that Renfield is sane (93). As scholar Samir Elbarbary claims, “The use of animal imagery signif[ies] the ‘primitive,’” which gets Dr. Seward to further believe that Renfield is not in his right mind (124). Furthermore, Dr. Seward goes on to argue that Renfield is “an undeveloped homicidal maniac” because he denies him the kitten he requested (93). Therefore, Dr. Seward later finds him “sitting in a corner brooding” until Renfield “implored [Seward] to let him have a cat; that his salvation depended upon it” (93). In short, Dr. Seward is showing that Renfield’s behavior of asking for living creatures is quite odd, and he plans to “test him with his present craving” to get to know more of Renfield.
Moreover, it is quite telling that Dr. Seward has a determination to get to know Renfield’s mind only after his “rebuff of yesterday” with Lucy Westenra because it shows us that he might not be observing Renfield for the right reasons (84). In fact, Debbie Harrison argues that “Lucy’s rejection of his marriage proposal is palpable” in Dr. Seward’s diary entry (59). Instead of working toward understanding Renfield’s mind, Dr. Seward is letting his “sort of empty feeling” get the best of him and in doing so, we see “something of cruelty” come out of Seward (84). Ultimately, what is at stake is the mental health of Renfield because he is not receiving proper care from Dr. Seward to solve the problems he mentions and is suffering through. Thus, it is Dr. Seward who is projecting his hysteria following Lucy’s rejection onto Renfield, and it is what causes him to begin the clinical study on Renfield.
While some may find the particular passages of Renfield asking for animals to not hold much significance, I would like to argue that they hold value because it shows Renfield’s need to be with others despite him being classified as a madman. In fact, Renfield asking for pets allows us to see some of the first instances where Renfield is trying to find companionship while being held in solitude by Dr. Seward. Although we later find out by the keeper that Renfield might have “eaten his birds,” it should not dismiss the fact that Renfield is often left alone to ponder his thoughts when he should be kept busy. Because he is not kept busy, Renfield does himself more harm in the eyes of Dr. Seward through the killing of the birds. In Sarah Chaney’s view, “it was the more common minor injuries which required regular intervention by asylum medical staff and frequently formed matters of concern” (281). This information presented by Chaney is important because it is showing the reader that even though Renfield “disgorged a whole lot of feathers,” it is enough to cause Seward to come and attend to his patient (Stoker 94). By extension, Seward gives Renfield “a strong opiate” to get him to calm down (94). Looking at this passage alone, we see that Seward would rather deal with Renfield while he is asleep and medicated instead of when he is considered to be mad, which shows a lack of professionalism on Seward’s part. He does not take the time to ask Renfield what is wrong, nor does he consider getting to the bottom of the behaviors that he is displaying before he claims that “lunatics always do within their own scope” (94). Consequently, Renfield starts to fall deeper into his madness since Seward does not listen to him.
In contrast to the way that Dr. Seward treats Renfield’s madness, we should also be aware of the way that he treats Arthur Van Helsing after learning about Lucy’s death. As Dr. Seward writes in his diary:
“The moment we were alone in the carriage [Van Helsing] gave way to a regular fit of hysterics. He has denied to me since that it was hysterics, and insisted that it was only his sense of humour asserting itself under very terrible conditions. He laughed till he cried, and I had to draw down the blinds lest any one should see us and misjudge; and then he cried till he laughed again; and laughed and cried together, just as a woman does.” (Stoker 187)
Even though we cannot classify Van Helsing as completely mad because he has just witnessed death, it should not dismiss the fact that Dr. Seward does consider his behavior as a moment of madness. According to Andrés Romero Jódar, Van Helsing’s hysterics suggests that he is “the source of the infection, the origin of ‘the epidemic of hysteria’” (31). Similarly, as Daniel Pick offers, “Everyone, it appears in the novel, is obligated to doubt not only their own descent but their own health and mental order or else to fall into mere self-delusion” (77). What Pick and Jódar mean by this is that Renfield is not the only character who suffers and questions his own madness; indeed, the insanity presented could be the single perception of Van Helsing that is being mirrored onto other characters. Incidentally, we see Van Helsing’s madness in the way that he vehemently denies the claim that his behaviors while in the carriage are filled with hysterics.
Here, most would object to the assertion that Van Helsing has no correlation to the madness present in Renfield. While it is true that Van Helsing and Renfield are two different entities who do not share one single form of madness, I still maintain the idea that their madness is treated as a double standard by Dr. Seward. On the one hand, when Van Helsing claims he is not in hysterics, Dr. Seward tries to get him to calm down and lets the subject go after Van Helsing is “logical and forceful and mysterious” (Stoker 187). In short, when Van Helsing gets serious about his madness and logically explains it to Seward, no one questions it further. On the other hand, when Renfield comes face-to-face with Dr. Seward and his company, he argues that he is “as sane as at least the majority of men who are in full possession of their liberties” (251). He goes on to say that he should be “considered as under exceptional circumstances” and “desire[s] to go at once” from Dr. Seward’s care (251). He does not believe that he is “at liberty to give [Seward] the whole of [his] reasons,” but he would like to “assure [him], take it from [him] that they are good ones, sound and unselfish, and springing from the highest sense of duty” (252). In fact, even Dr. Seward finds, “under the conviction, despite [his] knowledge of the man’s character and history, that [Renfield’s] reason has been restored” (251). However, Dr. Seward does not end up fulfilling Renfield’s wishes and tells him to “try to behave more discreetly” (251). Although some might read these passages as nothing but Renfield trying to persuade Dr. Seward into letting him leave, I suggest that Renfield is trying to let his voice of reason help Seward and the others understand that terrible events are going to happen.
When it comes down to Renfield’s reason, then, we should not dismiss it as madness. Instead, we should be looking at the way that his behaviors and manner of speaking are mere warnings for what is about to happen to the characters. As Renfield notes, Dr. Seward and the others “don’t know what [they] do by keeping [him] here” (Stoker 253). When Renfield says that he wants to leave from Seward’s care, he is “speaking from the depths of [his] heart—of [his] very soul” (253). We must not forget that even though many of his physical behaviors are quite questionable, this passage is one of the first moments where Renfield is getting in touch with his emotions while also being logical about what he is proposing. We should also consider the way that Renfield claims, “You don’t know whom you wrong, or how; and I may not tell” (Stoker 253). While we could put it off as Renfield letting his insanity get the best of him, it would not account for the way that Renfield goes on to urge Dr. Seward to do him “the justice to bear in mind, later on, that [he] did what [he] could to convince him” to let him go (254). In any case, Renfield is warning Dr. Seward about Dracula’s appearance and the damage he will bring them. Furthermore, as Renfield’s mental health starts to deteriorate, Seward still pushes him to talk about the way he views life and souls, to which Renfield asserts, “Haven’t I got enough to worry, and pain, and distract me already, without thinking of souls” (Stoker 276). Yet again we are witnessing how Seward’s lack of care toward Renfield is making his patient endure more madness than he is capable of in his current mental state.
Ultimately, it is toward the end of Renfield’s life that we see the value behind his words and the mistreatment that he faced because of Dr. Seward’s carelessness. After “that night…when [Renfield] implored [Dr. Seward] to let [him] go away,” he suffers from an attack by Dracula to which he receives “some terrible injuries” (Stoker 279). As Renfield explains, he knew that Dracula was coming so he “was ready for Him” when he showed up (284). Additionally, Renfield acknowledges that he “was a madman—at times anyhow—[so he] resolved to use [his] power” to stop Dracula from getting to Mina Harker (284). To put it succinctly, Renfield was trying to save Mina from the horrible fate of turning into a vampire, but Dracula was able to manipulate and hurt him beyond repair. Renfield also acknowledges that he is often a madman, but when it came to talking about his departure, he was being an honest man. In the end, it is Quincey Morris who tells Dr. Seward and the others that “the poor fellow [Renfield] is dead” (288). Further into the story we see that Dr. Seward does not take fault for Renfield’s death and relies on the “attendant’s evidence” to “give a certificate of death by misadventure in falling from bed” (292). In sum, then, Dr. Seward was never completely there to take care of his patient like a doctor should, and it ultimately led to the death of Renfield. Thus, we cannot be entirely sure that Renfield is ruled by his madness when Dr. Seward also has a dark history of not providing Renfield with the right treatment.
It follows, then, that Renfield’s insanity is not entirely his own since Dr. Seward lacked the proper care and hospitality for his patient from the beginning. As The British Journal states, doctors needed to provide the proper treatment to their patient if they wanted to release them back into their community. What Dr. Seward did, however, was abuse the medical and moral/mental treatments, and it led to the horrific death of Renfield. Even though treatment of mental illnesses was not one of the top priorities of the late Victorian era, Dr. Seward’s experience in asylums does not account for his lack of professionalism toward his client. We cannot be entirely sure that Renfield suffered from the psychiatrical syndrome presented by Regis and Olry either because his behaviors go deeper than the symptoms describe. Had Dr. Seward provided Renfield with the right treatment from the start and listened to what he had to say, Renfield and the others involved would not have had to become victim to Dracula’s blood thirst. In the end, it is those who are considered insane that fall victim to unfair practices produced by others.
Works Cited
Chaney, Sarah. “‘A Hideous Torture on Himself’: Madness and Self-Mutilation in Victorian Literature.” Journal of Medical Humanities, vol. 32, no. 4, 2011, pp. 279–289.
Elbarbary, Samir. “'Heart of Darkness' and Late-Victorian Fascination with the Primitive and the Double.” Twentieth Century Literature, vol. 39, no. 1, 1993, pp. 113–128.
Harrison, Debbie. “Doctors, Drugs, and Addiction: Professional Integrity in Peril at the Fin de Siecle.” Gothic Studies, vol. 11, no. 2, 2009, pp. 52-62. Literature Resource Center, http://link.galegroup.com.lib-proxy.fullerton.edu/apps/doc/A381057961/LitRC?u=csuf_main&sid=LitRC&xid=ae477573. Accessed 07 Nov. 2018.
Olry, Regis, and Duane Haines. “Renfield’s Syndrome: A Psychiatric Illness Drawn from Bram Stoker’s Dracula.” Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, vol. 20, no. 4, 2011, pp. 368–71.
Pedlar, Valerie. “The Zoophagous Maniac: Madness and Degeneracy in Dracula.” ‘The Most Dreadful Visitation’: Male Madness in Victorian Fiction. Liverpool University Press, 2006, pp. 134-58.
Pick, Daniel. “‘Terrors of the Night’: Dracula and ‘Degeneration’ in the Late Nineteenth Century.” Critical Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 4, 1988, pp. 71–87.
Romero Jódar, Andrès. “Bram Stoker’s Dracula: A Study on the Human Mind and Paranoid Behaviour.” Atlantis: Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Ingleses y Norteamericanos, vol. 31, no. 2, 2009, pp. 23-39, doi:10.2307/41055362.
Stoker, Bram. Dracula. Bedford/St. Martins, 2016.
“The Treatment Of Insanity And The Address In Psychology.” The British Medical Journal, vol. 2, no. 1444, 1888, pp. 499–500. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20217206.
Biography
Yadira Aguillon is a graduate student from California State University, Fullerton. Her research interests include young adult and postmodern literature. In her free time, she enjoys hiking and playing with her three cats.