The strange case of Fyodor Dostoevsky and Robert Stevenson in the Victorian Age: A protest against the depersonalization

Introduction

The moral choice of Golyadkin from the Petersburg poem called “The Double” by Dostoevsky and Henry Jekyll from the short story called “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” by Stevenson due to various reasons – to reach the height of prosperity and hit rock bottom, unequivocally speaks for the inflexibility of the spiritual tradition, which fits into the context of modern challenges, and on the eve of the 200th anniversary of Dostoevsky and in the year of the 170th anniversary of the birth of Stevenson, acquires the status of universal human values actualization.

In the context of the spiritual tradition of Russian culture, Orthodox in its origins and categories of national identity – the opposition of Law and Grace, coverage of the moral choice of Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, who followed the apostolic instruction: “For there is a division in his mind, and he is uncertain in all his ways” (Jakob 1:8) he feels the lack of attention to himself. The hero rooted in the primordial worldview of the Russian people tries to preserve his moral, remaining himself – instinct with affection for his neighbors, and makes desperate attempts to reach a new level of self-determination in the house of the State Counselors, Berendeyev, a V class official, socially set by perverted criteria of successful becoming, however he, who did not hunker down to overcome his character, is expelled from there as an alien phenomenon. A titular advisor, IX class official, believing that the life is wide and he dares to go his own special path, is acutely experiencing the replacement of himself with a modeled copy unconditionally recognized by the people around him, but Golyadkin remains a person. And in this regard, the established stereotypical propositions about Golyadkin’s madness are groundless, which explains Dostoevsky’s interpretation of the short novel idea as light and conditional system of axiological concepts of Orthodox anthropology.

Stevenson created his own artistic version of the fate of the dual hero: Dr. Henry Jekyll himself gave birth to Mr. Hyde to enjoy the fullness of sinful temptations, but life did not succumb to the presumptuous correction.

The purpose of the study is the understanding as mastering the spiritual meaning of Petersburg poem called “The Double” by Dostoevsky and short story called “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” by Stevenson in the context of the Christian heritage of the cultural tradition of modern human.

Objectives:

1. pay attention to the undefined stereotype of judgments about works of literature that go back to socially denunciatory interpretations of intentions or abstract judgments about the original tragedy of human nature noted by the authors;
2. show the moral consistency of Dostoevsky’s hero, rooted in the spiritual tradition of Russian culture and who did not waste his energy in exchange for the dreamy achievements of self-determination;}understand the meaning of Dostoevsky’s prophetic warning in terms of modeling selflessness and breaking with cultural and historical tradition, which poses a threat to modern humanity;}present the results of the spiritual biography of Henry Jekyll not nearly instinct with tragedy, but by the doctor’s victory over the satanic monster he created;}identify the unity of the artistic position of Dostoevsky and Stevenson in terms of the authors’ trust in the Orthodox tradition and the integration of their works into the modernity problems.

Theoretical Framework or Literature Review

No intelligible attempts have been made to understand the nature of the ideological component of the short story called “The Double”, although there is the research thought to mastering the interpretation of the spiritual tradition of Russian culture in the writer’s artistic anthropology. Yesaulov (2017a) defined the vector of understanding as mastering spiritual phenomena that are growing with new meanings in time. According to Anisimov (2019), the artist, in the creative insight of the future, reveals the truth about the man and the world, which is hidden from his contemporaries or perverted to please the tempting seductions of social success. Agranovich and Samorukova (2001) note the eschatological orientation of duality in the stories of Dostoevsky. Bakhtin (1979, 331) believed that the embodiment of the fiction concept ends in a large time. By this provision Yesaulov (2017b) and Osipov (2012) keeped up the formation of literary axiology, that the fullness of the semantic phenomenon is revealed only in the “large time”. Zakharov (2013) derived the understanding of the short story called "The Double” to a new level – in the context of the spiritual tradition. Pointing to the amazing fantastic nature of the adventures of an unremarkable titular adviser, Belinsky (1956) emphasized that Dostoevsky's "Double" is open to problems of the future.

Gus (1971) denied human solvency to the Dostoevsky’s hero. Urnov (1993) supposed that the opposition to spiritual inertia, the need for independence, rebellion against the moral template and everyday conventions were very characteristic of Stevenson.

Some researchers believed that Stevenson’s story was inspired by the story of self-experimentation with drugs by Dr. Horace Wells (Vyas and Desai, 2015). Others considered the economic aspect of the novel, namely the ability of Mr. Hyde to pay off bills signed by Henry Jekyll (Wang, 2019). Olsen (2016) mentioned William Wordsworth’s contribution in Stevenson’s writing. The novel influence on the Victorian Gothic literature was considered by Crystal (2018). He proved that the “doppelganger” or a double as a paranormal creature predicting the death of Henry Jekyll is an unappreciated character and almost a hero, referring to modern film adaptations and rethinking the antihero concept. Khanyutin (2003) investigated the discovery formulated by Stevenson in Jekyll's posthumous confession: “I realized that man is not really one, but binary ... In my personality, I discovered the absolute and primordial duality of man in the sphere of morality”. In the novel “The Strange Story of     Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”, a villain is born who matches the image of a barbarian monster. Mr. Hyde illustrates the terrifying potential of the beast within to emerge and reflects the fears of Victorian society in front of the possibility of human degeneration (Crystal, 2018). Hyde's body problem has often been associated primarily with atavism and degeneration. Welter (2016) expanded our understanding of “The Strange Story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” by examining the implications of Hyde's unique mobility.

A number of authors raised the issue of                 Dr. Jekyll's moral insanity (Davis, 2006; Dury, 2006; Efremov, 2006; Hirsch, 1988; Seixas Fernandes, 2010; Tropp, 1991). Some authors considered the problem, is it possible to count the murder committed by Dr. Jekyl as the crime (Frank, 2010; Veitch, 2012). Mitchell (2004) interpreted that Jekyll, although it is not capable of distinguishing the right from the wrong, nevertheless is responsible for his crime. Young (2012) discussed Dmitry Karamazov's question, “How will man be righteous without God?” In Afanassieff (1971) view, there is no room for law in the blessed life of the Church. The Apostle Paul highlighted the problem of law and grace quite clearly. “For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God... I do not reject the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose” (Gal. 2: 19-21). Death for the Old Testament Law is death for law at the same time. The New Testament is the Testament of Love. One who is in love cannot strive to expand his personality at the expense of other personalities, since Christ lives in everyone. The law, however, seeks to limit the personality, but it does not destroy selfishness. Therefore, a society based on human law always carries within itself the seeds of its decay, for it protects egoism, which constantly destroys any unity. The fate of the Tower of Babel is the fate of a legal society. The legal order is often gives way to a terrible disorder.

Colman (2015) argued that “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” by Robert Louis Stevenson reflected the medical discourse of the Victorian era. According to Gangnes (2017), Hyde's grotesque vision – frightening and unpredictable – became relevant to the Weimar Republic after First World War. As Crystal (2018) studied, the adaptations of Hyde's character transformed Hyde into a monster hero, including “The Incredible Hulk” by S. Lee and J. Kirby (1962), “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” by A. Moore and K. O'Neill's  (1999-2009), S. Moffat's television miniseries “Jekyll” (2007), and C. Higson's tele series “Jekyll and Hyde” (2015). Adjusting Stevenson's novellas in Weimar Germany, Italian comics creators Mattotti and Kramsky combined key characteristics of Gothic and Expressionism and used Stevenson's novellas as a lens through which to comment on Weimar Germany. Like Stevenson, 19th century Australian writers explored atavism and reversion, using motifs and elements drawn from Gothic and popular crime literature to expose the viciousness of members of Australia's ruling classes (Maxwell, 2015). Manfred (2017) discussed the original corruption of human nature. Stevenson used the colonial discourse of contracting a deadly infection as a symbol for everything that is destroyed (youth, innocence, joy, morality, as well as physical and spiritual health, including morality). Ganz (2015) believed that Stevenson considered Dr. Jekyll was guilty of murder. Emphasizing the universal significance of the fantastic experiment invented by Stevenson, Lavrov (2003) wrote about the Russian influence on Stevenson's work. It was about archetypal plot models that made it possible to vary the theme of duality in a wide variety of ways. Gay (2018) and Young (2012) drew attention to the modernity of Stevenson's texts. His short stories fluctuate between realism, romance and fantasy.

The influence of Dostoevsky and Stevenson on world culture (Koshechko, 2019) can hardly be overestimated, as noted by the UN when it published “Top 50 Authors” in January 2019 – it is worthy of note that the classics of world literature are divided by only 10 positions. As well as the literary criticism did not spare the Stevenson’s short story. Amelina (2014), Manning (2018) concluded about the peculiarities of Stevenson’s anthropological ideas. They noted that the motive of duality is represented by the opposition of light and darkness in both external and internal space. The source of these ideas of Stevenson is the Christian doctrine of the soul. Dorofeyeva (2015), Romanova and Neliubina (2014) focused on the spiritual conflict in the Stevenson’s short story, which goes back to Dostoevsky’s creative quests, since there are no external factors that induce the hero to commit sacrilege. Stevenson's novel “The Strange Story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” is a well-known example of Victorian fiction. Shubh and Chakrabartie (2008) explored the novel from the point of view of dualism as a system of philosophy and a religious framework.

Methodology

The research results were obtained after a theoretical review of modern publications on the topic under consideration. Then the general goal of the article was formulated to reveal the unity of the artistic position of Dostoevsky and Stephenson in the context of the Christian tradition. The authors also tried to answer the question of how the works of these authors are related to contemporary issues. Further, the following tasks were solved in the work: to analyze Dostoevsky's prophetic warning about the destruction of the personal values and a break with the spiritual tradition of Western European culture; to present the results of the spiritual biography of Henry Jekyll, who defeated the satanic monster he created; to show the moral essence of Golyadkin, and Henry Jekyll; pay attention to the fact that both heroes are rooted in the spiritual tradition of European culture. In the results of the study, the authors noted the tragic fate of the heroes, who decided to follow their moral choice and self-determination, guessing about the initial depravity of human nature (both are struck by madness). Dostoevsky described Golyadkin's madness and the development of his illness, which led to a conflict with his double. The results of the spiritual biography of Golyadkin (the theme of duplicity and depersonalization in the bureaucratic world (Tolstenko, Baltovskij, & Radikov, 2019) unambiguously testified to the inflexibility nature of his character, but it was him, who resisted the seduction and the temptations of many doubles, and was sent to a madhouse. Dr. Jekyll is obsessed with an irrepressible passion for sinful temptations and pleasures (he killed Sir Danvers Garew), but it is he who separated himself from his double Hyde (as a manifestation of his madness) with a clearly satanic appearance, and does not look like a person at all. Due to this, the authors concluded that, contrary to the logic of vital positivism and practicality, the heroes remained by themselves under the pressure of the severe moral trials that fell to their lot. The deformation of human nature did not happen only due to the steadfastness of the Christian spiritual “substance”. But this study raised questions for further study. For example, can moral insanity be justified? What is the pathology of the soul imbued with auditory hallucinations, fears, and visions? Why does the soul die in conditions of social insecurity? Doesn't society, on the contrary, have a deforming influence on a person? Isn't the madness of the characters a protest against the humiliating and depersonalizing reality of them? Many features of Golyadkin and Dr. Jekyll are present, if not in every person, then in many of our contemporaries (Braidwood, 2012; Manning, 2018).

The following methods were used to disclose the declared topics in the article: comparative historical or comparative linguistics implying the possibility for tracing the continuity of the authors’ creative attention to the duality ideas as a precedent phenomenon of the world culture, which integrates the spiritual experience of European traditions; historical and functional, allowing to understand the general significance of the world classics works in the context of “large time”, which brings the historical and literary analysis to the level of holistic generalization of spiritual problems and its concretization on the example of life situations of the heroes of the novels under consideration.

Results and discussion

A modest Petersburg citizen, far from the last, Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, unlike Prokharchin, is devoid of any hidden claims to the Napoleonic role of apparent leadership. He directly speaks about this to Doctor Krestyan Ivanovich, by the way the namesake of Gogol’s Doctor Gibner from “The Inspector General”, which is very remarkable characterizing only the titular advisor and will be justified in the future: “I am a small man <...> lucky for me, I do not regret that I am a small man <...> I am even proud that I am not a big man, but a small one” (Dostoevsky, 1990, Vol. 1, 117). He is pleased with everything, and he even told to the mysterious guest, Golyadkin Jr., about his firm conviction that the fatherland, surprising visiting foreigners, “is going to perfection from hour to hour” (Ibid., 156). But the well-read and balanced Mark Ivanovich noticed Napoleonic features in the departing into another world and raving Semyon Ivanovich from the story “Mister Prokharchin” by Dostoevsky, who desperately risked approaching Demid Vasilyevich with a question about his own future, and it was no coincidence that his hidden Napoleon d’or was also found. Mark Ivanovich relies on the Biblical Truth in his worldview: “<...> If any man has the desire to be first, he will be last of all and servant of all” (Mk. 9:35), so the allusion is obvious. And so he began to pry with undisguised excitement: “Are you alone under the sun? Does the sun only shine for you? Are you Napoleon? What are you? Who are you? You are Napoleon, huh? Napoleon or not?! Tell me, sir, Napoleon or not?” (Ibid., 257). However, only in rough sketches for the never-realized revision of the story, it was supposed that Golyadkin had to become marked by thoughts about the glory of Napoleon or the Russian rebel. In the Petersburg poem, he is just an ordinary and harmless citizen – with some ambitions for certain significance. Mr. Golyadkin rebukes Petrushka why he could not answer him, as befits a master, they brought it, sir, and besides, he was annoyed that Andrei Fillipovich was instead of him, an excellent campaigner, because the document he had prepared and submitted to the top produced the favor of the authorities, not rightly made his nephew Vladimir Semenovich, who took his place beside Klara Olsufyevna, he considered his own, as an assessor (and this is already the VIII class rank).

Golyadkin involved in the life of the Petersburg officials is distinguished by the fullness of his inner life, relying on the ideas of value orientations, which are original for national self-consciousness, and therefore he was exercised when he suddenly found himself, for no reason at all, as if an “old clothe” in his usual circle. Golyadkin, being knocked off his pins by what happened three days ago – when he finally had to show grit, bringing confusion into the somehow arranged Berendeevs’ house, tries to put his thoughts in order, which directly testifies to his mental health. Attempts to explain the fantastic component of the story by the hero’s illness were made more than once after the publication of the story by modern researchers of Dostoevsky’s creative work: “What would the story be <...> if it had turned out, for example, something was wrong <…> however, so far it’s not bad <…> everything is going well” (Dostoevsky, 1990, Vol. 1. 110). Having put himself in hands of Rutenshpitz (the anagram surname is the rod, that is, a whip for punishment), to his no small surprise, Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, embarrassedly and perplexedly, begins his story with the fact that, after all, he succeeded, and he has his own – special way, unlike others from his inner circle, with whom he does not agree in ideas, but what can be done if a lot depends on those others – and his special way chosen not out of willpower, to which the hero of "Notes from Underground” came in his thoughts, the common man- paradoxographer: “Should the dooms day come, or should I not drink tea? I would say that dooms day come, but I will always drink tea” (Dostoevsky, 1990, Vol. 5, 174), and he has a special way to preserve himself in the ghostly world unifying the personality and torn to pieces. Golyadkin, in a heart-to-heart talk, at least so it seemed to him, with Dr. Rutenshpitz, in fact, in a confessional manner, reveals himself in full: if the life line is wide, then he, however, “by himself, like everyone else” (Dostoevsky, 1990, Vol. 1, 115). But he, like everyone else, is the same, although he noticed that he still stands the pace. Continuing his story, Golyadkin quite clearly sets out his own idea of the world and relations with the surrounding:

“I go <...> straight, openly and free of roundabout ways <…> I do not try to humiliate those who, perhaps, pure than you and I <…> I don’t like half words; I do not favor miserable persons, I do not scorn slander and gossip. I put on a mask only in a masquerade, and do not wear it in front of people every day” (Dostoevsky, 1990, Vol. 1, 117). The spiritual dominants of Golyadkin, who opened his heart to tears, intending to get out of his forced and voluntary imprisonment on Shetilavochnaya Street, identify the categories of the cathedral world outlook of the hero, who is not inclined to conflict with others and sacrifice his moral principles, thereby not losing his appearance and not transforming himself, however, the light strays from the indicated righteous direction, and therefore a lot of efforts will be required to turn the perverted persons to the true way of love and harmony, up to the participation of doctors.

The spiritual tradition of the Russian people dates back to the Orthodox first principles of the national world outlook determined by Metropolitan Hilarion of Kiev in the “Word about Law and Grace” in the middle of the 11th century and transformed in the creative consciousness of Dostoevsky on the ways of comprehension of the artistically embodied spiritual experience of man: “<…> the purpose of the Russian person is indisputably all-European and worldwide. To become a real Russian person, to become completely Russian <...>  brother of all people, pan-human” (Dostoevsky, 1990, Vol. 26, 147), in contrast to the pan-human being – who chose the vector of the Law and interrupted the tradition of understanding the world in the context of Grace: “He who is in love cannot strive to expand his personality <...> he is ready to abandon himself in favor of other personalities to the point that he is ready to lay down his soul for his brothers” (Afanasyev, 1971; Lavrov, 2003). Doctor Rutenspitz listened to the confession of the Orthodox Golyadkin with obvious bewilderment – that is very expected – and advised, nevertheless, to try to change himself and as a friend enter the apparent alien, but still desirable world of prosperous colleagues, which was clearly not part of Yakov Petrovich’s plans: he was not ready to change anything in himself, and he did not consider it appropriate. And then, with obvious regret about his vain visit to the doctor, the titular advisor, going to a dinner party with unresolved doubts, unequivocally recognized the moral limitations and spiritual weakness of the corporal healer, as if leaped  from the pages forced on the era of physiological essays.

After the presence of guests, Golyadkin, playing host to as if his mirror reflection embodied from his own aspirations when on the way to the Berendeyevs, worried about what had happened the day before yesterday, on meeting Andrei Filippovich, he wished to somehow separate himself from the one who dared to complain – shows a clear favor for a newly arrived official who has suffered much and timid in comparison with him. After feeding and listening to the poor night wanderer, Yakov Petrovich leaves Golyadkin Jr. overnight, sincerely patronizing the poor fellow clinging to him: “<...> went out the partition, partly out of the kindness, that maybe <...> he has no proper shirt, so as not to embarrass an already injured person, but partly <...> to caress the person so that everyone was happy and so that the table would be free of spilled salt” (Dostoevsky, 1990, Vol. 1, 158) – to a quarrel and conflict. The indigenously Russian friendliness and affection towards all the suffering and thirst testify to Golyadkin’s rootedness in the spiritual tradition of the Orthodox world outlook of the Russian people: he is heart in greeting the hapless wanderer.

Golyadkin Jr., in some incredible way placed in the department opposite Yakov Petrovich, although he made an amazing impression on him, because it was completely different – unreal – Golyadkin with formal resemblance, ready to “vanish and disappear in the crowd”, but Christianly the guest was not rejected: the host advised to rely on God in everything – only based on the experience of his becoming and self-determination.

While preparing a letter to Golyadkin Jr. about the oddities that outraged him, such as: the case with business document and the incident with grabbed pies in a coffee house, Yakov Petrovich hopes to get any explanation from him, keeping in mind the apostolic warning of his Guardian Angel: “For there is a division in his mind, and he is uncertain in all his ways" (Jakob 1:8), and yet he doubts the moral admissibility of the harsh expressions he used: “<…> isn’t it too touchy <…> I dare to remain confident that you will not take my letter in a way that is offensive to you” (Dostoevsky, 1990, Vol. 1, 175). Golyadkin is trying to understand what happened to him, when other he, who appeared on his way for some odd reason, alerted Petrushka and the cabman and, to his no small surprise, who did not attract any attention of his colleagues, without any visible reason, suddenly and, moreover, after a frank conversation, began to push aside Yakov Petrovich himself – the real Golyadkin – from the life line. For the consciousness of Dostoevsky’s hero, who thinks in terms of the Orthodox culture, to decide who should not be and who should stay, it verges on madness: “<...> a fantastic desire to push aside others from the limits occupied by others with his being in this world, and to take their place is worthy of amazement, contempt, regret and, moreover, a madhouse” (Ibid., 184), however, prevailing power of the Berendeyevs, who gave birth to a host of rodless and faceless human copies according to the table of ranks, hopes to hold and eliminate the forces taking the way.

Yakov Petrovich surrounded by untrustworthy brothers, stands up for himself – the rejected one – and tries at first, after the Berendeevs’ emotional outburst to understand how he should act in this situation. He told the doctor about himself in the third person, as if about his folk, thereby trying to maintain his appearance and separate himself, Mr. Goliadkin, from the one who was strangled and alarmed by current events, while anticipating, however, the inevitable replacement of himself with someone else. He did not even know why he was not allowed to the dinner party, which looked like “some kind of Belshazzar’s feast <...> with all sorts of well-fed calves and an official table of ranks” (Ibid., 128), but this is not nothing else but a sinful orgy during the plague, and the possessed Messers Bassavryukovs also came to the Berendeyevs, only from N.V. Gogol. I.A. Yesaulov, tracing the change of the opposition between the Law and Grace in the Russian world, explains the reasons for Golyadkin’s incompatibility with the invited guests of the State Counselor: “<…>“to have a right” to something (in particular to the life of another person) in the Dostoevsky’s world becomes possible only after renouncing the Christian conscience or on the way of emancipation from it” (Yesaulov, 2017b, 164). The Berendeyevs, having ganged up on Golyadkin, were forced to back against their will and remove him from their horizon. Intending to overcome the enemies who came close to him with humility, Golyadkin, in reply to Vakhrameyev, who pointed out that the titular advisor had discredited himself, explains to his dear sir Nestor Ignatievich with obvious confidence in his understanding: “<...> even honest people with a truly noble thought way <...> deviate from the interests of noble people and attach with the best qualities of their hearts to the malefic aphid – unfortunately, in our difficult and immoral time, they have multiplied in large quantity and extremely ill-intentioned” (Dostoevsky, 1990, Vol. 1, 183). After all, it was Golyadkin Jr. who was noted by his out of the ordinary behavior and gestures, which, however, cannot be compared with the liberties of Nikolai Stavrogin, the hero of the novel called “The Demons” by Dostoevsky. In the letters of Golyadkin Sr., the true grit is revealed: he did not fall for the tempting advice to lose himself, and, therefore, he, who naively believed that the life line was wide, dreams of something like a dispiriting apocalyptic impersonality: “<…> with every step <…> the same Mr. Golyadkin <…> jumped out <…>  <…> so that a terrible abyss of completely similar ones was born <…>” (Ibidem). Dostoevsky pays attention to the fact that not only Golyadkin was replaced, but also Krestyan Ivanovich Rutenshpitz: at the Berendeevs’ house, he suddenly began to speak poorly in Russian and with a German accent. Golyadkin, who did not break himself and not fall for fanatic pressure, who considered himself a master, remained a stranger to the Berendeevs. He was called for a planned elimination as a person causing confusion in their carefully arranged world with a false letter insistently appealing for salvage, for which there was far from groundless hope, because they knew that he could not help but respond.

The results of Golyadkin’s spiritual biography unambiguously confirms true grit of characters rooted in the spiritual tradition of Russian culture, Orthodox in its origins and categories of the conciliar self-consciousness of the Russian people, and also the victory of the “old clothes” with ambitions over the self-assured ghosts of godliness and nobility, but in no case madness. V.N. Maikov, even after the publication of the short story, paid attention to the problem of human destinies posed by Dostoevsky, and declared by the moral challenges of a turning point: “<…> so deeply penetrated with the human soul, so fearlessly and ardently looked into the sacrosanct mechanization of human feelings, thoughts and deeds” (Maykov, 1982, 86). The Golyadkin’s moral choice to resist and preserve himself reveals the meaning of the light idea embodied in the short story, which Dostoevsky valued, deepened and developed throughout his entire career and left it as a spiritual guidance to the modern human, which, on the eve of his 200th anniversary, reaches the level of comprehension of global threats to humanity when A.P. Potemkin, following Clive Lewis in the novel “Man is Canceled”, reveals the tragic consequences of editing the human narrative.

The phenomenon of the Dostoevsky’s heroes pan-humanism influenced Stevenson’s creative quests, who read “Crime and Punishment” in French translation and ranked the novel as one of the greatest books. Entering into a dialogue with Dostoevsky, Stevenson in 1886 creates his own artistic version of the fate of the double hero – the short story “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” In the paper “Books Which Have Influenced Me” by Stevenson seems to summarize his work on the spiritual catastrophe of the successful and recognized Doctor Jekyll, who, unlike Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, risked to take the advice of Christian Ivanovich Rutenspitza to change himself – not in terms of self-determination, on more significant lines for self-affirmation, but exclusively around the irrepressible needs to feel the sinful fullness of tempting and seductive impressions: “<…> How complex human nature is <…> in the same person, glaring weaknesses and dazzling dignities are found side by side and insistently remain” (Stevenson, 1993, Vol. 5, 548). If Dostoevsky’s Golyadkin planned to remain himself, because he is one of those “who do not see a direct human purpose in the dexterous ability to polish parquet with boots” (Dostoevsky, 1990, Vol. 1, 124), about which he reported to young registrars who met him before the dinner party, and to enter the desired world of the Berendeevs, promising to taste the fullness of the life prizes, while Dr. Jekyll conducts a daring experiment with himself. Dostoevsky’s titular advisor appears from the conditional underground on Shestilavochnaya Street in order to find himself as such in completeness of his appearance, but he is not admitted to himself as a foreign spiritual and social phenomenon, which turned out to be such due to the moral bankruptcy of his environment. Answering the Utterson’s alarmed letter, Jekyll writes to his venerable friend as he does: “<…> we shouldn’t meet anymore <…> I intend to live a sheltered life <…> I must follow my difficult path” (Stevenson, 1993, Vol. 2, 534). And all this: conscious confinement and the breaking of established ties with others – because of his experiments on himself, while the experiment on Golyadkin, to whom the Berendeevs close the doors, was tried to carry out by those to whom he has never allowed. The doctor goes underground, hiding from his close ones in a specially equipped confined space and in another guise, which, as it turned out, belongs not to him, but to Hyde, who has lost everything human. Henry Jekyll is addressing his confession, full of sincere and suffering repentance, to us – the coming generations. The doctor told how he arrogantly encroached on the mystery of humanity being within the control of Heaven, with clearly thoughts against God: "<...> the means <...> that overmasters the very stronghold of the human person could completely destroy the ghostly ark of the spirit, which I hoped to transform with its help only" (Ibid., 558). But to transform is not in human will, which fell to be comprehended by Dr. Preobrazhensky from “The Heart of a Dog” by M.A. Bulgakov, who made the decision to annul his experience, and the poet Ivan Bezdomny from “The Master and Margarita”, meeting face to face with evil spirits, cuts off from himself everything given to him, that is Hyde’s, and pledges tin a conversation with the Master to never again compose monstrous poetry.

The failure of Dr. Jekyll, who crossed the fateful line destined by Providence and committed a series of crimes and atrocities among people, turned into an affirmation of the victory over Hyde and the triumph of the never-transformed “ark of the spirit.” It was impossible to taste the forbidden fruit of the illusive fullness of life’s impressions: life was leaving, turning into a function. Revealing the unauthorized acts in all its horrifying ugliness, Dr. Jekyll concludes: Hyde made do with the impersonality that had fallen to him and the position of the “component” of the monstrous experiment. Dr. Jekyll concludes his message after failing a criminal experience with a thoughtful statement about separation of his powers with Hyde: “Will Hyde die on the scaffold? Or would he have the courage to free himself of this fate at the last minute? This is known to God alone, but for me it does not matter: the hour of my real death has already come, the further concerns not me, but another” (Stevenson, 1993, Vol. 2, 572), that is, Hyde. He is none other than Henry Jekyll, although the doctor organized it due to sinful aspirations to acquire a second appearance, but the dispute between the man and the Creator is doomed: everything is God’s will.
Already after the successful publication of “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”, in the paper “Books Which Have Influenced Me”, Stevenson highlighted the spiritual significance of Scripture for the human at the turn of the eras: “<…> this is the New Testament, especially the Gospel of Matthew. I am sure that anyone who can effort the imagination a little and read it over again <...> will be heart-struck. And then anyone will be able to see through those truths <...> from following which we all modestly evade” (Ibid., 547).

Thus, the results of the spiritual biography of Golyadkin from the Petersburg poem called "The Double" by Dostoevsky and Henry Jekyll from the novel “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” by Stevenson with difference of characters divided by the era according to the personal self-determination and social status: a gray titular advisor and a honorable aristocrat, as well as a recognized doctor – coincide in the focus of unconditional trust in Christian axiology. Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, no matter how he strived to ascend to a new level of socialization in the world of his colleagues who had touched the significant heights, was still not ready to exchange himself in the pursuit of the life prizes and “change” character – the moral fiber resisted, and therefore, planning to eliminate him, “well-fed calves”, distributed strictly according to the rank by the notorious “table of ranks”, call him to punishment with a prayer in the false letter about salvation. And if an official, who has suffered much, believed that taking the place of another was not only contemptible impudence, but also existing insanity, because a person relies on the God will in everything, then it was him who resisted temptations and enticement, was bundled away to the madhouse. Unlike the Dostoevsky’s hero, Dr. Jekyll being possessed by persistent passion for sinful temptations and pleasures, which was reprehensible for a serious and held man in a noble field, he decides to replace himself with another, for whom small passions will be quite acceptable, – that is how Mr. Hyde appeared with obviously demoniac appearance that does not pretend to individuality, but only a being, even inhuman. Henry Jekyll – that is how he signs his letter filled with sincere repentance for the encroachment on the spiritual dominants of human nature and the life as such, in all its divinely instituted variety and enchanting splendor, which, due to his intervention in the sacred spheres, turned into a function, and therefore the doctor Jekyll separates himself from Hyde, admitting not so much his defeat in a monstrous experiment, but thereby confirming the Creator’s will, not subject to assuming correction by man.

Conclusions

Although the “Dostoevsky and Stevenson” problem remains on the periphery of literary studies, however the emerging attention to the dialogue between the cultures of Russia and Europe directs scientific thought to understanding the breaking in Stevenson’s discourse in the Dostoevsky’s artistic anthropology, which was reflected in the embodiment of the formation of Golyadkin, the hero of “The Double” by Dostoevsky, and Dr. Jekyll from Stevenson’s novella, who went through the moral trials that fell to their lot by the spiritual deformation of human nature and remained true to himself. Thus, the moral choice of Golyadkin in short story called “The Double” by Dostoevsky, who was even ready to lose a finger of his right hand in order to recover from illusion of his reflection, and Dr. Jekyll, who created his copy in Satanic Hyde with attraction by non-judicial permissiveness, ends with the statement of the inflexibility of the spiritual tradition of Christian culture and the futility of man’s claims to the presumptuous transformation of his nature.