I have a theory about Dracula.

And that is this. Dracula was himself a sort of or type of actor. Before you dismiss this, please note that NO "Dracula" scholar has suggested this as even a remote possibility. Not Leonard Wolf. Not David J. Skal. NO ONE. I will explain in full.

When we first encounter Dracula in the book, it is clear that he is posing as the coachman. But do any of you remember that he was wearing a "BUSHY BROWN BEARD"? Soon later, when he meets Harker he has "WHITE HAIR" and is completely clean shaven save for a "LONG BUSHY WHITE MOUSTACHE".

Chapters later, he has "IRON GRAY (LATER) BLACK HAIR", which now also includes a "LONG BUSHY BLACK MOUSTACHE". But in addition he now has a "POINTED BEARD WHICH IS ALSO BLACK BUT WHICH HAS WHITE HAIRS RUNNING THROUGH IT".

In both cases it is clear (at least it is clear to me) that he is using a disguise. His hair is of course natural, as it has youthened through the blood transfusions from the unfortunate Lucy. (And perhaps some other victims such as the equally unfortunate Captain Swales and others whom Stoker does not choose to mention).

The unfortunate shipmates on the Demeter, the ship Dracula used to travel to England were populated by Poles and Romanians, who would have feared him upon their first encounter being superstitious souls, and then were more than likely to throw themselves overboard rather than to become victimized by him. That explains why it was only the Captain's corpse remaining on the derilect vessel. Some film adaptations depict his corpse as having its throat slashed (the Frank Langella/John Badham version) or his having been bitten (the Klaus Kinski/Werner Herzog remake of Nosferatu).The Captain lashed himself to the wheel with his hands wrapped around rosary beads. Dracula would be unlikely to attack him as long as he (the Captain) could repell him. Therefore the Captain likely died either of starvation, fright or exposure during the ferocious storm that Dracula, himself brewed up before they shipwrecked in Whitby). However this in itself would not account for the growth of his "beard". It then stands to reason, thus and therefore this must be a "disguise". Which he later uses both at Whitby. And then later in London.

My theory is simply this: Bram Stoker wasn't just the personal manager of Sir Henry Irving (who he tried unsuccessfully to take any interest in his character of "Dracula"). He was also the stage manager of the "original" London Lyceum Theatre. I believe that Stoker was also a frustrated actor want-to-be who projected many of his want-to-be actor attributes onto his greatest character: "Dracula".

In addition, it also stands to reason that his character of "Dracula" would be somewhat of a "master of disguise" and would appear somewhat "different" in each appearance in the book from his first appearance as the blood-drinking ancient chap he first appeared as, up to his final appearance as a rejuvinated version of the former. Lets also not forget that he is traveling under at least one assumed name (Count DeVille), at this time. More than likely to first insinuate himself into his new culture. Than later to take from it. He would then be better able to move about through such a large society as late 19th century London (then estimated as having been populated with at least 2.5 million souls) as it were at the time, as anonymously as possible. (After all this was the post "Jack the Ripper" era). What better way to do so then in disguise?

To any one who reads this flat. Your ideas are greatly appreciated. Would you agree or not? Let me know. I know this has nothing to do with the "film" per se, but it might stimulate some interesting comments on the board. And might make some people who have yet to read the book, pick it up and look at it.

"I am bound to this earth. I make it my domain".

Dracula