An interview with my spouse, Stephen M. Miller, Ph.D., F.R. Hist. S.. He’s a historian specializing in the British Empire (the “F.R. Hist S.” is the Royal Historical Society to which Stephen was elected a couple of years ago. I swear he doesn’t normally use it, although he may or may not have asked me to shout it during intimate moments).
Before we start, he wants me to say that he has absolutely no expert knowledge of Victorian fiction and is being dragooned into this. Also, we’re assuming you have read it. If your recollection is rusty, here’s a character list.
In this interview, we talk history. In my next post (coming later today), I talk Dracula as fiction and relate it to romance.
Jessica: Is this an imperial novel? What about the theory that Dracula represents the Other in that political sense?
Stephen: Well, I would say yes and no. There were lots of improvements in transportation in late Victorian Britain, among them the introduction of electric trains in the London underground system in the early 1890s. Railroad expansion is occurring rapidly throughout Britain and most of the continent. Remember when they are trying to catch up with Dracula, he says there are three ways they can go after him, land, sea, and railroad? That was a bit odd because Eastern Europe was well behind the north and the west in linking its cities via rail. But of course there were some lines, and Stoker mentions the Orient Express whose service was about ten-fifteen years old when he wrote the book. These improvements made it easier not just for Britain to go out to the rest of the world and subdue large tracts of it but it also made it easier for the rest of the world to come to Great Britain, and that was a very scary notion, albeit it opened up exciting possibilities as well. All in all, the world seems smaller, and thanks to improvements in communication (telegraph, submarine cables), it got smaller still. Technology — like electricity, lighting, use of gas — would have been on people’s minds at the time, but there was little of that in the book.
But I think Stoker uses these advances as a device to set up the book, and then kind of leaves it.
Although there are some references to empire, and it’s written in an era in which empire would have been in the minds of the British public, it is not, in my opinion, an overt book about the empire. To read it that way assumes a level of subtlety in Stoker’s writing which in my opinion he doesn’t possess. One of the things Stoker often does is repeat for emphasis any point he is trying to make. If he is trying to say something, the reader knows it.
So, for example, to speak of Eastern Europe … they only meet one Jew in the book. If it’s about Eastern Europeans, there are few if any references to them in London, but there would have been many recent immigrants about. Although there are references to gypsies in Dracula, and references to Slovaks, there’s very little about their culture. If someone was really interested in the Other coming, they would talk more about that. So to me, it is more of a setting. This is not Joseph Conrad or even Haggard writing about setting, for example, in which the setting takes precedence regardless of the author’s intent. This is Stoker re-telling a well known tale, and the road to Transylvania was well-worn before 1897.
There are a few references to India, which suggests that Stoker had some knowledge about the empire. There are no references to Africa. In late Victorian Britain, the British army was engaged on the average in two to three wars a year. Most of those were fought along India’s frontiers and in Africa. Some of the other big events going on would be the French threatening British interests in Egypt, which would bring Britain to war in the Sudan against an Islamic theocracy (again). Stoker was writing at a time when Islam would have been feared, yet there is no mention in the book. The British public held certain beliefs about the followers of Islam, most of which today we would consider prejudicial and inaccurate. Yet war and religion do not appear in the book.
J: Yeah, why don’t they get a priest? Why are no characters going to church? Wouldn’t the church have been important to Londoners at that time?
S: Those are good questions. There is no doubt that the Church of England’s influence over British society is in decline, but it is still a force, especially among the respectibility-seeking middle class.
J: I found it really interesting that the person in the book who seemed the most religious was the one who worshiped Dracula, Renfield. He has the ecstasies, blind unselfish devotion, all the hallmarks of a kind of intense religious experience. While Van Helsing and the gang use religious artifacts like the host, they do so in a very detached, scientific way, almost draining all the spirituality out of them.
What do you make of Van Helsing’s nationality, by the way? Van Helsing is the one who realizes that natural science alone will not defeat the enemy. He is open to supernatural possibilities.
S: That is a mystery to me. The British viewed the continent as very different, but the border is pretty open. The British elite travel throughout Europe. Many speak French, German. The British and German royal families are closely connected. From the 1870s especially (until the buildup of the German navy around the time Stoker is writing), there is a strong interest in all things German and much sympathy.
J: Does Van Helsing have to be from the Continent to recognize what Dracula is? Is Stoker trying to say the British are of such pure mind they can’t even contemplate a Dracula?
S: Maybe*, but the problem with that theory is Morris, an American, doesn’t recognize Dracula. Stoker praises Quincy Morris for his “American” traits, like his spirit. So perhaps he is trying to say that Dracula represents the old Europe. They do talk about a few of the old battles that Dracula participated in. Oddly, those were battles in which Dracula fought Muslims, so in that way he would be viewed as a protector against Islam. So we don’t want to read too much into this … because in my view it doesn’t all cohere on this level of analysis.
*You have to hear how he says this. It sounds like “maaaaaaaaaay -bee and he’s always looking down when he says it. I have been married to this man for almost 15 years. “Maybe” is his way of saying “God you are clueless.”
J: How about economics?
S: The Great Depression (not what most people in the US think of, but one that affected industrial Europe from 1873-1896) was coming to an end. It had been caused by excess capital and led to a decline in interest rates, causing investors to look for new sources overseas, rather than investing at home. Economically, though, things in Britain were fairly good at the time. That said, the landed class are not as wealthy as they once were. The reason to include the elite character — Arthur Holmwood (later Lord Godalming) — is not so much for his money, but for what he represents. In a way it’s like a throwback — the Christian gentleman. Arthur has to help them, by bankrolling the vampire hunt, but his title is just important, as is his moral fiber. He’s the one who ends up freeing Lucy’s soul.
In 1897 London, it would have made more sense to have an industrialist, a banker or merchant in that role, but in this book money is portrayed as kind of negative. Dracula pursues and talks about money in away Stoker seems to criticize, to find ungentlemanly. There is no Dickensian condemnation of utilitarian middle class virtues, but more of a praising of the virtues of the upper class.
J: So when we look at the Scooby Gang: in Harker and Seward he has science, in Van Helsing, a kind of spiritual openness, in Arthur, a pure knight of Old England, and in Morris, a fresh fighting innovative spirit from the New World. Now what about Mina? Is she a kind of ideal in Stoker’s view?
S: Maybe, but Mina is much too strong a character to represent the ideal Victorian woman, She would have to be seen as a new ideal, an ideal for a very small educated class of women, that ten years later will be the ones that take to the streets to fight for the vote. She’s almost like a Florence Nightingale. I don’t think of that as an ideal for Victorian women.
J: I think we disagree about Mina, but thanks a bunch! You are the sweetiest.
S: Wait don’t you want to hear about what I have to say about guns and why all the men know how to use them though none are in the army?
J: NO!
S: O.K. Now you have to read Graham Greene’s The Human Factor.
J: Er — I have to wash the cat.
S: You promised!
J: *sigh*
Marriage, compromise, you know the drill.
Part 2 here.
Great post! Am eagerly awaiting the next.
I, ummm, have never read Dracula.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula is one of those books I have tried multiple times to read. I sat down in high school and decided I’d read classic horror tales. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein I loved (except for the long Monster’s monologue in the middle lost me back then) and Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde was fascinating. But I tried and tried and could not get through Dracula. I know the story from reading a graphic novel/comic.
I also read a condensed version, but I know it’s such a copout.
Maybe I should try again. I’m a more patient reader now and I loved The Historian because of the ties to the Bram Stoker tradition.
I’ve never read Dracula either @Victoria Janssen. But I still enjoyed reading this article. I’ve half-read maybe one knock-off by Barbara Hambly: Renfield, the slave of Dracula. Wouldn’t rush out to read it but thought I’d mention it.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Book Smugglers, victoriajanssen, Kenda Montgomery, Ewa S-R, Jeannie Lin and others. Jeannie Lin said: RT @victoriajanssen: RT @RRRJes: On Dracula: http://bit.ly/9O79ER [...]
Please, Jessica, can’t you get him back to explain that? I haven’t read the novel, but this would be interesting to me (even if not to other readers of RRR or to you).
ROTFL! You almost made me choke on the sandwich I was chewing. You do realize tying Scooby Doo and Dracula is just so… classic.
Snort.
Ahem. Okay, I’m recovered now.
I’ve read Dracula. Read it for a literature class in college on Fantasy, Myths and Legends taught by Dr. Jean Lorrah. Long time ago in a galaxy far away.
Fascinating book, though. Absolutely nothing like most of the movies. Dracula, himself, always struck me as less a monster and more a stalker. Who could mesmerize. But, yeah, some imagery from it definitely serves as romantic inspiration through the years, just not necessarily in the good ways exactly. o.O
Speaking of which, anyone ever seen Spencer Tracy’s portrayal of Dr. Jeykell/Mr. Hyde? Very, very creepy in a pscho stalker/anti-healthy-relationship with women kind of way.
So, refresh my memories of Dracula, were there any any, um, healthy romantic relationships in it? ‘Cause at the moment, I can’t remember what the actual relationship dynamics in it were. Not to mention who got out alive and who didn’t.
I want to say there were and they did because of the action/adventure element but I think that may be misremembering.
Yeah, I’m back.
Well since you asked. Quincy Morris, as the dashing young American, who inculcates many of the virtues of the “new nation” which Stoker seems to admire, and discusses at length in his earlier lecture “A Glimpse of America”, would of course know how to use a gun. We assume he is not from the “degenerate” city but has spent some time on the frontier. He offers American made Winchester rifles to the hunting party. Although made in New Haven, this gun represented the conquest and the violence of western expansion. As far as Godalming, I think Stoker would once again assume his reader would believe a male aristocrat would have experience with firearms. I am not sure if any hunts are mentioned in the book, other than the one for Dracula, but 1890 readers would be familiar with and many would embrace these stereotypes. Helsing is much tougher to figure out. A well educated, scientist, at least in his 50s if not older, playing with guns? Certainly too young for the Napoleonic Wars and probably for the Belgian revolution as well, but the Netherlands did possess a form of conscription. It’s hard to imagine that Van Helsing could not have avoided it, yet most late Victorians, proud of their own nation’s lack of conscription, may have assumed conscription on the continent meant all able-bodied men served without exception. This brings us to Harker and Seward. Two middle class men with education, one recently married, would not have served in the Regular Army, Yeomanry or Militia (or Royal Navy). But after the creation of the Volunteers in 1859, Harker, especially, would have been a prime candidate for this type of service – a young male wanting to express his loyalty for his nation while at the same time having a little fun camping out, shooting guns, and attending a parade here and there. Gun clubs and rifle associations were also en vogue. The growth of boys’ associations (and to a lesser extent, girls’) like the Boys Brigades, Church Lads Brigades etc.. would have also offered some opportunities to fire a weapon. Hope that helps.
@BevBB: hello!
I deal with that more in my next post on the book.
Yes, thanks. I was still intrigued by this, though, so I went off to Wikipedia to look up a few more details about guns in the UK, and it says there that a Pistols Act was passed in 1903. Did that affect the “vogue” you mention? Dracula was published in 1897, so was it a period in which attitudes towards guns were changing?
I had two quick reactions to seeing this had posted:
1. Damn damn damn I wanted to read it before you posted but the silly library (not silly not silly I love you! please don’t take it away Tories!) didn’t have it in stock, being the season and all. And:
2. I literally leapt across the room in joy at the prospect of reading the posts, which partner dear noted was exactly what our friends’ six-year-old did when we Skyped her the other night.
Ok. In addition giving a moment’s appreciation to the very professorial “Those are good questions”, I was struck most by your mention of Stoker’s praise of Morris’s “American” traits. It has been a few years since I read Dracula, but that mention made me think of my perception of the characters as either modern (or at least forward-looking) or old fashioned, falling rather neatly into the two camps. Mina and Morris struck me as modern whereas many if not most or all of the other characters struck me as old fashioned, which in retrospect seems out of place for the way the world must have been when it was written (and thanks very much for that background on the era and technology.) Morris I can’t really say much about since I just keep on thinking of Bill Campbell’s strange Texan in the Coppola film, but now I wonder about Mina. I sort of thought of her as a New Woman, and this New Woman being attacked/sought/seduced by someone who is so old fashioned he’s literally centuries old led me to the semi-formed thought that I wonder if Stoker might have been making a semi-formed attempt highlighting the inevitability of progress.
You’re welcome to give me the Maybe. Like I said, it’s been a few years since I’ve read it.
Well I typed a comment and then forgot to hit the submit button. Idiot.
I have not read Dracula. I own it, do I get half-credit for that?
And I have to echo your husband: you must read The Human Factor! Or at least watch the movie.
@Jessica: Oh, good. Thanks for the link. It hasn’t shown up yet in my feeds.
@Laura Vivanco: Laura, although some gun rights advocates might argue that the Pistols Act started Britain down a slippery slope, the wording is very generous and basically limited selling guns to minors, drunks (though when sober the law would not apply), and those not of sound mine (in Homer Simpson’s famous words “Five days? But I’m mad now! I’d kill you if I had my gun.”) Enrollment in the volunteers increased considerably with the South African War, 1899-1902, there was a growth of cadet corps at public schools during the Edwardian period, and of course, the largest of the boys (and girls) uniformed organizations was formed after this act, the Boy Scouts (and Girl Guides), which put a premium on outdoors skills based training. Attitudes towards guns weren’t changing as much as attitudes towards criminals with guns were changing!
@Sunita:
There’s a movie? Yes!!!!!
A good book to read for background of this time is by Rudyard Kipling. ‘Stalky & Co’ is about boys at a school that prepares them for service in the armies of the Empire. Especially the School Cadet Corps and attitudes to it which might surprise. I would also read the thrillers by John Buchan he was an Edwardian writer but the attitudes to women and empire and Britain’s place in the world along with a sense of class privilige are all there. His most famous book is ‘the 39 steps’.