Dracula in Context: Victorian Morality

Last lesson we talked about Victorian society and values and how this might relate to Stoker's Dracula. From what I've read, I gather that the novel was published and supposedly set in 1897, 60 years into Queen Victoria's 64 year reign. We discussed Victorian morality and religious values and it became apparent that, at the time Dracula was being written there was a great social shift going on in terms of the class system and morals which led to people questioning their place within society and their own identity could be defined. 'Individualist' ideas came into being as religious sects increased and the emergence of a middle class (and all the 'sub-classes' within that) meant social standing wasn't as clearly defined. As people started seraching for their own identity and for what their place within society was issues such as sexuality were confronted, with people looking to define themselves through personal traits, preferences and characteristics. Certain issues with regard to social standing and individualism are addressed in Dracula, with the two sides to the Count's personality reflecting the idea of 'de-evolution' (as Darwin's views were introduced into the social sphere people started to question identity and whether if people could evolve, they could de-evolve also) as although sometimes fulfilling the traditional gothic protagonist role of a rich, suave person of a high social standing, he could also be very beast-like.

Another contexual feature we spoke of that I thought could be clearly linked back to Dracula was the idea of 'prudery' and set rules of 'decency' surrounding sexuality - It seems as if there was rigid framework of ideas of what should be done and what shouldn't, with the 'language of flowers' and 'bathing machines' taking the idea of prudery to the extreme but there was also a backlash to this and, in a way, a hypocracy that meant these social codes were flauted even by Queen Victoria herself. This idea of an upper class 'it's improper to talk about certain things' facade, to me, reflects the fake image that the Count tries to present himself as - charming and dapper but behind the facade a very different being with animal qualities and a raw emotion.

The time in which Dracula is set is hugely important not only because it's written in a typically Victorian gothic style and is also set in the 1800s, but because there's a conflict within the novel in terms of history vs. the 'present day' (with the 'present day' in Dracula being the Victorian era). Transylvania is presented as a place where history is vitally important with superstitions and grudges between states and different nationalaties living on - Harker finds it difficult to adapt to this way of life, finding himself trapped in an old castle, and finds himself trying to fight against the Count's 'old ways' with modern technologies and quirks e.g. he feels safer when he has his lamp and tries to confuse the Count by writing in short-hand. Later in the novel, we see further examples of how the Count's ancient methods are counteracted with modern methods e.g. Van Helsing's blood transfusions. Interestingly, Van Helsing ends up fighting back against the Count with old methods as opposed to new ones e.g. the crucifixes and garlic as if, in a way that would be scary to a Victorian audience who were embracing new technologies, Dracula was unaffected by modern develpments and had to be met with superstitious (or what Harker refers to as 'idolatrous') practises in the hope of defeat. Harker's constant attempts to keep a logical outlook on things also outlines this battle between myth/reality and old/new, with Harker desperately trying to reason things out, for example, attributing strange occurences to him having fallen asleep and been dreaming.

Also...just want to make a note of the fact that in my re-reading, I've noticed the repetition of the Count's 'Is it not so?' which really messes with Harker's head...and that of the reader's as he, on a few occasions outlines how hospitable and (when he says it to the women) loving he has been before ending with 'Is it not so?' - Harker cannot argue that the Count has looked after him with regard to providing food and being polite which calls into question why he is so scared. Yes, the Count has kept up with the facade of being the good host very well but because he's been over-polite (he almost always addresses Harker as something along the lines of 'my good young friend') and because there's a underlying sinster side to him that keeps showing through, Harker (and the reader) become wary of him.