#historical context

[immediatebreakfast]

I could not enter it, as I had not the key of the door leading to it from the house, but I have taken with my kodak views of it from various points.

These type of details can appear as surprising at first because the Dracula book is set in the late victorian era, giving the expected feeling that everything must be ancient compared to our modern times...

Yet, this is Jonathan's kodak camera:

Once we the readers grab all of these details (starting with this one), and put them all together, it gives the picture of the whole novel being rather futuristic. Considering how one of the elements of the gothic genre is how the past collides with the changes of the present, it's very fitting that Jonathan talks about the ancient english building that the Count wants to move in... With the help of a modern camera.

[wiliecoyotegenius]

I've seen people erroneously claim that Mina felt it was scandalous for her and Jonathan to be walking arm in arm in Piccadilly, because she said it "it felt terribly improper." That is not the case, however. Married couples (and engaged ones) were expected to walk arm in arm in the 19th century. It was, in fact, seen as a sign of civility.

Mina feels that it is improper because she's been taught that the proper etiquette is that the woman must hold the man's arm. But now it was Jonathan holding Mina's arm.

She says that this was something Mina and Jonathan used to do in the past (walking together while Jonathan was holding her arm.) Evidently, before she taught. This is their natural dynamic.

This is why Mina feels that it is ironic that she used to teach the opposite thing to girls. Because she's engaging in behavior she used to condemn.

The important thing is that, despite her moment of learned inner conflict, Mina decides to disregard etiquette and public opinion. Her priorities are clear. Source: Lady Constance Howard (1885) Etiquette: What To Do, and How To Do It

[sykes]

An interesting difference between the finished text and Bram Stoker's drafts in Dracula:

The Romanian woman who comes to the castle asking for her baby screams: "Monster! Give me my child."

In the draft version (which can be found in the book "Bram Stoker's Notes for Dracula"), she says instead:

"Hungarian! Give me my child."

Previously, Dracula had told Jonathan Harker that he's a Szekely, and therefore Hungarian. In the 1890s, Transylvania was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, with Hungarians being the ruling class, even though Romanians were the majority of the population. In addition, Transylvania was undergoing Magyarization, aka forced cultural assimilation of other ethnic groups. Stoker was aware of that fact, because it is emphasized in one of his sources about the region, and it's a policy that had directly affected British policy in Stoker's native Ireland (specifically what had sparked the contemporary Home Rule debate). So, it would have made sense for a Romanian woman to call him that in anger.

It seems that Stoker in the end did not want to emphasize his ethnicity but his monstrosity/vampirism (vampires, especially female ones, feeding on children has been the standard in folklore, and in literature since the beginning of the century). So while the original statement would have made historical sense, the final version redirects the mother's anger to his actions.

[oldshowbiz]

Harry Truman interviewed in 1961.

[thethirdromana]

Travels with Jonathan Harker, in pictures

If our good friend Jonathan Harker had sent us some photos along with his lovely email, here's what he might have included. All photos are as close to contemporary as I could find.

Left Munich at 8:35 P. M.:

arriving at Vienna early next morning:

Buda-Pesth seems a wonderful place, from the glimpse which I got of it from the train and the little I could walk through the streets:

We left in pretty good time, and came after nightfall to Klausenburgh:

All day long we seemed to dawdle through a country which was full of beauty of every kind. Sometimes we saw little towns or castles on the top of steep hills such as we see in old missals:

sometimes we ran by rivers and streams which seemed from the wide stony margin on each side of them to be subject to great floods:

The women looked pretty, except when you got near them, but they were very clumsy about the waist. They had all full white sleeves of some kind or other, and most of them had big belts with a lot of strips of something fluttering from them like the dresses in a ballet, but of course there were petticoats under them:

(on the left: the Romanian royal family in peasant cosplay in the early 1900s; on the right, a photoshoot of Romanian national dress in 1868)

It was on the dark side of twilight when we got to Bistritz, which is a very interesting old place:

Bonus: a postcard Jonathan might have picked up for Mina.

[alpaca-clouds]

The Origin of Vampire Rules

Something I always find very funny in vampire media is, that vampires usually have those certain rules, right? Vampires usually cannot go out into the sun. Often they will not be able to touch crosses or even be paralyzed by just looking at a cross. They might be shapeshifters. Vampires often cannot cross flowing water, and they also cannot cross a home without an invitation. Sometimes they are weirdly allergic against garlic. Also sometimes they have no mirror reflection. Or even not a shadow. They might not be able to cross onto sacred land (so for example they cannot set food on church ground). And of course they need to drink an undefined amount of blood.

And yes, this is just another excuse to talk about some more mythology - and how stuff happened to end up culture the way it did.

Origins of the Vampire Myths

Chances are, that someone told you that vampires are literally everywhere in the world and one of those myths that somehow is everywhere around.

This is not true - and mostly goes back to people applying "vampire" to pretty much everything that is arguably undead. Even though most of those figures technically are arguably a lot closer to zombies. If it does not leech energy or blood from living people, it is not a vampire.

So, actually vampires were a very specific thing that originated specifically in Eastern Europe. We are fairly certain that the origin of the myth came actually from some Ancient Greek myth that spread out into those places and then shifted. But the vampire itself comes from Slavic Myths. In those we have a variety of beings, that would qualify as vampires. Strigoi, Upir, Lugat, Moroi and quite a lot of others. There was a lot of overlap between those creatures and "evil witches" in a lot of times, and not all of them actually drank blood, but they drained at least your energy in some way.

Among people studying folklore folks are fairly certain that the myths came originally from people not fully understanding certain sicknesses. So basically, when a village was struck by a sickness like that, people would go: "Oh, this has to have been Alfred coming back from the dead," because Alfred recently died and it was the best explanation they came up with. And because people did not understand how dead bodies worked, they also would then see stuff like the hair and nails appearing longer when they opened the grave, which they saw as a proof that the dead was not really dead.

Generally speaking, there were then a couple of things that would be done to prevent them from coming back. Some people would just behead the dead body, others drove a stake through the heart of the people, while others might just tie up the legs of the dead.

But yeah, the one thing is that vampires come mainly from Slavic cultures. This is the important bit about vampires you need to remember. Because a lot of this comes back to this.

The Vampire Rules

The Vampire Rules are really fun, because they come together from three very different sources: From the fact that they were Slavic, from English folklore, and then from limitations in media.

So, let me go through typical vampire rules.

Vampires shapeshift: Vampires being shapeshifters goes back to Slavic mythology. In those vampires, witches and shapeshifters often were just the same kind of thing and had a lot of overlap.

Vampires cannot cross water: This originated probably in the Rennaissance. And it mainly originated from the fact that the people noticed that vampires only seemed to exist in Eastern Europe. Which people started to find weird. So, they had to come up with an explanation. And that explanation was: For some reason the vampires could not cross the Danube. This over time merged into "vampires cannot cross water".

Vampires are allergic against garlic: This is definitely something that goes back to the original myths. It is believed that this might be connected to the fact that garlic has an antibiotic effect. And as I said, vampire myths probably originated with unexplained sicknesses. So it is not hard to believe that people who ate garlic might not have gotten (as) sick, so folks were like: "Oh, the garlic kept the vampire away."

The stake through the heart kills vampires: This myth also comes from the vampire practices back then. On e way of burying a vampire in a way that it would not come back was to put a stake through the dead body.

The cross, not entering homes, and holy ground: Ironically, all those things that are probably connected to the same thing. Because these weaknesses are usually connected to more English folklore. While people definitely have hidden in churches (partly because of the law of sanctuary) forever, there is some good evidence that this actually comes more from British fairy culture - that then got applied to all other forms of paranormal creatures. And we know that around the 18th century, there was a whole big vampire scare in England, that definitely mixed a lot of Eastern European vampire lore with the lore of the Otherworld and Fae from Celtic mythology. Vampires having glamour of sorts probably is also connected to this.

Vampires do not have a reflection: This specifically is dated back to Bram Stoker, meaning everyone else after this just used this from Bram Stoker. The theory is that Stoker's idea was that mirrors somehow reflect the soul - something like that.

The Baptism of Blood: Another vampire thing that goes back to Stoker specifically is vampires having to exchange blood with someone to make them a vampire. Aka, drinking thier victims blood and then giving blood to them. In fact, in Stoker's work it was implied to have to happen three times until someone is turned a vampire. Which at least makes sure there are no accidental vampires.

Vampires drinking blood: Ironically the specific thing of vampires drinking blood also comes from Victorian Gothic literature. While this was not fully unheard off in mythology, it was not such a common trait there. But in Victorian literature it became THE vampire calling card. And this for two reasons. Reason 1: Welp, blood drinking is a neat symbolism for sex at time where you were not allowed to write about sex. Reason 2: ... Anti-Semitism and blood libel. I am sorry I could talk around this, but yeah, we definitely are certain that some of the Victorian vampires drink blood because the folks writing were implying blood libel. Welp.

Why Vampires Burn in the Sunlight: The dumbest bit of vampire lore I know is why vampires burn in sunlight. No, this does not originate with mythology - neither Slavic, nor Celtic. No, this does not go back to Dracula or another book of the time. Vampires in Victorian literature were fine and dandy in the sun. They might not be able to use certain magics, but other than that they were fine. No, the reason vampires burn in sunlight is... that the original Nosfertu ran out of budget, and needed a convenient way to dispatch the vampire. So they decided: "Oh, actually he burns in sunlight." And then, that stuck.

[bookpaula]

The Novel Distorted Perceptions