Religion or Superstition...Maybe Neither or Both: Valek Akechi's Musings on Dracula

Within Bram Stoker’s famous novel is the element of religion, which doesn’t follow what is typically expected of it and leads to the ultimate question: What is the exact role of religion within a novel that seems far more focused on the aspect of superstition? Christopher Herbert suggests that Van Helsing in particular stands out as a religious figure in relation to the situation going on within Britain’s territories during the time in which the novel was written, offering the thought that the novel’s depiction of religion is echoing how the British were suppressing other religions. Stephen Purcell offers a different perspective in analyzing the public’s perceived view on the characters, claiming that while readers may think the characters convert to Christianity it is highly unlikely that they actually did while pointing to Van Helsing in particular and looking at other texts to explain his point. The last thought on religion within this novel, of those I have looked into, is from Andrés Jódar Romero who provides the thought that perhaps the Count as well the events occurring in Transylvania are merely manifestations created by Harker’s own imagination. It is through these texts as well as my own interpretation of the work that I bring forth the role of religion within Stoker’s novel and piece together its actual purpose; after all, none of them are perfect.

Many categorize Dracula as a horror novel when in actuality it is classified as gothic alongside works like The Phantom of the Opera and Interview with the Vampire. In comparison Stoker’s and Rice’s novels both utilize the element of religion or rather religious artifacts as is a common factor within Gothic literature. I myself am very acquainted with it through all three works as well as through other types of media. Gothic has become a genre and style seemingly associated with religion, but, from personal experience, it does not actually have much in the way of religion in the lens with which we normally see it. The fashion is adorned with crosses and crucifixes which do not hold any sense of religion at all despite being a symbol of Christianity for it has become attached to gothic styles just as much as it has the literature. Every work and media stemming from the characters created by Stoker himself features the element of crosses, garlic, and such. Rice actually reverses the role of religion in her Vampire Chronicles series by having vampiric characters explain that they actually can touch crucifixes, be near garlic, etc. Which begs the question regarding the origins of religion in such works. Gothic is a genre closely concerned with making fun of or mocking religion in some sort of way; primarily through the use of the supernatural and role of superstition. Going by this knowledge, it is possible that Stoker is merely mocking religion in some sort of way, taking into consideration how his novel Dracula is where the fascination with vampires stems from. Other works related to the mythical creature are noted to take inspiration mainly from his work and even include similar elements. So what exactly does the man himself have to say about religion?

Referring to Herbert’s conclusion, Van Helsing is a sort of religious figure. The doctor is one of the main characters and possibly even more popular than Harker, making him a key figure in close readings of the novel as well as appearing in other vampire related content. The argument is set up to analyze Van Helsing as a main religious figure within the novel, adding to his function in the work beyond helping the others defeat the Count. I myself do not see specifically how Van Helsing was written to be a religious figure as he does not actually seem tied to a specific religion; he seems to be one of the most superstitious in dealing with the Count which towards the latter half of the novel is confirmed through his role as a vampire hunter. It’s expressed that during the time the novel was written there was documentation discussing a group of people within one of the British territories that viewed some animals as sacred; they claimed that some could not be killed or eaten. But Stoker seems to have the concepts of clean and unclean collapse within Dracula (Herbert). One of the downfalls to this idea Herbert presents us with lies in his added discussion about the lines of religion and magic being blurred. I say this after having taken a class discussing religions of different cultures as well as their origins. Herbert discusses the blurred lines of magic and religion through the sense of them being separate, but some do actually incorporate some form of magic even if it is not actually called that. At the same time, it could be argued that it is not a weakness of Herbert’s argument given the thought of the British othering those who lived in their territories during the religious battle the empire was fighting. The term “religion” is difficult to define and, from what I’ve learned, the definition of religion in Europe at the time fits the concept of religion and magic being completely separate things, which is most likely why they were fighting the war against religions found within their territories. Overall, Herbert possibly also leaves the impression that by the use of weaponizing items of the Catholic and Christian faith against the Count is a representation of the war Britain fought against the religions of their territories.

Before fully reading the novel, I was very aware of the general characterization of Abraham Van Helsing, but outside of the context in which Stoker places him. If he, as Herbert claims, is in fact a religious figure within the novel, why does he seem to have the closest relationship with the supernatural and superstition in comparison to the other characters? The doctor is first introduced through Seward who is supposed to have been a former student of his and is calling upon him for help in the case of Lucy’s illness. “‘What do you think of that mark on her throat?’” (Stoker 115) is Van Helsing’s notice of the bite mark left upon Lucy’s body. He asks Seward what he thinks who admits within his journal entry that “There was no sign of disease” and later comes to the conclusion that he “abandoned the idea as it formed, for such a thing cannot be. The whole bed would have been drenched to a scarlet with the blood which the girl must have lost to leave such a pallor” (115). Shortly after this exchange Van Helsing declares that he must go to Amsterdam in order to retrieve books and things that he wants. Based on later events in the novel, it could be assumed that he recognized the cause of Lucy’s condition and was hoping that Seward did also. Van Helsing later on weaponizes communion wafers, flowers, and other non-logical methods alongside his blood infusions. The only real reason that I could see his character as a religious figure or icon is how he seems to be the only character with the answers of what is going on amongst those fighting against the Count; the doctor is also found out to be a vampire hunter. He was able to keep Lucy alive and human for a longer period of time using both methods of science and religion, so to speak. Other than him seeming to have the answers and job title, I cannot see him as how Herbert paints him. Van Helsing does fight the vampires which are considered to be evil and in some media a variant of demons which could also add to the argument; however it is not enough to fully declare him a religious figure in any form of the word. He also does not advocate for a religion but rather belief in the supernatural. And if he is supposed to, in a way, represent England while the Count is allegedly the Others, why is Van Helsing depicted as an other himself?

Connecting back to my early point of Van Helsing being an Other himself rather than being English, he himself is not someone tied down to religion. Most of the imagery of this can be found in his methods for healing Lucy; for, he begins by working with Seward to give her blood transfusions in order to prolong her life before he resorts to more superstitious methods such as the garlic and flowers. He also exclaims that “‘She will die for sheer want of blood to keep her heart’s action as it should be. There must be transfusion of blood at once.’” (Stoker 113) which can be assessed in a medical view with how he phrases his conclusion about Lucy’s condition. Through my other classes and church sermons I have found that in many religious contexts, blood is life itself. The blood transfusions could be seen as Van Helsing, as he carries out the process, being a sort of God-like figure because of his seeming revival of Lucy in connection to Herbert’s point. But Purcell slightly debunks it due to his exploration of Van Helsing as an Other himself due to the concept of him being quasi-Catholic and he also brings to his case that the vampire hunter towards the end rejects the need for proof, but then he adds that that is a sign of Van Helsing aligning with a vision of the Roman Catholic Church which was suspected by Victorian Protestants for their focus on faith rather than reason (Purcell 296). Purcell offers a similar mixed take on Van Helsing as the novel itself presents him using George Salmon’s thoughts that Christian teachers and their pupils have relationships more closely with that of a physician and his students; further adding that Catholic authorities treat believers as patients (296). These ideas push for Van Helsing, in analysis, to be a blurred line between superstition and religion. He does share similar behavior like the Catholic authorities throughout the novel, even considering his doctor’s tools to be horrid. But even so, he still carries out his infusions which would require use of those very tools. By the end of the novel, Abraham Van Helsing seems to unblur the lines of where exactly he stands and it can be concluded that he actually is an Other who is assisting characters who most likely represent England defeat other Others. This analysis does combat the idea of him being a sort of religious figure as he is not particularly aligned with what would have been considered “religion” at the time the novel was written; given that Others were those who did not share the same thoughts on the subject as England. In response to Purcell’s idea that Van Helsing is specifically actually a representation of the characters not converting to Christianity, it makes sense given the evidence because of Van Helsing’s choices as well as his actions.

Romero’s interpretation furthers the idea that the Count is not tied to religion at all with the idea that it’s all in Harker’s own mind. He presents the background of this suggestion to be Stoker’s own familiarity with psychology and how the novel appears to be the intertwined paths of science, fiction, and the supernatural during the Victorian Age. It’s stated that the Count is not actually a being, but rather a mental phenomenon constructed by Harker’s fears or imagination; that the events of Transylvania are the same as well. This conjures the possibility that Harker, of the many narrators, is the least reliable due to his mental state creating or pressing negative thought onto the Count as well as the happenings in Transylvania. But if Harker is only making up the Count through his mind, how does that explain how the other characters are aware of the Count? Or how is he and his people able to turn others into vampires? This theory, while admitting that it’s a possibility there is no exact tie to religion, does not make much sense in the grand scheme of the plot. If the Count was only a figment of Harker’s imagination he would not have any way to interact or be seen by other characters—not even Van Helsing. But the novel does make it clear that other characters eventually become, if they aren’t already, aware of the Count and the danger he poses. It also calls into question Harker’s narration and as to whether or not it can be trusted by the reader.

While it is true Stoker has a background in psychology, I do not think it particularly stands out as that great of an impediment to Harker. Romero does express that his claim within his article is that Stoker’s novel portrays a dialogue between science and the supernatural during the Victorian Era (Romero 25). Given this alongside my own analysis of his article and the novel itself, his theory would be plausible if his argument was stronger. Harker only mentions feelings like he has gone mad mainly in the beginning of chapter three and soon dismisses it. He says, “‘When I found that I was prisoner a sort of wild feeling came over me.” and adds soon after that “‘When I look back after a few hours I think I must have been mad for the time, for I behaved as much as a rat does in a trap.” (Stoker 32). He admits that while he did feel mad in the sense of being crazy, Harker acknowledges that it only lasts for a short time. Through just the format of the novel being multiple entries from the main characters as well as letters, it is easy to note all of them are able to interact with the strange occurrences within the world they are in; this means that if Harker is experiencing a figment of his imagination, wouldn’t the other characters not be able to interact with the Count or any of his servants? Why would Van Helsing already be aware of the Count and his kind? One scene that would definitely highlight an error in Romero’s theory is when Van Helsing himself reads Harker’s journal and confirms to Mina that “Strange and terrible as it is, it is true! I will pledge my life on it.” (167). This implies that the doctor has encountered very similar experiences to Harker and knows very well what happened and why. There is also his ultimate role as a vampire hunter which is another reference as to why the Count could not be a figure from Harker’s imagination or someone whom he has placed his fears upon; meaning that the Count is very much a real being despite the truth in the theory being that the Count cannot actually be related to a specific religion. One last detail is when the Count is discussing his heritage because he mentions many groups of what the English would have considered Others. This lines up with my previous point that the Count is most definitely an Other, more obviously that Van Helsing, most likely because of him having a mixed heritage of peoples the English would definitely consider to be savages.

From what I have analyzed and noticed, I would say some parts of each view makes sense even if their points have a fault. Herbert and Purcell hold explanations that make much more sense compared to Romero. They show the importance of Van Helsing as a character while also highlighting the particular use of religion within the novel. Both suggestions acknowledge the importance of religion within the work while expressing the characters’ relations to it—one through the use of Van Helsing alone and the other through all the main characters. Romero’s point is mainly valid in that the Count is not connected to religion. It does seem possible that it could be just a figure of imagination on Harker’s part, that would not be able to be held up when the other characters presented are able to acknowledge the Count’s existence and plans unless Harker’s imagination only amplifies the Count’s villainous actions.

Religion is a key factor in gothic literature and seemingly made popular by Bram Stoker through his novel Dracula. My own personal analysis concludes that the novel may in fact depict the English’s battle against other religions, but at the same time Stoker is mocking that very historical event. Gothic literature is often used as a way to mock religion, Christianity in particular, whether directly or indirectly. It’s such a common pattern within the genre itself that it is hard to distance it, even from the first iconic work. While I do mostly agree with Herbert’s theory given the sense of it, I do also agree with Purcell on the fact that Abraham Van Helsing is not a religious figure, but rather a physical representation of how the other characters do not convert to any religion at all. And through the use of that, Stoker is able to poke fun at England’s war on other religions. This might even be a reason as to why Van Helsing who seems to be set up as a sort of savior figure is actually an Other himself.

Works Cited

Herbert, Christopher. ”Vampire Religion.” Representations, no. 79, 2002, pp. 100-121. ProQuest,https://login.proxy006.nclive.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/vampire-religion/docview/222779102/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1525/rep.2002.79.1.100.

Purcell, Stephen. “Not Wholly Communion: Skepticism and the Instrumentalization of Religion in Stoker’s Dracula.” Christianity & Literature, vol. 67, no. 2, Mar. 2018, pp. 294–311. EBSCOhost,https://doi.org/10.1177/0148333117708257.

Romero Jódar, Andrés. “Bram Stoker’s Dracula: A Study on the Human Mind and Paranoid Behaviour.” Atlantis: Revista de La Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos, vol. 31, no. 2, Dec. 2009, pp. 23–39. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mzh&AN=2011392117&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Stoker, Bram. Dracula. A Norton Critical Edition: Dracula, edited by Nina Auerbach and David J. Skal, W. W. Norton Company, 1997, pp. 9-327.