Jonathan is quite naive about it

On May 3 Harker talks about going to the library and reading up on that part of the world. On his ride in, he is able to guess at various people’s ethnicities. Also, the Balkans were well-known for having a history of conflict; nobody was surprised that the Great War started with an assassination there several years later.

At this point he already knows Dracula is not who he says he is,

I don’t believe Dracula has made any claims regarding his nature. If he wants to crawl around outside his castle, he’s certainly entitled to.

In fact, I refer to him as a “crime-lord” but on second thought this may be mistaken; it’s not yet clear exactly what crimes Dracula has committed. My intuition is that in the Austro-Hungarian empire of the late 1800s the nobility were still a privileged class, though not to the extent as in medieval times. What kind of generally-questionable activities could they perform with legal impunity? I don’t know, but it seems like the sort of thing a half-decent lawyer would determine before going there.

It also isn’t actually going against Dracula’s orders, because the door wasn’t locked. It just had frozen hinges.

Dracula had actually given two relevant standing orders.

First, on May 7, Dracula said “You may go anywhere you wish in the castle, except where the doors are locked” On May 15, Harker says “the door was locked, and the key was gone! That key must be in the Count’s room; I must watch should his door be unlocked, so that I may get it and escape.” This clearly demonstrates Harker’s intent to circumvent Dracula’s instruction. Later that day he says

I found one door at the top of the stairway which, though it seemed to be locked, gave a little under pressure. I tried it harder, and found that it was not really locked, but that the resistance came from the fact that the hinges had fallen somewhat, and the heavy door rested on the floor. Here was an opportunity which I might not have again, so I exerted myself, and with many efforts forced it back so that I could enter.

Note that (i) Harker admits that the door “seemed to be locked.” Thus it was possible that Dracula too may have believed it to be locked. (ii) Harker describes that he “exerted myself, and with many efforts forced it back so that I could enter”, meaning that it was not easily entered. Thus it was also possible that Dracula believed Harker was unable to enter the room – meaning that although it did not have a lock, it was possible that Dracula believed the room was inaccessible to Harker and thus did not require special notice. (iii) Harker admits “Here was an opportunity which I might not have again” suggesting that if Dracula discovered the room to be vulnerable to Harker’s intrusions, he might remedy the situation.

Harker isn’t just some rando coming over to watch the game and looking for the bathroom. Harker is a foreign guest in the hereditary domain of a member of the ruling class. Harker is also the lawyer of a client who has paid for his expertise (as well as for transport and board.) In both roles, it is Harker’s duty to confer with Dracula to determine whether entering that room is in keeping with Dracula’s stated intent.

Second, on May 12, Dracula warns that “should you leave these rooms you will not by any chance go to sleep in any other part of the castle”. On May 16th Harker says that after forcing his way into the bedchamber of Dracula’s wives: “…I felt sleepy. The Count’s warning came into my mind, but I took a pleasure in disobeying it.” So clearly he remembered the warning, decided to ignore it, and admits taking pleasure in doing so.

Conclusion: Harker is a crafty gloating monster who cannot be trusted in your house. I would certainly never invite him in.

(ii) apologize to Dracula for causing him trouble, and (iii) remind Dracula that even though they have different cultures and backgrounds, Harker is still sworn to confidentiality as his lawyer and in his fiduciary role will serve him as best he can for as long as he can.

I can’t see how either of those would have helped. Dracula does not come across to me as a typical crime-lord who might have such questions of honour as important to him and for whom such a kowtowing would change anything.

First of all, this is not kowtowing, this is just stating Harker’s professional obligations. It’s OK tho, bc Harker seems to have forgotten all about those obligations too. Dracula recognizes this and has already gotten to the stage where he’s looking for another lawyer.

Second, it’s not yet clear how Dracula has been dishonorable. On the contrary, he’s been exceptionally polite and attentive and has worked closely and effectively with Harker. Harker may point to one incident on May 8 when Harker was bleeding all over the place and Dracula’s “eyes blazed with a sort of demoniac fury” and made a gesture to his throat (which only made contact with a necklace). Admittedly at that time Dracula disposed of a shaving mirror by throwing it out the window – Harker is welcome to bill him for that, but it is not clear that Dracula acted dishonorably in doing so. It might even be argued that feelings of empathy had rendered Dracula so upset that his guest had suffered harm (by the shaving-cut) that he’d impulsively removed the shaving-apparatus, explaining that “this is the wretched thing that has done the mischief.”

In conclusion, I haven’t read the book so I dunno, maybe Dracula turns out to be some kind of evil monster who denies health-care to little kids or something. Personally if I were him I’d go to the highest mountaintop, build a trebuchet, put Harker in the sling, and shoot him in the general direction of the Black Sea. More charitably, Harker deserves a brief period of incarceration in Austria-Hungary after which he should be deported in chains and disbarred.

p.s. I hope his fiancee ends up with someone else!