CHAPTER V
Dr. Seward’s Diary.
(Kept in phonograph)
25 May.—Ebb tide in appetite to-day. Cannot eat, cannot rest, so diary instead. Since my rebuff of yesterday I have a sort of empty feeling; nothing in the world seems of sufficient importance to be worth the doing… As I knew that the only cure for this sort of thing was work, I went down amongst the patients. I picked out one who has afforded me a study of much interest. He is so quaint that I am determined to understand him as well as I can. To-day I seemed to get nearer than ever before to the heart of his mystery.
I questioned him more fully than I had ever done, with a view to making myself master of the facts of his hallucination. In my manner of doing it there was, I now see, something of cruelty. I seemed to wish to keep him to the point of his madness—a thing which I avoid with the patients as I would the mouth of hell.
(Mem., under what circumstances would I not avoid the pit of hell?) Omnia Romæ venalia sunt. Hell has its price! verb. sap. If there be anything behind this instinct it will be valuable to trace it afterwards accurately, so I had better commence to do so, therefore—
R. M. Renfield, ætat 59.—Sanguine temperament; great physical strength; morbidly excitable; periods of gloom, ending in some fixed idea which I cannot make out. I presume that the sanguine temperament itself and the disturbing influence end in a mentally-accomplished finish; a possibly dangerous man, probably dangerous if unselfish. In selfish men caution is as secure an armour for their foes as for themselves. What I think of on this point is, when self is the fixed point the centripetal force is balanced with the centrifugal; when duty, a cause, etc., is the fixed point, the latter force is paramount, and only accident or a series of accidents can balance it.
Letter, Quincey P. Morris to Hon. Arthur Holmwood.
"25 May.
"My dear Art,—
"We’ve told yarns by the camp-fire in the prairies; and dressed one another’s wounds after trying a landing at the Marquesas; and drunk healths on the shore of Titicaca. There are more yarns to be told, and other wounds to be healed, and another health to be drunk. Won’t you let this be at my camp-fire to-morrow night? I have no hesitation in asking you, as I know a certain lady is engaged to a certain dinner-party, and that you are free. There will only be one other, our old pal at the Korea, Jack Seward. He’s coming, too, and we both want to mingle our weeps over the wine-cup, and to drink a health with all our hearts to the happiest man in all the wide world, who has won the noblest heart that God has made and the best worth winning. We promise you a hearty welcome, and a loving greeting, and a health as true as your own right hand. We shall both swear to leave you at home if you drink too deep to a certain pair of eyes. Come!
"Yours, as ever and always,
“Quincey P. Morris.”
The wax cylinder phonograph was invented in 1877, 20 years before this book was published. Here we get some more of our theme of the importance of modern technology.
Omnia Romae venalia sunt, “all Romans are venal”, apparently with the meaning “everything in Rome was up for sale”.
Verb. sap. is short for verbum sapienti sat est, “a word is sufficient to a wise man”.
aetat is “aged”
This makes me very curious about how Arthur, Quincey, and Jack know each other. I don’t recall us ever getting an answer more than this one letter, “at the Korea”. What that means is anyone’s guess. Were they in the country of Korea? The 1880s & '90s were a very turbulent time on the Korean peninsula, and there was involvement of western traders and even the Royal Navy were involved at one point. So it’s definitely feasible, if still a bit of a stretch.
a health as true as your own right hand
😳
But seriously, this is great. Some really positive masculinity. All three of them were direct in their wishes, but respect Lucy’s answer, and don’t let it get in the way of their friendships.
The 1880s & '90s were a very turbulent time on the Korean peninsula, and there was involvement of western traders and even the Royal Navy were involved at one point.
That’s a nice way of saying Korea was a victim of colonialism. The US and British were both involved, though at different times. FWIW while Stoker was writing Dracula from 1893-1896 the First Sino-Japanese War was going on in and around Korea from 1894-1895, so it would have been in the newspapers. Both sides had foreign advisors who doubtlessly had staff members and hangers-on, not to mention reporters and speculators and diplomatic military observers, so my guess is Stoker’s suggesting they’re in that crowd.
Some really positive masculinity.
I dunno, if I were
JackArthur I’d only show up with backup. Otherwise I might end up with a brick to the back of the head and a slow rot in aJackArthur-sized bag at the bottom of a lake. Nah, what am I thinking, I bet that loony-bin doc has plenty of ways to make a body disappear.Korea was a victim of colonialism
It was, and quite a brutal one at that, although mostly at the hands of the Japanese, not western powers. When I lived in Korea in the mid '00s, there was still some very obvious animosity towards Japan over how the Japanese treated them in the 1800s through WWII. From the outside, it appears relations are very gradually healing, possibly over a shared fear of North Korea and China.
Anyway, I found other notes suggesting “the Korea” may also have been the name of a gentleman’s club, or of a ship they may have all served on. Though it referring to the country cannot be ruled out.
Anyway, I found other notes
Nice find there. Looks like they cite someone called Leatherdale who apparently has referenced Stoker’s notes for some of his annotations? I have a friend w access to Leatherdales’ “Dracula Unbound” and according to them, Note 746 there is:
This refers either to an undisclosed tavern or gentleman’s club, or to the Asiatic peninsula of that name. Korea was in the 19th century more usually spelled Corea, though it was common to append the definite article – the Corea. Korea seems an unlikely destination for western adventurers, having only recently emerged from centuries of isolation. Not until 1882 did Korea sign a trade treaty with a western country (the USA), and she remained desperately poor and undeveloped until recent times. Not the place for a youthful English aristoctrat. Stoker’s purpose is merely to list exotic-sounding places, irrespective of the practicality of getting there. In 1894, the year after the novel is set, Japan invaded China through Korea.
I didn’ t realize Dracula was set in 1893, so there goes my theory about them lads being on the staff of military advisors. I think Leatherdale’s right that “Stoker’s purpose is merely to list exotic-sounding places, irrespective of the practicality of getting there.” If we really need a head-canon, I’d say it refers to some type of adventure that they know about and we don’t, the specific nature of which is irrelevant.
One point possibly worth noting from the Wikipedia page History of Korea:
In 1885, British Royal Navy occupied Geomun Island, and withdrew in 1887.
Ther’s really no information to support this, so I wouldn’t suggest it as very likely, but it’s not impossible that Holmwood and Seward were in the Royal Navy at this point.
Yeah, I guess it’s also possible they were on a merchant ship that passed by the Korean coastline and they took note of that country bc it was so isolated.
Dr. Sergio’s Diary.
(Kept in Lemmy)I questioned him more fully than I had ever done, with a view to making myself master of the facts of his hallucination. In my manner of doing it there was, I now see, something of cruelty. I seemed to wish to keep him to the point of his madness—a thing which I avoid with the patients as I would the mouth of hell.
(Mem., under what circumstances would I not avoid the pit of hell?) Omnia Romæ venalia sunt. Hell has its price! verb. sap. If there be anything behind this instinct it will be valuable to trace it afterwards accurately, so I had better commence to do so, therefore—
This section looks like it has something interesting going on re confronting danger/madness/evil (which may be thematically useful) but it’s a little confusing on first read.
So, this guy’s just been friendzoned and he’s trying to forget about it by burying himself (heh) in work. His sexual frustration and feelings of social impotence make him want to “master” the facts of a patient. But his poorly-stifled lust is driving him to an extreme that he usually avoids. He is forcing this patient to re-live or re-experience something traumatic. Which is an approach that Friendzo usually avoids “as I would the mouth of hell”.
Friendzo catches himself in a Freudian slip* and is like “under what circumstances would I not avoid the pit of hell” hmmm… what does this mean… he prefaces it with “mem” which I take is some kind of shorthand meaning “think of this later”… web searches are no help here…
I mean: imagine you say “I need this like I need a hole in the head” but then you’re like “lolz sometimes holes in the head are useful.” But now he’s like ruminating over this, and on the surface it’s just bc his testicles are aching bc he’s been shot down in flames worse than Bon Scott and instead of doing something useful like rocking out he’s torturing this poor soul that’s been placed in his care. I think that’s it. In his sexual fury he is driven to evil. He tries to redirect by intellectualizing. He jokes about hell, not knowing that he’s in a novel about Dracula.
He says that in Rome, everything is for sale… which according to this discussion board has a context which Friendzo and Stoker and presumably the reader at the time would be familiar with? It’s a cynical statement that nothing is sacred, everyone has a price. Friendzo says “Hell has its price!” Meaning… you can buy Hell if you want to? wtf does this mean. … I think at this point he’s NOT trying to figure out “under what circumstances would I not avoid the pit of hell?” bc that was just a parenthetical statement. He says " verb. sap." which Zagorath says means “a word is sufficient to a wise man”… lolz I guess I need more than a word then… um… then he says “If there be anything to this instinct…” which I think is relevant to the “verb. sap.” part bc it means he’s taking it as axiomatic and seeing where it leads him? So I think what he’s saying is:
- AXIOM:
- Hell (terrible things) has/have a price
- you can buy it (you can reach it) if you want
- this is relevant to: leading a mentally troubled person to their worst fears. (but has at least two subtexts to us the readers)
Or more briefly: “you can easily confront terrible things, and it may be useful to do so.” ofc this is a bit of a Chekhov’s Gun bc I wonder if he still believes this at the end of the novel. He might even understand the circumstances under which he would confront danger/evil.
Hell’s Pit, man… great album…
*(note: this was early in the days of Psychology, in fact Freud was practicing while Stoker was writing, tho Freud only started publishing around the same time that Dracula came out! coincidentally Freud was born and practiced in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, tho on the other end of where Dracula was supposed to have lived. dunno much about psychology in England of those days. I think what he’s doing would now be called “exposure therapy” maybe?)
Oh, this is some excellent analysis, all through it.
Once again, my memory of later passages (and other adaptations) has messed up how I interpret this one.
In his sexual fury he is driven to evil
“Evil” might be too strong a word, but from this entry, it certainly seems in the right direction. In later entries we only ever see Seward talking to Renfield, asking some pointed questions. But the evidence here seems to be that perhaps he’s doing worse, with some quite manipulative psychological abuse.
he prefaces it with “mem” which I take is some kind of shorthand meaning “think of this later”
That’s correct. It’s short for memorandum (often also shortened in English to “memo”, especially when referring not to the act of recording something to remember, but to the note itself). A very old (even in Stoker’s day) dictionary definition:
A terme used when wee write any thing we would not forget. [Cockeram, English Dictionarie, 1623]
I believe the discussion just after the memorandum is, as you say, not related to figuring out what he would do to avoid hell. I think what he’s saying here is “I was doing something I normally would avoid. Anyone can be driven to extremes in the right circumstances”. I think your interpretation of “terrible things have a price” does work, but he never really seems to discuss consequences, which is what “price” seems like it should mean in this context if you interpret it that way, which is why I’m not sure I agree with it.
As for “verb. sap.”, I found another annotated version with perhaps a clearer translation of this than the one in my physical copy. It says “a word for the wise”, possibly with the meaning “enough said”. Today’s use might translate that meaning as “if you know what I mean”.
I’m starting to wonder if maybe I’m overthinking this. Stoker’s putting in work, but he’s no Henry James or George Eliot. Probably he just wanted to throw in something foreboding that mentioned cruelty and madness and hell. Ima revisit this once we get further along.
I’m starting to wonder if maybe I’m overthinking this.
La mort de l’auteur. Whether Stoker consciously intended it or not is irrelevant, so long as it’s in the text.
But if you really do want to work out if he may have intended it, I wouldn’t count him out just because his most famous work is regarded as pulpy genre writing. He certainly didn’t rush it out in the way usually associated with pulp. It was at least 7 years from conception to completion, and in that time he did a copious amount of research into many of the aspects of his story, from Wallachian culture & history to trans-European train timetables. He also had worked in and around the theatre for 2 decades, so he clearly knew his literary history.
La mort de l’auteur. Whether Stoker consciously intended it or not is irrelevant, so long as it’s in the text.
Oh wow yeah that brings back memories… I took an intro to literary criticism class back in the 90s and every week prof’d go through another movement (Romanticism, New Criticism, Formalism, Structuralism, then the various types of Post-Structuralism… there were a couple others…) I remember Jacques Lacan had some pretty cool ideas tho I don’t remember much about them… Dunno wtf the kids are being taught these days tho… Wait, I think I took a couple more critical theory classes too but it was a while back…
If I were an undergrad and wanted to do an old-school literary interpretation of Dracula, based on what we’d read so far I’d be thinking about:
- a post-colonial interpretation. the 3 lads take pride in being world travellers / conquerors? Dracula is from a distant corner of an empire that is presented as having an exploitative relationship with the locals (whose non-ruling-class ethnicities are prominently described).
- a post-structuralist Marxist interpretation. Dracula is introduced as a consumer (buying a new house, hiring a lawyer), the cuck lawyer is introduced as consuming his way across Austria-Hungary while looking down on the working-class people who are trying to warn him of the danger. the 3 lads seem to be noveau riche and I suspect they’re gonna meet the aristocratic Dracula who is literally a blood-sucking parasite feeding off the middle- and lower-classes.
- a psychological/psychoanalytic interpretation. I suspect these are the most frequently done. Obviously there are a lot of sexual undertones (the lawyer is a cuck, the 3 lads are all horndogging after one of the characters, who spends all her time lustposting to her friend, the whole vampire drinking blood thing, … ) If I were going to take a new angle on this, I’d find a newer theorist and try to apply their ideas to this novel.
Anyway, I realize there’s more than authorial intent, but my point is if you read the later James Joyce (for example) every single word in the text is placed there for a reason and is maybe intentionally building symbolism or making allusions or playing a word-game and there can be value in trying to reproduce that reasoning, but I don’t think Stoker’s going that far even tho he’s taking his writing duties seriously.
The colonial interpretation is also quite a popular one with Dracula. I hadn’t heard of a Marxist interpretation of Dracula specifically before, but class-based interpretations of vampires more generally are very, very common, and I’m not surprised that doing a search just now turns up quite a lot of Marxist results.
I was quite confused as this passage, so I read it in my native language (french), then searched for a traduction in french of “Omnia Romæ venalia sunt”. I found :
- tous les Romains sont vénaux [ou corrompus] (all Romans are venal [or corrupt])
- l’Enfer a son prix, la connaissance aussi (Hell has its price, knowledge too)
And sapere, in latin, could mean : to be intelligent, wise / to know his matter, to understand, etc.
So, I would say that, in this context “hell has its price, knowledge too” would be the better interpretation. And, that "under what circumstances would I not avoid the pit of hell ? " is just a rhetorical question to the comparison/metaphor he just wrote the line before “which I avoid with the patients as I would the mouth of hell”.
And, a foreshadow, unbeknownst to him, of what is to follow.
Ps : I hope I was clear, I’m not used to writing in english.
l’Enfer a son prix, la connaissance aussi (Hell has its price, knowledge too)
Thanks, that makes sense, it sounds like a saying that Stoker and the character would have known.
