Dracula: A Treatise on Chastity
AdministratorI recently (re)read Bram Stoker’s classic “Dracula.” Much has been written, and will not be here repeated, concerning the infernal Count’s symbolic nature, and I agree with the literary consensus that he stands for unrestrained sexual desire. It’s nearly impossible to read Dracula and miss the symbolism, unless you are one of the regretfully numerous unfortunates whose capacity for true reading has been destroyed by modern education.
On this rereading, I discovered a more complete level of symbolism. The primary symbol in the book is, naturally, the Count, but he is not important of himself. He is important because of the way he affects the other characters, themselves laden with symbolic value.
The men in the book (Van Helsing, Dr. Seward, Lord Godalming, Quincy Morris, and Jonathan Harker) are not just male; they are quintessentially manly. They are stoic, physically courageous, and ready–nay, insistent–on placing the safety of the women in the novel ahead of their own. All the men but Harker are implied throughout the book to be hunters, horsemen, marksmen, and gentlemen. Harker, described as a “quiet, businesslike man,” does not appear to have any such overtly manly hobbies. The opening chapters of the book nevertheless show him to be resourceful, resolute, uncomplaining, and brave when forced into a tight spot. None of them are fighters by profession, but each sees fighting, particularly fighting to defend women, as a natural and proper station of his gender.
The women in the book (Lucy Westrena and Mina Harker) are, likewise, not just female; they are classically feminine. They are not silly, petty, cowardly or dumb; to the contrary, Mina particularly has an active mind and remarkable spiritual and physical courage that the men rely on, appreciate, and praise. They are kindhearted, supportive (spiritually, emotionally, and physically), and nurturing. They have no need to lean on or shelter under anyone, but each accepts that it is better for everyone involved for them to be defended from physical danger than to do the defending. (For Mina Harker, being defended by her husband becomes a form of emotional sacrifice, because she wants so desperately to flee and save him from harm).
Both the men and the women of Dracula are chaste. They are not chaste due to religion, or puritanical tendencies, or lack of desire. Rather, they are chaste because the men are so manly, and the women so feminine, that wantonness is impossible. Quincy Morris could, consistent with his masculinity, be sexually aggressive. He could not, however, make even the mildest sexual overture to a woman whose honor the advance would impugn. Lucy Westrena’s femininity would never permit her to be sexually aggressive, or to accept sexual overtures from a suitor. The characters act, in other words, as perfect gentlemen and ladies, because that is what they are ??????(rather than a role they play or a set of courtesies they assume). Unchastity is utterly inconsistent with their basic nature.
Stoker’s gender roles are telling; I think they reveal his sense of morally ideal behavior for men and women, starting with the now-novel concept that morally ideal behavior is gender-specific. Even more telling is what happens when Count Dracula, the symbol of unrestrained sexual desire, is introduced to this ideal microcosm.
Dracula first attacks Lucy Westrena, and, over a long series of nights, drains her life and makes her a vampire in his own image. Although Dr. Seward and Van Helsing suspect the cause of Ms. Westrena’s illness, a series of misfortunes and accidents thwart their efforts to protect her.
When Van Helsing’s efforts begin to fail, and Ms. Westrena approaches death, he becomes temporarily hysterical. He beats his palms together, cries, and cries out in anguish to heaven. Dr. Seward exhibits similar behavior, although in the privacy of his journal, as does Lord Godalming–and Van Helsing, again, after Ms. Westrena’s death. Ms. Westrena, by contrast, becomes less demure, and more seductive–less nurturing, and more titillating, as she comes under the vampire’s sway. After her (apparent) death, she is described as “wanton” in appearance, and attempts a sexually aggressive seduction of Godalming.
With the introduction of Dracula’s influence, the men start acting womanly. They throw hysterics; they beat their breasts in futility; they feel instead of think; pine instead of act. The women, by contrast, act manly. They become aggressive physically and sexually. They ignore propriety, abandon restraint, and urge others to do the same. Most tellingly, they cease providing spiritual or emotional nurture, and offer only the depletion of emptied veins.
In symbolic terms, unrestrained sexual desire perverts the right order of human interaction. Women act like men, men act like women. Up is down, down is up. The benificent fences built through and around masculinity and femininity are torn down, and without their restraint, individuals are consumed by the basest of desires. More than individuals suffer. Without the restraints imposed by gender roles, love, trust, hope, and, in the end, life, are destroyed altogether.
Most tellingly of all, Dracula’s kiss not only destroys; it infects. The rot of unfettered sexual desire does not damn only that whom it touches; it damns also all whom they touch, ever spreading, ever tearing at the social order. In the last analysis, if left unchecked, unrestrained desire leads to a society of profane, unholy monsters.
That, at least, is what I got out of Bram Stoker’s Dracula on this reading. I’m still digesting the point, and will be for some time to come.

May 9th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Modern liberalism sees human societies as nothing more than collections of autonomous individuals, and sees individuals as nothing more than interchangeable parts. Men = women in the equation of modern liberalism; they are not merely equal to them in human dignity — they are fundamentally the same. For millennia, humanity understood this idea to be complete nonsense. Recently, however, we’ve come to forget the wisdom of our ancestors concerning the sexes. And we are suffering as a result.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:19 am
It is not only the case that men will act as women and visa versa, but that both will act as children, and neither will be free in the CS Lewis sense of the word.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Hi Jeremy — so I’ve read this book a couple of times myself, and I think your analysis is good, if not a little shaped around your own beliefs on masculinity and femininity. What I’ve often wondered though, is what made Dracula the way he is? Does he have a story, or is he just evil through and through?
To me, he was always the most interesting character in the book, because I wondered if he felt emotions, or had any human characteristics at all. By your interpretation, the answer is no, and the more I think about it I think you may be right (in the way Stoker intended).
I haven’t read Dracula that recently, maybe five years ago, and then I thought that Lucy in particular wanted Dracula to visit her, even the first time. I thought she felt less fear and rather more desire… but maybe I need a fresh reading.
I enjoyed your essay.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
From the rules: “Comments should be based on something other than the purely emotional preferences of the writer.”
While here we have a purely emotional preference for traditional gender roles and women “staying in their place.”
Interesting.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
JR,
I’m pleased you read our Rules. I think you’re mistaken about my description of gender roles, though. It’s plain historical fact that those gender roles existed, and were thought to have moral value, at the time Bram Stoker penned Dracula. It’s a fair and rational inference from the text that Stoker specifically believed those gender roles to at least represent moral imperatives, and that he used the subversion of those roles to represent corruption and evil. If you disagree that traditional gender roles have the moral weight that Stoker believed they did, that’s fine. But my analysis of the text isn’t ‘emotional’ or merely preferential just because you may disagree with it.