Letter, Lucy Westenra to Mina Murray

LETTER, LUCY WESTENRA TO MINA MURRAY

17, Chatham Street Wednesday

My dearest Mina,

I must say you tax me very unfairly with being a bad correspondent. I wrote you twice since we parted, and your last letter was only your second. Besides, I have nothing to tell you. There is really nothing to interest you.

Town is very pleasant just now, and we go a great deal to picture-galleries and for walks and rides in the park. As to the tall, curly-haired man, I suppose it was the one who was with me at the last Pop. Someone has evidently been telling tales.

That was Mr. Holmwood. He often comes to see us, and he and Mamma get on very well together, they have so many things to talk about in common.

We met some time ago a man that would just do for you, if you were not already engaged to Jonathan. He is an excellant parti, being handsome, well off, and of good birth. He is a doctor and really clever. Just fancy! He is only nine-and twenty, and he has an immense lunatic asylum all under his own care. Mr. Holmwood introduced him to me, and he called here to see us, and often comes now. I think he is one of the most resolute men I ever saw, and yet the most calm. He seems absolutely imperturbable. I can fancy what a wonderful power he must have over his patients. He has a curious habit of looking one straight in the face, as if trying to read one's thoughts. He tries this on very much with me, but I flatter myself he has got a tough nut to crack. I know that from my glass.

Do you ever try to read your own face? I do, and I can tell you it is not a bad study, and gives you more trouble than you can well fancy if you have never tried it.

He say that I afford him a curious psychological study, and I humbly think I do. I do not, as you know, take sufficient interest in dress to be able to describe the new fashions. Dress is a bore. That is slang again, but never mind. Arthur says that every day.

There, it is all out, Mina, we have told all our secrets to each other since we were children. We have slept together and eaten together, and laughed and cried together, and now, though I have spoken, I would like to speak more. Oh, Mina, couldn't you guess? I love him. I am blushing as I write, for although I think he loves me, he has not told me so in words. But, oh, Mina, I love him. I love him! There, that does me good.

I wish I were with you, dear, sitting by the fire undressing, as we used to sit, and I would try to tell you what I feel. I do not know how I am writing this even to you. I am afraid to stop, or I should tear up the letter, and I don't want to stop, for I do so want to tell you all. Let me hear from you at once, and tell me all that you think about it. Mina, pray for my happiness.

Lucy

P.S.--I need not tell you this is a secret. Goodnight again. L.

Comments

[Andrew Connell]

This is the first post which does not have a specific date mentioned in the text (and one of the first to appear vastly out of order from where it appears in the book when viewing the contents chronologically). In Les Klinger's _The New Annotated Dracula_ there is a great section titled 'The Chronology of Dracula' (bits of which can be seen here: http://goo.gl/5CA5f ) where the various possible years when the book may have taken place are discussed. Mr. Klinger supposes that the "Wednesday" Lucy refers to could refer to May 10th 1893 which was a Wednesday.

With regard to maps, Mr. Klinger also points out that there are two Chatham streets in London. Here http://goo.gl/maps/LMt9 and here http://goo.gl/maps/VT2e however, as it is not known when Lucy leaves London for Whitby I did not make a travel map for her from either of these locations.

[Mark Hille]

I myself have been thinking recently that the novel takes place in 1890. The "epilogue" at the end of Dracula mentions "seven years ago we went through these events", and that Jonathan Harker reads the pile of notes and letters at the end. But this is assuming that the Seven years later is the publication year of 1897

[Andrew Connell]

Good thinking Mark. I wasn't really aware of this until just a few years ago when Bryan started running the blog, but there are all many bits in the original book which all point to different dates. The 'Wednesday' above is only one. The times of trains, illumination/position of the moon on certain dates and heavier hostorical clues point to different years as well. Lastly, to make things even more confusing, there is an manuscript - Stoker's original copy - which contains additional portions of the story which are different than, or do not appear, in the final published book.

For instance, one such oddity regarding the very note you have mentioned is that, in the manuscript, Jonathan's addendum reads "Eleven years ago..." which puts it at 1886.

However, (thankfully) the real authority on this particular aspect of the book frequents this blog often I'm happy to say - Elizabeth Miller. Her research was cited heavily by Les Klinger and her thoughts can be read in his book on page 518 where she makes an excellent case for 1893 based on the death of Charcot, the day and date of Mr. Hawkins's funeral, the establishment of the Westminster Gazette and several other clever observations. Good eyes Elizabeth!

[Elizabeth Miller]

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the novel is set in 1893. Why? Because Stoker tells us. His Notes for Dracula (which I transcribed and co-edited recently) include a daily calendar of several pages on which he plots the story. Each Sunday is clearly designated. The dates correspond to 1893. That, along with the textual evidence referred to by Andrew, is proof enough for me.