« They were so tired and worn out and dispirited | Main | Our dear Madam Mina is once more our teacher. »


Most Significant

There are so many errors and misleading statements in Mina's "memorandum" that it really demands examination. There are two main possibilities: 1) it is a deliberate piece of disinformation and misdirection, either by the Count acting through Mina or by Mina herself; 2) Mina is befuddled, due to fatigue, stress, or some lingering ill-affects of the Count's influence.

"(a) He must be brought back by some one. This is evident. For had he power to move himself as he wished he could go either as man, or wolf, or bat, or in some other way."

Mina has apparently forgotten that the Count travelled from Whitby to London by rail (17 August). He also helped his hired labourer to load boxes at Carfax and to unload them at the Piccadilly house, which both startled and alarmed Van Helsing (Jonathan, 2 October; Seward, 3 October). Mina herself saw the Count leave Carfax in the daytime, and sent a telegram to the Piccadilly house (Jonathan, 3 October). He wasn't carted from Purfleet to Piccadilly in a box, so why does Mina now assert that he can only be carried by someone else? Is she confused by the fact that he cannot go more than a day's travel without his home soil to rest in? Or by Van Helsing's repeated assertion that he must be carried across running water?

Most Significant

"On the water...were he wrecked, the living water would engulf him, helpless, and he would indeed be lost. He could have the vessel drive to land, but if it were unfriendly land, wherein he was not free to move, his position would still be desperate."

In short, all three options that Mina lists--road, rail, and river--have serious drawbacks. However, Mina reported hearing swirling water and creaking wood when in trance, which strongly suggests a river boat.

Most Significant

“In my husband’s diary, Skinsky is mentioned as dealing with the Slovaks who trade down the river to the port…”

Klinger (470 n30) states "there is no mention of Skinsky in the portions of Harker's journal reproduced in the narrative". However, Mina has just read Jonathan’s journal for the previous day, which mentions a “certain Petrof Skinsky, who dealt with the Slovaks who traded down the river to the port.” This is the diary entry that she is referring to, not his much earlier Castle Dracula journal entries.

Most Significant

"...he evidently intended to arrive at Galatz, and sent invoice to Varna to deceive us lest we should ascertain his means of exit from England."

Or he made plans for both contingencies, Varna and Galatz, to better evade any pursuers.

Most Significant

"And the man’s remark, that the murder was the work of a Slovak, showed the general feeling against his class."

Not necessarily. The woman (not man—another indication that Mina’s usual attention to detail has slipped) may have known that Skinsky was in trouble with one or more Slovaks. When the Count paid him, he could have used that money to settle up with his landlord and leave Galatz until things cooled off. Otherwise, pay off the landlord and return his key? Van Helsing and the others are placing a lot of trust in a second- or third-hand report. Since they never saw the body, they don't know if the dead man was really Skinsky, or if the throat was actually torn open by an animal or just slashed with a knife.

Why would the Count pay Skinsky, then kill him after he had had time to send a messenger paying his landlord and returning the key? If the Count was covering his tracks, surely he would have hidden Skinsky's body, and killed Hildesheim too?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

September 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 07/2003