Dr. Abraham Van Helsing is an intriguing and somewhat problematic character on multiple levels. According to critic Martin Willis, Van Helsing's introduction represents a new understanding of disease and infection. In Victorian times it was still common for people to think of disease in terms of miasma, that disease was transmitted through the inhalation of foul-smelling air, so Van Helsing's understanding of the microbial origins of disease shows his understanding of the latest research (Willis 302). It is somewhat paradoxical, then, that Van Helsing repeatedly invokes the discredited pseudoscience of alchemy as the basis of his knowledge for dealing with Dracula. Van Helsing is also credited with recent research into his interaction with Renfield, the asylum patient. The source of Van Helsing's arcane knowledge is obscured by these eclectic and contradictory references. Also strange in the character of Van Helsing are his repeated quick trips back and forth between England and Amsterdam. This could be seen as an additional source of knowledge for the professor, or perhaps the other supposed sources of Van Helsing's power are metaphors for England's relationship with the old country. Such a postcolonial reading might be useful, especially when considered alongside Arata's readings, but this article will attempt to investigate a subtle underlying linguistic relationship interconnected with geographical and historical factors. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The location of Amsterdam is certainly not central to the novel but acts more as an "off-stage" where Van Helsing conveniently escapes to allow Lucy to feed on. Throughout the rest of the novel our connections to specific places come through the characters' compulsive tendency to write while in a place. There is a lot of talk about direct text links to the information collected. In fact, it is said that their obsessive-compulsive need to write is the main reason for the existence of the book (Elmessiri 105). It is significant and unusual, then, that the vampire information from Van Helsing is not attested by written documents but through Van Helsing's word alone. Others, of course, provide valuable information through their own narratives, but their words quickly become disconnected from themselves and the written records of what was said become the ultimate authority. Van Helsing, on the other hand, is often seen as the current authority with a logocentric connection that transcends textual documentation. This is perhaps why we do not have a narrative that takes place in Amsterdam, because Van Helsing needs neither a fixed textual nor geographical reference to convey knowledge; in fact, one of the most extensive writings he himself wrote can be considered a failure. After Lucy transformed, but before Van Helsing told the others, she wrote a note to Dr. Seward in case anything were to happen to Van Helsing before he had a chance to tell the others about his findings. Van Helsing ends up surviving to report his findings in person, so the note becomes redundant and is never delivered (Stoker 181). If we want to draw conclusions about a conception of Amsterdam from Van Helsing's logocentrism, it is necessary to consider and compare the information provided by the American. Interestingly, Quincey Morris is also reluctant to commit his communication to writing; even in his letters, he makes no effort to conform to the formal style of English and even lets his marked language shine through in hispeculiar syntax and vocabulary (Stoker 62). Neither Van Helsing nor Quincey Morris conforms to the textual standards adopted by the rest of the hunting party, but their similarities end there when it comes to communication style. Van Helsing is an authority because of his words, but Quincey Morris' significance to the party comes from his actions. Even when he speaks, most of the time he refers to an experience he had in the past or an action he will carry out in the future. Van Helsing's reluctance to rely on the written word is linked to his respect for the past and his logocentrism, but Quincey Morris adopts a similar position based on his disdain for deliberation. From the comparison we can gain a broad vision of the colonial history of the language of these characters. Van Helsing is a representative of the origins of English, Van Helsing is assumed to speak Dutch, and at one point he is heard shouting in German "Got in Himel" (Stoker 118). Both languages ​​connect Van Helsing with English's sister languages ​​that evolved closer to their point of origin than the itinerant language of the Anglo-Saxons. Quincey Morris's "American" language would therefore be a more recent migration than that same West Germanic language. The fact that Van Helsing is able to communicate with authority and without the aid of written language represents a purity of his language and culture. The English characters show great respect for this figure of their ancestors, but when it comes to the American it seems that the language has been diluted too much. From a logocentric or historically linguistic perspective, Quincey Morris's statements are doubly distant from their referent; the English have removed the Teutonic purity of the act of reference through the commitment to writing, but the American, instead of returning to the double-sided spoken referent through the abandonment of the inscription, has limited himself to simple acts of naming which they involve concrete and directly experiential events. Old Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and American characters appear to confirm their expected linguistic predispositions, but ultimately it is unclear whether a value judgment is made about any of these tendencies. We can easily imagine that the entire group would have been perplexed without Van Helsing's experience, but it is Quincey Morris who we ultimately give credit for the heroic martyrdom, and without the English the story may not have been told at all. Even Van Helsing, in all his logocentric glory, seems to be lacking as he neglects to communicate the necessary information until the last second and sometimes much later. The contrasting philosophies of language are therefore based on the geographical origins of the speakers. Considering the importance of land and geography to Dracula it seems necessary to also consider his related notions of language. If Dracula wants to fit the previously constructed model based on the evolution of language, we might expect Dracula to emphasize linguistic origins and the presence of the speaker to an even greater extent than Van Helsing, but it would also not be unexpected to find that his philosophy Communication is significantly more complex since his origins belong to a more distant linguistic family than that of his interlocutors and it is likely that his native language has evolved and devolved since he was mortal. Indeed, we find presence to be a very important aspect of Dracula's communication. He tolerates writing to the extent that it is necessary to conform to a new society, but cannot hide his strong aversion to the symbol separated from the speaker when he encounters Jonathan Harker's letter in shorthand. With Dracula, the presence can even function as one 39 (2007): 301-325.