Doctor Abraham Van Helsing is an intriguing and somewhat problematic character on several levels. According to critic Martin Willis, Van Helsing's introduction represents a new understanding of disease and infection. In the Victorian era, it was still common for people to think of disease in terms of miasmas, with this disease being 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 therefore somewhat paradoxical that Van Helsing repeatedly invokes the discredited pseudoscience of alchemy as the basis of his knowledge in 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 obscure knowledge is obscured by these eclectic and contradictory references. What is also strange about Van Helsing's character is his rapid and repeated travels between England and Amsterdam. This could be seen as another source of knowledge for the professor, or perhaps the other alleged sources of Van Helsing's power are metaphors for England's relationship with the old country. Such a postcolonial reading could be useful, especially if considered alongside Arata's readings, but this article will attempt to investigate a subtle underlying and interdependent linguistic relationship with geographical and historical factors. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The place of Amsterdam is certainly not central to the novel, but rather acts as an "offstage" to which Van Helsing conveniently escapes to allow Lucy to feed. Throughout the rest of the novel, our connections to specific places are established through the characters' compulsive tendency to write while they are in a place. There is a lot of talk about direct textual links to the information collected. In fact, their obsessive-compulsive need to write would be the reason for the book's existence in the first place (Elmessiri 105). It is therefore significant and unusual that the information about vampires coming from Van Helsing is not attested by written documents but by Van Helsing's word alone. Others of course provide valuable information through their own stories, but their words quickly become disconnected from themselves and the written record of what was said becomes the ultimate authority. Van Helsing, on the other hand, is often considered the current authority whose logocentric connection transcends textual records. Perhaps this is why there is no narrative in Amsterdam, because Van Helsing needs neither a textual nor a geographically fixed reference to transmit knowledge; in fact, one of the most comprehensive works he himself wrote can be considered a failure. After Lucy turned around, but before Van Helsing told the others, he wrote a note to Dr. Seward just in case something happened to Van Helsing before he had a chance to share your findings with others. Van Helsing eventually survives to recount his findings in person, so the note becomes redundant and is never delivered (Stoker 181). If we are to draw conclusions about a conception of Amsterdam from Van Helsing's logocentrism, it is necessary to consider and compare the information transmitted by the American. Interestingly, Quincey Morris is also reluctant to put his paper into writing; even in his letters he makes noeffort to conform to a formal style of English and even lets its marked language shine through in its idiosyncratic syntax and vocabulary (Stoker 62). Neither Van Helsing nor Quincey Morris conforms to the textual norms of 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' importance to the party comes from his actions. Even when he speaks, he is most often referring to an experience he had in the past or an action he will do in the future. Van Helsing's reluctance to rely on the written word is linked to his reverence for the past and his logocentrism, but Quincey Morris takes a similar position based on his disdain for deliberation. A broad view of the colonial history of language can be extracted from the comparison of these figures. Van Helsing is a representative of the origins of English, it is assumed that Van Helsing speaks Dutch, and he is heard at one point shouting in German "Got in Himel" (Stoker 118). Both languages ​​connect Van Helsing to English's sister languages ​​which evolved closer to their point of origin than the traveling language of the Anglo-Saxons. The “American” language of Quincey Morris would then be a more recent migration of this 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 to 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 too diluted. From a logocentric or historically linguistic point of view, Quincey Morris's statements are doubly removed from their referent; the English removed the Teutonic purity of the act of reference by engaging in writing, but the Americans, rather than returning to the double-sided spoken referent by abandoning inscription, limited themselves to simple acts of naming involving concrete and directly experiential events. . Old Germanic, Anglo-Saxon and American characters seem to confirm their expected linguistic predispositions, but it is ultimately unclear whether a value judgment is being made on either of these tendencies. We can easily imagine that the entire group would have been lost without Van Helsing's expertise, but it is Quincey Morris who we ultimately credit for the heroic martyrdom, and without the English the story might not have been told at all. Even Van Helsing, in all his logocentric glory, seems deficient in that he neglects to communicate necessary information until the last second and sometimes much later. The contradictory philosophies of language are then based on the geographical origins of the speakers. Given the importance of land and geography to Dracula, it seems necessary to also consider his related notions of language. If Dracula is to fit the previously constructed model based on the evolution of language, we might expect Dracula to place more emphasis on the linguistic origins and linguistic presence of the speaker than Van Helsing, but he would not no longer surprising to note that his philosophy of communication is clearly more complex since his origins lie in a more distant linguistic family than that of his interlocutors and it is probable that his mother tongue has evolved and evolved since the time when he was mortal. Indeed, we see that presence is 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 he cannot hide his strong aversion to the symbol separated from the 39 (2007): 301-325.