Dracula and Vlad the Impaler, Were They the Same?

Bram Stokers Dracula, a dark gothic novel, was first published in 1897 and has been recognized as a classic horror tale of all times. It is a brilliantly sensational book, that causes a chill to run down ones spine even today with its spooky atmosphere and imaginative plot. It is dark Gothic at its best, a brilliant, imaginative and can't-put-down work of art. Many of the readers, who have enjoyed this book immensely, may not be aware that Dracula is not altogether a character out of the imagination of Bram Stokers creative mind, but rather is inspired by a high born and very prominent member of the Romanian Court, known as Vlad the Impaler. There are enough hints on Bram Stokers Dracula to show that Stoker had indeed been aware of the existence of Vlad Dracula, and that he had borrowed more from him than a mere name (McNally and Florescu, 1972).

Bram Stoker based his Dracula upon a historical personage; Stoker modeled aspects of the character Renfield upon a monastic chronicles description of Draculas behaviour in prison. Stoker derived certain particulars of his shocker, like Draculas attendance of the Devils school at Sholomance, from Emily de Laszowska-Gerards Land Beyond the Forest; Stoker used, with deliberation and skill, a number of characteristically EastEuropean folk beliefs (Kirtley, 1956). It is therefore, a reasonable assumption that while writing of Count Dracula Stoker had Vlad as a role model for the protagonist of his story.

Vlad, ironically, is perceived as much more horrifying than his fictional clone as per some historians; the Romanians, however, have mixed reactions. Bram Stokers Dracula was a century old, fanged vampire who wore black cloaks, seduced other mens women

2 and sucked blood, but the historical figure known as Vlad the Impaler outperformed the literary figure in dreadfulness. He had a particular craze for impaling his victims, and they numbered by the thousand, on sharp pointed stakes. Stokers Dracula is dreadful, mysterious and a vampire, but he kills to survive, or it can be best described as, something he did for a reason. While Vlad the Impaler was a sadist who derived pleasure form sufferings of his enemies he killed to feel powerful. At the same time he too is considered to be a champion and hero by his countrymen for the battles he waged for the liberty and sovereignty of his country against the Turks and the Hungarians. He was not a real Vampire but Bram Stokers Dracula has plenty of shades that characterize the historical character of Vlad, or Vlad the Impaler as he was called later. There are references to his character in the novel as Stokers Dracula refers to an ancestor who had done something shameful as bringing slavery to his people by his terrible mistake. Vlad also had a history of such a relative, a brother who did something similar to what Dracula alluded. His method of ruling was cruel and bloodthirsty, perhaps it was his own paranoia of his position as a supreme ruler being snatched away, and that caused such manic desire for tyranny and sovereignty.

The fact is that whatever un-endearing characteristics he might have had, Vlad Dracula was not a vampire (Shaw, 1986). The historical Dracula is something of a Romanian national hero, having been the victim both of the Hungarians and the Turks he fought for the independence of his country and thus been seen as a martyr in the early Wallachian independence against these two powerful neighbors. All of Vlads brutality would have been lost in the dust of history were it not for the fact that Vlads excesses, fiendish brutality directed not only against his enemies but also against the highly

3 influential German minority in Transylvania, quickly became the subject of widespread literary production in the German language (ibid).

This flow of German work dried up in the late sixteenth century till Bram Stoker suddenly revived him in the guise of a cruel but thoroughly credible supernatural bogeyman. However, there is no one to support the thought that Dracula was a fact and not a figment of Stokers imagination. Prince Vlad, or as he was called even in his own time, Dracula (which means "Son of the Dragon") tops the list of Romania's many, many Christian crusaders who, in the transition years between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, fought to keep the Muslim Ottoman Turks out of their country.

McNally and Florescu (1972), have put together in English a considerable amount of information about the personal life of the fifteenth century military leader and Wallachian Prince Vlad Tsepesh (Vlad the Impaler, so called from his practice of impaling his enemies, legendarily by the thousand, on pointed stakes and watching them die slowly), but his historical role as a defender of Christendom against the Turks, about his outrages against both his own subjects and his luckless prisoners of war, an about his literary and cinematic resuscitations long centuries later as the ultimate predacious vampire. The authors state that Romanian popular ballads and legends commemorate Dracula, and, make him a Robin Hood style hero (p-52).

To his own countrymen and the Turks he was Vlad The Impaler, Vlad Die Tepes (pronounced Tee-pish). Determined not to be overtaken by the intrigue of an intriguing political underhandedness, in a world in which princes fell daily to smiling, hypocritical

4 "allies," paranoia among the aristocracy was, and probably needed to be, utmost in a sovereign's disposition. Vlad built a defense around him that dared not open kindness nor trust to anyone. During his tenure, he killed by the droves, impaling on a forest of spikes around his castle thousands of subjects who he saw as either traitors, would-be traitors or enemies to the security of Romania and the Roman Catholic Church. Sometimes, he slew merely to show other possible insurgents and criminals just what their fate would be if they became troublesome.

The impaler has been traditionally approached in Rumanian histography with caution and ambivalent feelings. While some evaluations have been wholly negative; others, while crediting him with grat milatary valor, have been balanced by a sober view of his cruel internal excesses. (Stoicescu, 1976). The barbaric cruelity is described as a ingenious military and psychological strategy in warfare and any method is good if its aim is the strengthening of the country and defense of its liberty, the two ideals of Vlad Tepess policy (p. 226) (see Socor, 1978).

But, Vlad Dracula was more than just a medieval despot. Biographers Radu R. Florescu and Raymond T. McNally (1973) call him "a man of many faces". He was a politician; a voivode (warrior); an erudite and well-learned gentleman when the occasionto-be fit; and, as has been indicated, he was a mass murderer. He spoke several languages Romanian, Turkish, Latin and German and extremely adept in the use of broadsword and crossbow. He was an equestrian, riding at the head of his attacking army like a berserker. At three separate times, Dracula governed Wallachia, one of three Hungarian principalities that later merged with the others Transylvania (to the north) and Moldavia

5 (to the east) to become the country of Romania. Because Wallachia, his province, sat directly above the open Danube River Plain, which separated the Ottoman Empire from free Romania, his was the frontal defense against the non-Christian Turks. Despite his cruelties and severe punishments, and because of his seething hatred for anything Turkish, he is considered today a national hero by the populace. Because he died in warfare against the foe, even fought against a brother whom he considered a sell-out to the enemy, he is often upheld as a martyr. Statues stand in his honor, and his birthplace at Sighisoara and resting-place at Snagov are considered almost canonical. Vlad Tepes was a significant ruler both as the champion of law and order at home and as Wallachias defender agains Turkish encroachment. He was a defensive loner who did not open himself to kindness, neither did he trust anyone. Bram Stokers Dracula also lived alone in a creepy castle and had no living being around him, before Jonathan Harker came to visit his castle. He killed unscrupulously and impaled his victims on spikes all around his castle to create fear and terror in the minds of people around him. Most of his victims were innocent persons who were used as a put up for those who would have dared to arouse his wrath. His was named Vlad the Impaler due to his senseless cruelty to victims. Count Dracula in Bram Stokers classic gothic tale is as sinister and cruel, with a conquerors history behind his lineage. While Vlad loved to shed blood of his victims. Dracula drank blood of his victims, and with the same mindless cruelty as Vlad Dracula. Stoker creates the image of Dracula , keeping in mind Vlads erudite and multifaceted personality. When Jonathan Harker, the British Solicitor who visits Draculas castle to close a land deal he enters a library and finds books on every conceivable language and

6 subject. In the novel, Dracula is presumed to be a well-read gentleman who knows many languages. The place chosen as a backdrop of the novel, where Count Dracula lived is Transylvania, which is one of the places that Vlad Dracula governed, and like a writer true to his craft, Bram Stoker created a character with historical shades and background, and even though Count Dracula of the novel was a fictional character, it came alive in many versions of the film and Television adaptations.

It was no idle choice that the Irish novelist Bram Stoker in 1896 chose the factual Impaler as the model for his nosferatu, his "undead" vampire. Although admittedly never having set foot on Romanian soil, having done most of his research at the London Library, it is obvious that the infamous Count Dracula emulates his historical counterpart. Stoker chanced upon the tales of Dracula. In the manuscripts he studied, Stoker assuredly read of the voivode Dracula, whose atrocities made the Christian Western World tremble and whose audacity saved it from Allah.

Many 20th Century authors have accepted the connection between the Romanian prince of fact and the bloodthirsty count of fiction, opining that Stoker merely used the rhythmical name he discovered in the pages of old histories. They base their interpretation primarily on two premises. The first is that Stoker's ghoul resides in a castle in the Transylvanian Alps and not in Wallachia's foothills, the better part of some 150 miles away. The other is that the vampire is described by Stoker as being of Szekely blood, from a race of people in the "northern country," and not of an older Wallachian stock.

7 Other writers, however, recognizing the liberties afforded by literary license, point to the striking similarities that speak very strongly beyond coincidence. Most notable are the references to Count Dracula's past as uttered by the fictional nobleman himself. They paint a history parallel to Vlad Dracula's. In the novel, when Jonathan Harker, a British solicitor, visits Dracula's castle in Transylvania for the purpose of closing a real estate deal (the vampire is relocating to London to pursue fresh blood), the count describes the land over which Harker has just journeyed as "ground fought over for centuries by the Wallachian, the Saxon and the Turk...enriched by the blood of men, patriots or invaders." In a subsequent chapter, Count Dracula relates to Harker a virtual history of his own royal heritage. "Is it a wonder that we were a conquering race," he asks, "that we were proud; that when the Magyar, the Lombard, the Avar, the Bulgar or the Turk poured his thousands on our frontiers we drove them back?...To us, for centuries, was trusted the guarding of the frontier of Turkeyland; aye, and more than that, endless duty of the frontier guard." At one point, Count Dracula alludes to an "ancestor" who "sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them!" Vlad Dracula had such a brother. There are other tens of references, actually, throughout the novel that not-too-subtly point to Vlad Dracula as the accurate source references to particular military campaigns in which he took part, contemporaries with whom he acquainted, and places he visited. Stoker uses excellent use of language to create the haunting lead, such as offering of a crucifix by the landlady to Jonathan. This gives a subtle warning to the readers about the imminent danger that lies ahead for Jonathan. The atmosphere is built up from the

8 first chapter itself. In the book your imagination identifies with the writers imagination as he takes you along in his journey with words such as flickering ray of lamps, white clouds, chorus of screams, flash of lamps, very red lips, sharp looking teeth, white as ivory, strange chill, howling dogs, cold powdery snow all these mange to lend the desired eerie effect to the novels atmosphere. Watching a ring of wolves with white teeth and lolling red tongues, with long sinewy limbs and shaggy hairs, it sends a real chill up the spine. At another place they were hundred times more terrible in grim silence which held them than even when they howled all this creates as Jonathan says, a sort of paralysis of fear. You could feel the dread of silence even while you read. Stokers Dracula has been a watershed novel in the genre of horror-thrillers and has hardly ever been matched since. It is no wonder that Dracula is one of the most understood words in the English language. In summary, had Stoker not taken his protagonist from the crimson cloth of Vlad the Impaler, he then certainly adorned his creation with a cloak colored amazingly close to the same hue.

9 Bibliography Bram Stokers novel Dracula (1897) Florescu, R and McNally, RT: In Search of Dracula: A True History of Dracula and Vampire Legends, Book Review by Bacil F. Kirtley The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 86, No. 342. (Oct. - Dec., 1973), pp. 400-401. Florescu, R and McNally, R.T. (1973): Dracula: A Biography of Vlad the Impaler, Hawthorn Books, New York. Kirtley, B. (1956): Dracula, the Monastic Chronicles and Slavic Folklore ; Midwest Folklore, 6 (1956), 133-139. Shaw, F. (1986): Book Review: Der Anfang von Dracula: Zur Geschichte von Geschichten by Dieter Harmening The Modern Language Review, Vol. 81, No. 1. (Jan., 1986), pp. 245-249. Socor, V. Book Review: Stoicescu, N. (1976): Vlad Tepes, Bucharest, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania. Slavic Review, 1978, p 337-338.

The 1977 adaptation for BBC was entitled Count Dracula and Louis Jordan played an effective role as Count Dracula. The 1992 version by Francis Frank Cappola Came much later when Gary Oldman challenged the role, by depicting a brilliant characterization of Dracula. But I feel it is unfair to compare the two actors, although the

10 first thing that comes to mind is , Who is the best Dracula? In the 1977 BBC adaptation, Louis Jordan combined a subtle charm with a simmering menace, brilliantly. He did not come across as an over the top Dracula with menacing looks , like when Count Dracula opens the door for Jonathan , Louis looks like a normal man and not someone who will scare the daylights out of you with fangs and red eyes. In the original novel, there are certain specific hints as to what may come with little details of Draculas physical appearance given in the introductory scene, such as his aquiline nose, thin cheeks , sharp pointed canines, and horror of horrors, hair on the palm! But in spite of the familiarity with frightful Dracula, you dont expect an ogre with blood dripping from his mouth. The BBC adaptation also has Louis Jordan creating the kind of a gradual build up of the menacing side of Count Dracula. The 1977 BBC version the sets are marvelous and it is no mean task, considering the fact that the budgets are limited in television, unlike films. The castle manages to look creepy from inside and outside both and the scenes were actually filmed in Whitby , which added authenticity to this version. There are some deviations from the novel here , as Mina and Lucy are shown as sisters,

11

The scene where Draculas brides are shown feeing upon a child is not elaborated In the novel but is shown in the BBC version, so as to create more macabre to the scenes. But after being canned away for 25 years, this version proves to be worth the wait. In fact Bram Stoker himself would have agreed with his books portrayal in this version. You can call it a faithful rendition of the original novel without losing the vital threads that held the story together.

In 1992 Frank Coppola released an adaptation of this classic novel with Gary Oldman as the infamous Dracula. Now I must say that nothing could be a greater challenge to the actors over the years than playing Dracula to the hilt and outshining their predecessors. Earlier played by Bela Lugose and Christopher Lee in the earlier versions, Count Dracula came alive on big screen once again through Gary Oldman. It is entitled Bram Stokers Dracula presumably to pledge a claim that it is the most authentic adaptation of the novel. The film is gorgeous with its Baroque sets and plenty of gore. However Coppola does not rely solely on making a gruesome horror film. He smoothly shifted his focus upon creating a tragic tale of unattainable love. He interspersed the character of blood sucking Dracula with the emotions of a tragic

12

hero who is desperate to reunite with Mina, whom he believes to be the reincarnation of his first wife . There is a dilemma that is forced on the audience and especially if you have read the novel before, your concept of Dracula changes imperceptibly and rather forebodingly. The dilemma is that Dracula is a blood sucking monster who has kidnapped Minas fianc, raped and murdered her best friend and yet how can he become Minas object of love? This baffles the audience, as something like this can never be a plausible start to any relationship, whether romantic or platonic. The music score really added a macabre thrill to the scenes. The mixture of sex and violence, the foolproof formula to pull audience to the movie hall or pick up a DVD is used extensively by Frank Coppola in his adaptation. Although the novel doesnt elaborate on sex scenes between Mina and Dracula, in the film version the screen almost scorched as Gary Oldman (Dracula ) and Winona Ryder (Mina) enact the scenes. I the novel I come across the word Undead for the first time in chapter 15 when Van Helsing opens the coffin, and I feel that the usage is spooky, morbidly amusing and yet

13 curious. In the film adaptations this word doesnt send across any special chill to my bones as the familiarity had already bred the contempt In the novel Draculas bride were always stopped by him from feeding upon Jonathan as the Count told them that he belonged to him first. In the novel no intercourse happens between Dracula and Lucy, but in the film she is shown as having intercourse and also enjoying it as he feeds upon her blood. In the novel Mina never tries to seduce Count Dracula, but in the film she falls in love with him. But apart from few major omissions and deviations, this film is honest to the book, and is replete with the power to titillate, repulse, excite and keep the audience riveted with bone chilling imagery, brilliant cinematography, and background music. The stark play of shadows and colour along with a memorable acting by Gary Oldman makes this version a seamless and impressive film that does full justice to the original book. The atmosphere created on the screen is true to its evocative brilliance in the novel. In this adaptation Gary owns the character of Dracula by adding refreshing connotations and intimidating allusions to what Bram Stokers Dracula must have been.

14