|
Post by Kendra_Corvinus on Jan 1, 2006 21:21:50 GMT 1
Vlad III Dracula (also known as Vlad Þepeº IPA: /'tsepeʃ/ in Romanian or Vlad the Impaler) (November/December, 1431 – December 1476) reigned as Voivode (Prince) of Wallachia 1448, 1456–1462 and 1476. He was likely born in Sighiºoara, a small town in Transylvania. He led an independent policy in relation to the Ottoman Empire. He is known in Turkish as Kaziglu Bey, or "the Impaler Prince", and is a popular folk hero in Romania and Moldova even today. However, abroad, he is popularly associated with the title of vampire — a character of Bram Stoker's 1897 horror novel, Dracula — to the point where he is thought to be the inspiration for it. It has been suggested that this connection stemmed from a certain grotesque eating habit of Vlad III's: rumor has it he would consume bread dipped in pig's blood. His post-mortem moniker of Þepeº (Impaler) originated in the predilect method for executing his opponents, impalement, popularized by medieval Transylvanian brochures. Background and familyThe crown of Wallachia was not passed automatically from father to son; instead, the leader was elected by the boyars, with the requirement that the Prince-elect be of Princely lineage (os de domn - "of voivode bones", "of voivode marrow"), including out of wedlock births. This elective monarchy often resulted in instability, family disputes and assassinations. Eventually, the royal house split between two factions: the descendants of Prince Mircea the Elder, Dracula's grandfather; and those of another prince, Dan II (the Dãneºti). In addition to that, like in all feudal states, there was another struggle between the central administration (the prince) and the high nobility for control over the country. To top it off, the two powerful neighbors of Wallachia, the Kingdom of Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were at the peak of their rivalry for control of South-Eastern Europe, turning Wallachia into a battle ground. His father, born around 1390, was Vlad II Dracul, member of the Basarab family, the founders of Wallachia. He was an illegitimate son of Mircea the Elder, an important early Wallachian ruler. As a young man, he joined the court of Sigismund of Luxemburg, King of Hungary and Holy Roman Emperor, whose support for claiming the throne of Wallachia he eventually acquired. A sign of this support was the fact that in 1431 Vlad II was inducted in the Order of the Dragon ("Societas Draconis" in Latin), along with the rulers of Poland and Serbia. The purpose of the Order was to connect important people from Eastern Europe with the interests of the Holy Roman Empire. Wishing to assert his status Vlad II displayed the symbol of the Order (a dragon) on all public appearences (on flags, clothing etc.). Taking the dragon for a representation of the devil (“drac” in Romanian), the people of Wallachia gave Vlad II the surname “Dracu” (“Dracul” being the grammatically correct form), which he seems to have accepted and used. His son Vlad III would later use in several documents the surname “Drãculea”, which was interpreted as “son of the Devil/son of the Dragon”, although it might simply be a shorter way of putting “the-son-of-that-prince-that-was-called-Dracu”. Through various translations (Draculea, Drakulya) Vlad III eventually got to be known as Dracula. After several years as governor of Transylvania, Vlad II finally became prince of Wallachia in 1436. During his reign he tried to maneuver between his powerful neighbors, opposing various initiatives of war against the Turks, which finally attracted him the irritation of the Hungarian side, who accused him of disloyalty and removed in 1442.With the help of the Turks (where he also had connections) he regained the throne in 1443 and got along somehow with the Hungarians until December 1447 when he was assassinated on the orders of John Hunyadi, regent of Hungary. The identity of Vlad Dracula’s mother is somewhat uncertain, the most likely variant being that she was a Moldavian princess, niece or daughter of Moldavian prince Alexandru cel Bun. Vlad seems to have had a very close relation with Moldavia: he spent there several years after his father’s death, he left with his presumed cousin ªtefan (Stephen the Great) to Transylvania, he helped ªtefan get the throne of Moldavia in 1457 and was later helped by ªtefan to return to the throne of Wallachia in 1476. Dracula seems to have had three brothers. The oldest, probably named Mircea, born before 1430, briefly held his father's throne in 1442, was sent by Vlad Dracul in 1444 to fight in his place during the crusade against the Turks that ended with the Varna defeat and met his end along with his father in 1447, presumably being buried alive. Vlad IV, born around 1425-1430, spent many years in Transylvania waiting for a chance to get the throne of Wallachia, giving a try to religious career in the meantime so that when he became prince of Wallachia (1482) he was known as Vlad Cãlugãrul (Vlad the Monk). Radu, the youngest brother, was also Vlad’s most important rival, as he continuously tried to replace Dracula with the support of the Turks, to which he had very strong connections, finally removing him from the throne in 1462 to reign as Radu cel Frumos (Radu the Handsome); he died of syphilis in 1474. Dracula apparently had a sister too, named Alexandra. From his first marriage, to a Romanian noble woman, Dracula apparently had a son,later prince of Wallachia as Mihnea cel Rau, and another two with his second wife, a relative of the Hungarian king.
|
|
|
Post by Kendra_Corvinus on Jan 1, 2006 21:24:06 GMT 1
The life of Vlad III
Early years
Vlad was allegedly born in the Transylvanian city of Sighiºoara in 1431, although in the same year his father, Vlad Dracul, could be found in Nuremberg, where he was inducted in the Order of the Dragon and appointed prince of Wallachia by Sigismund of Luxemburg. It will be several years until Vlad II Dracul actually became Wallachia’s ruler (1436),in the meantime holding an important position in Transylvania, which even allowed him to issue coins with his own name.
Not much is known about Þepeº’ early years: along with his brothers and sister, he seems to have lived in a wealthy neighborhood of Sighisoara - at least that's what a plate on a building there suggests - and most likely his father also owned numerous rural estates. The future Dracula probably got the same education as most other Central European princes, learning about royal ceremonies, developing military skills, being taught some foreign languages (Latin, German, Hungarian, Slavonic), basic history and geography etc.. This type of upbringing continued after his father captured the throne of Wallachia; the young Vlad got in contact with the political realities of his country. It seems that they left him with a bad impression.
Þepeº’ future was changed by his father’s political decisions. After a Turkish attack on Transylvania in 1442 Vlad Dracul was accused of being unfaithful to the Hungarian Kingdom and to his oath as a Christian knight so he lost the throne of Wallachia. He fled south of the Danube and recaptured the throne with Turkish support in 1443,but had to sign a treaty that included heavy financial obligations of Wallachia towards the Ottoman Empire and he also had to send/leave behind his two younger sons, Vlad and Radu, as hostages to the Turks, a common practice in those days.
The two boys spent some time in the fortress of Egrigoz in Anatolia, where they received some additional military training, and later went to the court of the future Ottoman sultan, prince Mehmed II, in Edirne (Adrianople),along other noble hostages such as Gjergj Kastrioti, later known as Skanderbeg. During these years (1442-1448) Vlad Þepeº acquired a good knowledge of the Turkish language, customs, lifestyle and military structure. It is probably here that he noticed the successful use of terror as a political tool.
After his father’s death in 1447, Vlad Þepeº attempted, with Turkish support, to take the throne of Wallachia, but could only keep it for two months before being forced to flee into Moldavia, where he had relatives. Once again, there is little information about the life of Dracula between 1448-1456 when he recaptured Wallachia. It seems that he went back into the Ottoman Empire until 1449,and then moved on to Moldavia until the 1451 assassination of Moldavian prince Bogdan II after which he headed into Transylvania, where he eventually got the support of John Hunyadi as a candidate for the throne of Wallachia. He was also given his father’s duchies of Amlaº and Fãgãraº, and in 1456 military support for occupying Wallachia.
The reign of Dracula Þepeº’ actions after 1456 are well “documented”. Except for constantly performing acts of cruelty, he seems to have led the life of all the others princes of Wallachia, spending most of his time at the court of Târgoviºte, occasionally in other important cities, such as Bucharest, drafting laws, meeting foreign envoys and presiding over important judicial trials. He probably made public apparitions on relevant occasions, such as religious holydays and major fairs. As a pastime he probably enjoyed hunting on the vast princely domain, with his more or less loyal friends. He made some additions to the palace in Târgoviºte (out of which Chindia tower is today the most notable remainder), reinforced some castles,like the one at Poienari ,where he also had a personal house built nearby. He also made donations to various churches and monasteries.
The early part of Vlad’s reign was dominated by the idea of eliminating all possible threats to his power, mainly the rival nobility groups. This was done mainly by physical elimination, but also by reducing the economic role of the nobility: the key positions in the Prince’s Council, traditionally belonging to the country’s greatest noblemen, were handed to obscure individuals, some of them of foreign origin, but who manifested loyalty towards Vlad. (Nonetheless, even these people were eliminated regularly.) For the less important functions Vlad also ignored the old nobility, preferring to knight and appoint men from the free peasantry. A key element of the power of the Wallachian nobility was their connections in the autonomous German towns of Transylvania, so Vlad acted against these cities by eliminating their trade privileges in relation with Wallachia and by organizing violent raids against them.
Another serious threat to Vlad’s power was the anarchical situation (a constant state of war had led to rampant crime, falling agricultural production and virtual disappearance of trade) in which Wallachia was since the death of his grandfather Mircea the Elder (1418). Vlad used severe methods to restore some order, as he needed an economically stable country if he was to have any chance against his external enemies.
The greatest threat to Vlad’s position was the rivalry in South-Eastern Europe between the Ottoman Empire and the Hungarian Kingdom. Following family traditions,Vlad decided to side with the latter. To the end of the 1450’s there was once again talk about a war against the Turks, in which the Hungarian king Matthius Corvinus would play the main role. Knowing this, Vlad stopped in 1459 paying money to the Ottomans and around 1460 made a new alliance with Corvinus, much to the dislike of the Turks, who attempted to remove him. They failed; later, in the winter of 1461-1462 Vlad crossed south of the Danube and devastated the area between Serbia and the Black Sea, leaving over 20,000 people dead.
In response to this Sultan Mehmed II, the recent conqueror of Constantinople, raised an army of around 60,000 men and in the spring of 1462 headed towards Wallachia. With his army of 20-30,000 men Vlad was unable to stop the Turks from entering Wallachia and occupying the capital Târgoviºte (June 4, 1462), so he resorted to some kind of guerilla war, constantly organizing small attacks and ambushes on the Turks. The most important of these attacks took place on the night of June 16/17, when Vlad and some of his men allegedly entered the main Turkish camp (wearing Turkish disguises) and attempted to assassinate Mehmed II. The Turks eventually left the country, not before installing Vlad’s brother, Radu the Handsome, as the new prince ;he gathered support from the nobility and chased Vlad to Transylvania, and by August 1462 he had struck a deal with the Hungarian Crown. Consequently, Vlad was imprisoned.
In captivity
Apparently his imprisonment was none too onerous. He was able to gradually win his way back into the graces of Hungary's monarch; so much so that he was able to meet and marry a member of the royal family (the cousin of the King). The openly pro-Turkish policy of Dracula's brother, Radu the Fair (who was prince of Wallachia during most of Dracula's captivity), was a probable factor in Dracula's rehabilitation. During his captivity, Dracula also adopted Catholicism. It is interesting to note that the Russian narrative, normally very favorable to Dracula, indicates that even in captivity he could not give up his favorite past-time; he often captured birds and mice which he proceeded to torture and mutilate -- some were beheaded or tarred-and-feathered and released, most were impaled on tiny spears.
The exact length of Dracula's period of captivity is open to some debate. The Russian pamphlets indicate that he was a prisoner from 1462 until 1474. However, during that period Dracula managed to marry a member of the Hungarian royal family and have two sons who were about ten years old when he reconquered Wallachia in 1476. McNally and Florescu place Dracula's actual period of confinement at about four years from 1462 to 1466. It is unlikely that a prisoner would have been allowed to marry into the royal family. Diplomatic correspondence from Buda during the period in question also seems to support the claim that Dracula's actual period of confinement was relatively short.
Apparently in years before his final release in 1474 (when he began preparations for the reconquest of Wallachia), Dracula resided with his new wife in a house in the Hungarian capital (the setting of the thief anecdote).He also married a relative of Corvinus, named Ilona Szilágyi; she was also related to the Báthory family,to which he had two sons. Vlad had a son from an earlier marriage, Mihnea cel Rãu. Acording to legend his first wife, whose name is not recorded, died during the siege of his castle in 1462. The Turkish army surrounded Poienari Castle, led by his half-brother Radu the Fair. An archer shot an arrow through a window into Dracula's main quarters, demanding his surrender. Upon reading the message, Vlad's wife was so frightened that she flung herself off the tower into a tributary of the Argeº River flowing below the castle. Today, the river is called Râul Doamnei (the Lady's River).
Return to Wallachia and death
Around 1475 Dracula was again ready to make another bid for power. Dracula and Prince Stephen I Báthory of Transylvania invaded Wallachia with a mixed force of Transylvanians, a few dissatisfied Wallachian boyars, and a contingent of Moldavians sent by Dracula's cousin, Prince Stephen III of Moldavia. Dracula's brother, Radu the Fair, had died a couple of years earlier and had been replaced on the Wallachian throne by another Turkish candidate, Basarab the Elder, a member of the Dãneºti clan. At the approach of Dracula's army, Basarab and his cohorts fled, some to the protection of the Turks, others to the shelter of the Transylvanian Alps. After placing Dracula on the throne, Stephen Báthory and the bulk of Dracula's forces returned to Transylvania, leaving Dracula in a very weak position. Dracula had little time to gather support before a large Turkish army entered Wallachia determined to return Basarab to the throne. Dracula's cruelties over the years had alienated the boyars who felt they had a better chance of surviving under Prince Basarab. Apparently, even the peasants, tired of the depredations of the Impaler, abandoned him to his fate. Dracula was forced to march to meet the Turks with the small forces at his disposal, somewhat less than four thousand men.
There are several variants of Dracula's death. Some sources say that he was killed in battle against the Turks near Bucharest in December of 1476. Others say he was assassinated by disloyal Wallachian boyars just as he was about to sweep the Turks from the field or during a hunt. Other accounts have Dracula falling in defeat, surrounded by the bodies of his loyal Moldavian bodyguard (the troops loaned by Prince Stephen remained with Dracula after Stephen Báthory returned to his country). Still other reports claim that Dracula, at the moment of victory, was accidentally struck down by one of his own men. Dracula's body was decapitated by the Turks and his head was sent to Istanbul, where the Sultan had it displayed on a stake as proof that the Impaler was dead. He was reportedly buried at a monastery located near Bucharest.
|
|
|
Post by Kendra_Corvinus on Jan 1, 2006 21:25:25 GMT 1
AtrocitiesMore than anything else, the historical Dracula is known for his inhuman cruelty. Impalement was Dracula's preferred method of torture and execution, which he had learned in his youth as a prisoner of the Turks. It was and is one of the most gruesome ways of dying ever imagined. Dracula usually had a horse attached to each of the victim's legs as a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. The end of the stake was usually oiled and care was taken that the stake not be too sharp; else the victim might die too rapidly from shock. Normally the stake was inserted into the body through the anus and was often forced through the body until it emerged from the mouth. However, there were many instances where victims were impaled through other bodily orifices or through the abdomen or chest. Infants were sometimes impaled on the stake forced through their mother's chests. The records indicate that victims were sometimes impaled so that they hung upside down on the stake. As expected, death by impalement was slow and painful. Victims sometimes endured for hours or days. Dracula often had the stakes arranged in various geometric patterns. The most common pattern was a ring of concentric circles in the outskirts of a city that constituted his target. The height of the spear indicated the rank of the victim. The corpses were often left decaying for months. Thousands were often impaled at a single time. Ten thousand were impaled in the Transylvanian city of Sibiu (where Dracula had once lived) in 1460. In 1459, on Saint Bartholomew's Day (in August), Dracula had thirty thousand of the merchants and officials of the Transylvanian city of Braºov impaled. One of the most famous woodcuts of the period shows Dracula feasting amongst a forest of stakes and their grisly burdens outside Braºov, while a nearby executioner cuts apart other victims. Impalement was Dracula's favorite but by no means his only method of torture. The list of tortures employed by this cruel prince reads like an inventory of infernal deeds: nails in heads, cutting off of limbs, blinding, strangulation, burning, cutting off of noses and ears, mutilation of sexual organs (especially in the case of women), scalping, skinning, exposure to the elements or to wild animals, and boiling alive. No one was immune to Dracula's attentions. His victims included women and children, peasants and great lords, ambassadors from foreign powers and merchants. However, the vast majority of his European victims came from the merchants and boyars of Transylvania and his own Wallachia. Many have attempted to justify Dracula's actions on the basis of nascent nationalism and political necessity. Most of the merchants in Transylvania and Wallachia were Saxons who were seen as parasites, preying upon Romanian natives of Wallachia, while the boyars had proven their disloyalty time and time again (Dracula's own father and older brother were murdered by unfaithful boyars). It is highly contested whether he was actually insane, though he certainly had no problem giving that impression. His domestic atrocities were largely driven by one or more of three motives: personal or political vendettas, the establishment of iron-fisted law and order in Wallachia, and nationalizing the province's economy through policies that would be identified today as producerism. Dracula committed even more impalements and other vicious atrocities against invading forces, namely Turks and other Muslims. It was once reported that an invading Turkish army turned back in fright when it encountered thousands of rotting corpses impaled on the banks of the Danube. In 1462 Mehmed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, a man not noted for his squeamishness, returned to Constantinople after being sickened by the sight of twenty thousand impaled corpses outside of Dracula's capital of Târgoviºte. Many of the victims were Turkish prisoners of war Vlad had previously captured during the Turkish invasion. The total Turkish casualty toll in this battle reached over forty thousand. The warrior sultan turned command of the campaign against Dracula over to subordinates and returned to Istanbul, even though his army had initially tripled Vlad's in size. Dracula began his reign of terror almost as soon as he came to power. His first significant act of cruelty may have been motivated by a desire of revenge as well as a need to solidify his power. Early in his main reign he gave a feast for his boyars and their families to celebrate Easter. Dracula was well aware that many of these same nobles were part of the conspiracy that led to his father's assassination and the burying alive of his elder brother, Mircea. Many had also played a role in the overthrow of numerous Wallachian princes. During the feast Dracula asked his noble guests how many princes had ruled during their life times. All of the nobles present had outlived several princes. One answered that at least thirty princes had held the throne during his life. None had seen less than seven reigns. Dracula immediately had all the assembled nobles arrested. The older boyars and their families were impaled on the spot. The younger and healthier nobles and their families were marched north from Târgoviºte to the ruins of Poienari Castle in the mountains above the Argeº River. Dracula was determined to rebuild this ancient fortress as his own stronghold and refuge. The enslaved boyars and their families were forced to labor for months rebuilding the old castle with materials from another nearby ruin. According to the reports, they labored until the clothes fell off their bodies and then were forced to continue working naked. Very few of the old gentry survived the ordeal of building Castle Dracula. Throughout his reign Dracula systematically eradicated the old boyar class of Wallachia. The old boyars had repeatedly undermined the power of the prince during previous reigns and had been responsible for the violent overthrow of several princes. Apparently Dracula was determined that his own power be on a modern and thoroughly secure footing. In the place of the executed boyars Dracula promoted new men from among the free peasantry and middle class; men who would be loyal only to their prince. Many of Dracula's acts of cruelty can be interpreted as efforts to strengthen and modernize the central government at the expense of the decaying feudal powers of nobility carried over from the Middle Ages.
|
|
|
Post by Kendra_Corvinus on Jan 1, 2006 21:26:06 GMT 1
Anecdotal evidence Much of the information we have about Vlad III comes from pamphlets published in Germany and chronicles written in Moscovy. The first known German pamphlet dates from 1488 and it is possible that some were printed during Dracula’s lifetime.At least initially,they may have been politically inspired. At that time Matthias Corvinus of Hungary was seeking to bolster his own reputation in the Holy Roman Empire and may have intended the early pamphlets as justification of his less than vigorous support of his vassal. The pamphlets were also a form of mass entertainment in a society where the printing press was just coming into widespread use. Much like the subject matter of the supermarket tabloids of today, the cruel life of the Wallachian tyrant was easily sensationalized. The pamphlets were reprinted numerous times over the thirty or so years following Dracula's death -- strong proof of their popularity. The German pamphlets painted Dracula as an inhuman monster who terrorized the land and butchered innocents with sadistic glee. The Russian pamphlets took a somewhat different view. The princes of Moscovy were at the time just beginning to build the basis of what would become the autocracy of the czars. They were also having considerable trouble with disloyal, often troublesome boyars. In Moscovy, Dracula was presented as a cruel but just prince whose actions were directed toward the greater good of his people. Despite the differences in interpretation the pamphlets, regardless of their land of origin, agree remarkably well as to specifics. The level of agreement has led most historians to conclude that at least the broad outlines of the events covered actually occurred.
Romanian verbal tradition provides another important source for the life of Vlad Dracula: legends and tales concerning the Impaler have remained a part of folklore among the Romanian peasantry. These tales have been passed down from generation to generation for five hundred years. Through constant retelling they have become somewhat garbled and confused and they have gradually been forgotten in later years. However, they still provide valuable information about Dracula and his relationship with his people. Many of the tales contained in the pamphlets are also found in the verbal tradition, though with a somewhat different emphasis. Among the Romanian peasantry, Dracula was remembered as a just prince who defended his people from foreigners, whether those foreigners be Turkish invaders or German merchants. He is also remembered as somewhat of a champion of the common man against the oppression of the boyars. Dracula's fierce insistence on honesty is a central part of the verbal tradition. Many of the anecdotes contained in the pamphlets and in the verbal tradition demonstrate the prince's efforts to eliminate crime and dishonesty from his domain. However, despite the more positive interpretation, the Romanian verbal tradition also remembers Dracula as an exceptionally cruel and often capricious ruler. There are several events that are common to all the pamphlets, regardless of their nation of origin. Many of these events are also found in the Romanian verbal tradition. Specific details may vary among the different versions of these anecdotes but the general course of events usually agrees to a remarkable extent. For example, in some versions the foreign ambassadors received by Dracula at Târgoviºte are Florentine, in others they are Turkish. The nature of their offense against the Prince also varies from version to version. However, all versions agree that Dracula, in response to some real or imagined insult, had their hats nailed to their heads. Some of the sources view Dracula's actions as justified, others view his acts as crimes of wanton and senseless cruelty. There are about nine anecdotes that are almost universal in the Dracula literature.
Dracula was also constantly on guard against the adherents of the Dãneºti clan. Some of his raids into Transylvania may have been efforts to capture would-be princes of the Dãneºti. Several members of the Dãneºti clan died at Dracula's hands. Vladislav II was murdered soon after Dracula came to power in 1456. Another Dãneºti prince was captured during one of Dracula's forays into Transylvania. Thousands of citizens of the town that had sheltered his rival were impaled by Dracula. The captured Dãneºti prince was forced to read his own funeral oration while kneeling before an open grave before his execution.
Dracula's atrocities against the people of Wallachia were usually attempts to enforce his own moral code upon his county. According to the pamphlets he appears to have been particularly concerned with female chastity. Maidens who lost their virginity, adulterous wives and unchaste widows were all targets of Dracula's cruelty. Such women often had their sexual organs cut out or their breasts cut off. They were also often impaled through the girl thingy on red-hot stakes that were forced through the body until they emerged from the mouth. One report tells of the execution of an unfaithful wife. Dracula had the woman's breasts cut off, then she was skinned and impaled in a square in Târgoviºte with her skin lying on a nearby table. Dracula also insisted that his people be honest and hard working. Merchants who cheated their customers were likely to find themselves mounted on a stake beside common thieves.
|
|
|
Post by Kendra_Corvinus on Jan 1, 2006 21:29:04 GMT 1
Nine anecdotes
The Golden Cup
Dracula was known throughout his land for his fierce insistence on honesty and order. Thieves seldom dared practice their trade within Dracula's domain -- they knew that the stake awaited any who were caught. Dracula was so confident in the effectiveness of his law that he placed a golden cup on display in the central square of Târgoviºte. The cup was never stolen and remained entirely unmolested throughout Dracula's reign.
The Foreign Merchant
A merchant from a foreign land once visited Dracula's capital of Târgoviºte. Aware of the reputation for honesty in Dracula's land, he left a treasure-laden cart unguarded in the street over night. Returning to his wagon in the morning, the merchant was shocked to find 160 golden ducats missing. When the merchant complained of his loss to the prince, Dracula assured him that his money would be returned and invited him to remain in the palace that night. Dracula then issued a proclamation to the city — find the thief and return the money or the city will be destroyed. During the night he ordered that 160 ducats plus one extra be taken from his own treasury and placed in the merchant's cart. On returning to his cart in the morning and counting his money the merchant discovered the extra ducat. The merchant returned to Dracula and reported that his money had indeed been returned plus an extra ducat. Meanwhile the thief had been captured and turned over to the prince's guards along with the stolen money. Dracula ordered the thief impaled and informed the merchant that if he had not reported the extra ducat he would have been impaled alongside the thief.
The Two Monks
There are several versions of this anecdote. In some the two monks were from a Catholic monastery in Wallachia or wandering Catholic monks from a foreign land. In either case Catholic monks would be viewed as representatives of a foreign power by Dracula. In other versions of the story the monks were from a Romanian Eastern Orthodox establishment (thus, from the indigenous Church). Dracula's motivation also varies considerably among the different versions of the story.
All versions of the story agree that two monks visited Dracula in his palace at Târgoviºte. Curious to see the reaction of the churchmen, Dracula showed them rows of impaled corpses in the courtyard. When asked their opinions of his actions by the prince, one of the monks responded, 'You are appointed by God to punish evil-doers.' The other monk had the moral courage to condemn the cruel prince. In the version of the story most common in the German pamphlets, Dracula rewarded the sycophantic monk and impaled the honest monk. In the version found in Muscovite pamphlets and in Romanian verbal tradition Dracula rewarded the honest monk for his integrity and courage and impaled the sycophant for his dishonesty.
The Polish Nobleman
Benedict de Boithor, a Polish nobleman in the service of the King of Hungary, visited Dracula at Târgoviºte in September of 1458. At dinner one evening Dracula ordered a golden spear brought and set up directly in front of the royal envoy. Dracula then asked the envoy why he thought this spear had been set up. Benedict replied that he imagined that some boyar had offended the prince and that Dracula intended to honor him. Dracula then responded that he had, in fact, had the spear set up in the honor of his noble, Polish guest. The Pole then responded that he hadn't done anything to deserve death, but that Dracula should do as he thought best. He further asserted that in that case Dracula would not be responsible for his death, rather he would be responsible for his own death for incurring the displeasure of the Prince. Dracula was greatly pleased by this answer and showered the man with gifts, while declaring that had he answered in any other manner he would have been immediately impaled.
The Foreign Ambassadors
There are at least two versions of this story in the literature. As with the story of the two monks, one version is common in the German pamphlets and views Dracula's actions unfavorably while the other version is common in eastern Europe and sees Dracula's actions in a much more favorable light. In both versions, ambassadors of a foreign power visit Dracula's court at Târgoviºte. When granted an audience with the prince the envoys refused to remove their hats as was the custom when in the presence of the prince in Wallachia. Angered at this sign of disrespect Dracula had the ambassadors' hats nailed to their heads so that they might never remove them.
In the German version of the story the envoys are Florentine and refused to remove their hats to demonstrate their superiority. When Dracula asked the ambassadors why they wouldn't remove their hats they responded that such was not their custom and that they wouldn't remove their hats, even for the Holy Roman Emperor. Dracula immediately had their hats nailed to their heads so that they might never come off and had the ambassadors ejected from his court. In Germany and in the West, where the concept of diplomatic immunity was at least given lip service, this was held to be an act of barbarity against the representatives of a friendly power.
In the version of the story common in the east, the envoys are Turkish. When ushered into the presence of the prince, the Turks refused to remove their fezzes (or turbans). When questioned they answered that it was not the custom of their fathers to remove their hats. Dracula then ordered their hats nailed to their heads with three nails so that they might never have to break such an excellent tradition. The envoys were sent back to the Sultan. According to Levantine customs, this was held to be a courageous act of defiance in the face of the Ottomans. It should also be noted that the nailing of hats to heads of those who displeased a monarch was not an unknown act in Eastern Europe. Apparently, this method was occasionally used by the princes of Moscovy when faced by unpleasant envoys.
Dracula's Mistress
Dracula once had a mistress who lived in a house in the back streets of Târgoviºte. This woman apparently loved the prince to distraction and was always anxious to please him. Dracula was often moody and depressed and the woman made every effort to lighten her lover's burdens. Once, when Dracula was particularly depressed, the woman dared tell him a lie in an effort to cheer him up; she told him that she was pregnant. Dracula warned the woman not to joke about such matters but she insisted on the truth of her claim despite her knowledge of the prince's feelings about dishonesty. Dracula had the woman examined by midwives, to determine the veracity of her claim. When informed that the woman was lying, Dracula drew his knife and cut her open from the groin to her breasts while proclaiming his desire for the world to see where he had been. Dracula then left the woman to die in agony.
The Lazy Woman
Dracula once noticed a man working in the fields while wearing a too short caftan. The prince stopped and asked the man whether or not he had a wife. When the man answered in the affirmative, Dracula had the woman brought before him and asked her how she spent her days. The poor, frightened woman stated that she spent her days washing, baking and sewing. The prince pointed out her husband's short caftan as evidence of her laziness and dishonesty and ordered her impaled despite her husband's objection that he was well satisfied with his wife. Dracula then ordered another woman to marry the peasant but admonished her to work hard or suffer her predecessor's fate.
The Nobleman with the Keen Sense of Smell
On St. Bartholomew's Day (sometime in August) in 1459 Dracula caused thirty thousand of the merchants and nobles of the Transylvanian city of Braºov to be impaled. In order that he might better enjoy the results of his orders, the prince commanded that his table be set up and that his boyars join him for a feast amongst the forest of impaled corpses. While dining, Dracula noticed that one of his boyars was holding his nose in an effort to alleviate the terrible smell of clotting blood and emptied bowels. Dracula then ordered the sensitive nobleman impaled on a stake higher than all the rest so that he might be above the stench.
In another version of this story the sensitive nobleman is an envoy of the Transylvanian cities of Braºov and Sibiu, sent to appeal to the cruel Wallachian to spare those cities. While hearing the nobleman's appeal Dracula walked amongst the stakes and their grisly burdens. Some of the victims still lived. Nearly overcome by the smell of drying blood and human wastes the nobleman asked the prince why he walked amidst the awful stench. Dracula then asked the envoy if he found the stench oppressive. The envoy, seeing an opportunity to ingratiate himself with Dracula, responded that his only concern was for the health and welfare of the prince. Dracula, angered at the nobleman's dishonesty, ordered him impaled on the spot on a very high stake so that he might be above the offending odors.
The Burning of the Sick and Poor
Dracula was very concerned that all his subjects work and contribute to the common welfare. He once noticed that the poor, vagrants, beggars and cripples had become very numerous in his land (in the Romanian variant they are the thieves and fake beggars). Consequently, he issued an invitation to all the poor and sick in Wallachia to come to Târgoviºte for a great feast, claiming that no one should go hungry in his land. As the poor and crippled arrived in the city they were ushered into a great hall where a fabulous feast was prepared for them. The prince's guests ate and drank late into the night, When Dracula himself made an appearance. 'What else do you desire? Do you want to be without cares, lacking nothing in this world?' asked the prince. When they answered that such was indeed their wish, Dracula ordered the hall boarded up and set on fire. None escaped the flames. Dracula explained his action to the boyars by claiming that he did this, 'in order that they represent no further burden to other men so that no one will be poor in my realm'.This deed is also attributed to the bishop Hatto of Mainz
|
|
|
Post by Kendra_Corvinus on Jan 1, 2006 21:30:11 GMT 1
The vampire myth and the Romanian attitudes
It is unclear why Bram Stoker chose this Wallachian prince as the model for his fictional vampire. Stoker was friends with a Hungarian professor from Budapest, and many have suggested that Dracula's name might have been mentioned by this friend. Regardless of how the name came to Stoker's attention, the cruel history of the Impaler would have readily loaned itself to Stoker's purposes. The events of Dracula's life were played out in a region of the world that was still basically medieval even in Stoker's time. The Balkans had only recently shaken off the Turkish yoke when Stoker started working on his novel and ancient superstitions were still prevalent. Transylvania had long been a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but it too had endured a long period of Turkish domination and its culture was still largely medieval.
Recent research suggests that Stoker knew little of the Prince of Wallachia. Some have claimed that the novel owes more to the legends about Erzsébet Báthory. (See Dracula - Origins for more detail).
The legend of the vampire was and still is deeply rooted in that region. There have always been vampire-like creatures in the mythologies of many cultures. However, the vampire, as he became known in Europe, largely originated in Southern Slavic and Greek folklore -- although the myth is virtually absent in Romanian culture. A veritable epidemic of vampirism swept through Eastern Europe beginning in the late 17th century and continuing through the 1700s. The number of reported cases rose dramatically in Hungary and the Balkans. From the Balkans, the "plague" spread westward into Germany, Italy, France, England and Spain. Travelers returning from the Balkans brought with them tales of the undead, igniting an interest in the vampire that has continued to this day. Philosophers in the West began to study the phenomenon. It was during this period that Dom Augustine Calmet wrote his famous treatise on vampirism in Hungary. It was also during this period that authors and playwrights first began to explore the vampire myth. Stoker's novel was merely the culminating work of a long series of works that were inspired by the reports coming from the Balkans and Hungary.
Given the history of the vampire myth in Europe it is perhaps natural that Stoker should place his great vampire in the heart of the region that gave birth to the myth. Once Stoker had determined on a locality Vlad Dracula would stand out as one of the most notorious rulers of the selected region. He was obscure enough that few would recognize the name and those who did would know him for his acts of brutal cruelty; Dracula was a natural candidate for vampirism. Why Stoker chose to relocate his vampire from Wallachia to the north of Transylvania remains a mystery.
The vampire myth is still widespread in Eastern Europe. Similarly, the name of Dracula is still remembered in the Romanian oral tradition but that is the end of any connection between Dracula and the vampire myth in folklore. Outside of Stoker's novel the name of Dracula was never linked with the myth of the vampire. Despite his inhuman cruelty, in Romania Dracula is remembered as a national hero who resisted the Turkish conquerors and asserted Romanian national sovereignty against the powerful Hungarian kingdom.
There are some legends saying that Vlad, after being taken captive by the Hungarians, had his eyes taken out and then they buried him alive. The next day, they dug up the spot where he was buried and found no corpse. Several years later there were numerous mysterious deaths at his castle.
It is somewhat ironic that Vlad's name has often been thrown into the political and ethnic fueds between Hungarians and Romanians, because he was ultimately far from an enemy of Hungary. While he certainly had violent conflicts with some Hungarian nobles, he had just as many Hungarian friends and allies, and his successes in battle with the Turks largely benefited Hungary in the long term. Hungary later found itself under siege but was never actually penetrated by Ottoman forces. Though neither the first nor the last powerful ruler to take on the Ottoman Empire, Dracula's demoralizing battle tactics were quite influencial in damaging the illusion of Turkish invincibility and reversing the European aura of appeasement.
It should be taken into account that Romanian folklore and poetry paints Vlad Dracula not as a vampire but as a killer of vampires. His favorite weapon being the stake, coupled with his reputation in his native country as a man who stood up to both foreign and domestic "bloodsuckers," gives Dracula the virtual opposite symbolism of Bram Stoker's vampire. For this reason, the association of his name with vampirism is does not make sense to Romanians.
A good description of Vlad Dracula survives courtesy of Modrussa, who wrote:
He was not very tall, but very stocky and strong, with a cruel and terrible appearance, a long straight nose, distended nostrils, a thin and reddish face in which the large wide-open green eyes were enframed by bushy black eyebrows, which made them appear threatening. His face and chin were shaven but for a moustache. The swollen temples increased the bulk of his head. A bull's neck supported the head, from which black curly locks were falling to his wide-shouldered person.
His famous contemporary portrait, rediscovered by Romanian historians in the late 1800s, had been featured in the gallery of horrors at Innsbruck's Ambras Castle. It is significant for the Romanian counter-myth that the Romanian intellectual Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu, claiming to apply Johann Kaspar Lavater's method to Vlad's depiction in one of the woodcuts, concluded that his subject mostly resembled the likes of William Shakespeare and Cesare Borgia.
Þepeº' image in modern Romanian culture has been established in reaction to foreign perceptions: while Stoker's book did a lot to generate outrage with nationalists, it is the last part of a rather popular previous poem by Mihai Eminescu, Scrisoarea a III-a, that helped turn Vlad's image into modern myth, by having him stand as a figure to contrast with presumed social decay under the Phanariotes and the political scene of the 1800s (even suggesting that Vlad's violent methods be applied as a cure). This judgement was in tune with the ideology of the inward-looking regime of Nicolae Ceauºescu, although the identification did little justice to Eminescu's personal beliefs.
Of the recent literary works written in Romania about the real Vlad, only Marin Sorescu's play Vlad Dracula, the Impaler has been translated into English.
|
|