marți, 5 aprilie 2011

VLAD TEPES-The Impaler(DRACULA)

Vlad Tepes
VLAD TEPES-The Impaler(DRACULA) Prince of Wallachia 1448,1456-1462,1476
Son of Vlad Dracul (Knight of the Order of the Dragon-1431) and Grandson of Mircea the Great, King of Wallachia (1386-1418)
Adopting a totalitarian leadership, Vlad Tepes introduced a very strict order in Wallachia, strengthened the army, helped the trade with the neighboring countries, and was merciless towards those who went against him, be they noblemen (boyars) or of a lower status. Externally, he fought The Ottoman Empire, against which he scored famous victories.

Dracula, the most beloved vampire in movies


Even if Twilight is a big box office success, Dracula remains the most beloved vampire in movies.
The Count from Transylvania proved that he is the most beloved vampire. Dracula has managed to beat the characters from Buffy, the Vampire Slayer or Being Human and is on the first place on the top preferences of the British regarding vampires in movies.
Dracula is on the first place on a poll created by SFX magazine, according to rte.ie.
The role of the famous vampire was memorable played by actor Christopher Lee, this is the opinion of the English audience.
The second place is taken by Spike from Buffy, the Vampire Slayer and the third place by Angle, from the same TV show.
Robert Pattinson, the actor who plays the Edward Cullen vampire in Twilight did not made the top 10.
Here is the complete top 10 of the most beloved vampires in movies!
1. Dracula
2. Spike (Buffy The Vampire Slayer)
3. Angel (Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Angel)
4. John Mitchell (Being Human)
5. Drusilla (Buffy The Vampire Slayer)
6. Eric Northman (True Blood)
7. Mick St John (Moonlight)
8. Selene (Underworld)
9. Count Duckula (Count Duckula)
10. Darla (Buffy The Vampire Slayer)

The Real Dracula

The real Dracula was born in, yes, Transylvania in the winter of 1431. Transylvania was then ruled by Hungary, and Dracula's father, Vlad Dracul, was its military governor. The family was not actually Transylvanian. Vlad Dracul was descended from the royal family of a nearby country, Walachia. "Dracul" was a nickname given to him after he proved his ferocity in battle against the Turks. It meant "dragon" or "devil," so Dracula simply meant "son of the dragon" or "son of the devil."
Dracula's real name was Vlad. He had an older brother named Mircea and a younger brother named Radu. Their mother's identity is uncertain.
When Dracula was still a child, his father rebelled against Walachia's ruler, Alexandru I, overthrew him, and became the new prince, or voivode. After a few years the elder Vlad was driven out of the country by his enemies, but he later recaptured the throne with the assistance of the sultan of Turkey. To prove his loyalty to the sultan he sent Dracula and Radu to live in Turkey as hostages. A few years later, Vlad Dracul and Mircea were murdered. Dracula -- who was still only seventeen -- raised an army, returned to Walachia, overthrew his father's killers and seized the throne. Like his father, he was driven out of Walachia, but returned and conquered it again.
Then he began his reign of terror.
Bram Stoker's "Dracula" was downright civilized compared to his real life counterpart. Dracula was not a vampire, but he got great enjoyment out of impaling people alive so that he could watch them slowly die. Vlad Tepes ("Vlad the Impaler") is said to have slaughtered tens of thousands of people during his brief reign.
In 1462, Dracula went to war with his erstwhile allies, the Turks, and lost. He was forced to flee Walachia, and ended up in Hungary. At first King Matthias Corvinus had him imprisoned, but in time Dracula ingratiated himself with the Hungarian royal family and even married one of the king's relatives. In 1476 Dracula invaded Walachia, hoping to regain his crown. He was killed in battle and buried at the island monastery of Snagov. But the story doesn't necessarily end there. Because his gravesite was excavated in 1931... and no Dracula was found. Yes, Dracula's corpse and coffin are missing! Shades of Count Dracula??

The copyright of the article The Real Dracula in Royal History is owned by Cinderella. Permission to republish The Real Dracula in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Dracula - 1931 - The Differences Among Characters in the Novel and Those in the Movie

'Dracula,' one of the most famous novels ever written, had been produced as a movie in 1931. The movie in itself earned a lot of fame till Frankenstein eclipsed it. However, there are significant differences among the characters in the movie with the original novel.
The primary character Count Dracula remains the same. Bela Lugosi plays the role and does a great job.
Mina Murray of the novel become Mina Seward. And poor Dr. John Seward, the failed suitor of Lucy in the original novel, now becomes the father of Mina. And hey presto, Lucy still remains a friend of Mina.
Jonathan Harker, Mina's fiance in the novel, remains the same in the movie.
Renefield of the movie is significantly different from Renefield of the novel. In the novel, Renefiled is merely another patient in Dr. Seward's asylum. He eats and kills creepy creatures. And he beings Dracula inside the asylum of Dr. Seward accepting Dracula's baits. However, in the movie, he is almost a servant to Dracula. He does some of Dracula's lease papers, sends them to Transylvania, gets bitten by Draula and that gives him the power to bite and drink the blood of other people. And he eventually gets to bite a real woman before getting thrashed to death by Dracula for leading Jonathan and Van Helsing to where he was living (hiding).
Van Helsing is similar in the novel and the movie. He is still the nice caring person.
And then there is Martin, the person in charge of caring for Renefield. He provides an angle of comedy in the movie and appears in some of the more interesting scenes.
The original novel Dracula by Bram Stoker can be read in WebLiterature for free.


Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/2267707
 

Dracula Biography

Vampire. A fictional character based on the 1897 novel by Bram Stoker. Though Stoker did not invent the character of Dracula, he popularized it through his Victorian work, which was written as a series of diary entries and letters. Stoker had named the character after the notoriously brutal Vlad III Tepes, also known as Vlad the Impaler, a ruler of Walachia (now southern Romania), whose epithet was Dracula (“Son of the Dragon”). Vlad was said to have put to death 20,000 men, women, and children by impaling them upright on stakes. Historically, the name Dracula is believed to have been derived from a secret fraternal order of knights called the Order of the Dragon.
As the legend goes, Dracula lived under the guise of an aristocratic count who would lure unsuspecting victims to his castle in Transylvania, Romania. Once he captured his prisoners, Dracula would consume their blood and drain their life force. His prey would not die in the process, but rather become zombie-like creatures of the night.
Over the years, the character of Dracula reached wide renown in the horror genre, portrayed with varying degrees of sympathy and repulsion thanks to a starring role in more than 160 films, most notably in the 1930s and 1940s by Universal Studios.

Dracula

St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture, Jan 29, 2002 by Austin Booth


Cursed to an endless life, Count Dracula is eternally resurrected in film and fiction, as well as in the vampire myth. Bela Lugosi's Dracula has become an indelible figure haunting the popular imagination since the release of Dracula in 1931. The definitive vampire, Lugosi's well-groomed Count has spawned a diverse group of vampires, including Sesame Street's Count, Grandpa Munster, Blackula, Duckula, and Count Chockula. The only vampire most people know by name, Dracula has sold innumerable books, plays, movies, costumes, toys, consumer products, and even tours of Romania.
Tod Browning's 1931 film Dracula is probably the most famous version of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel. Often criticized for its over resemblance to the drawing-room melodrama from which it was derived, the film has nevertheless had a tremendous and lasting impact on both film and popular culture. The film follows the journey of Renfield, a British businessman, who is visiting Count Dracula in Transylvania in order to sell the Count some London property. Slowly, Renfield realizes that he is a prisoner and that the Count is a vampire. Once in London, the Count must battle Professor Van Helsing, a doctor who specializes in ferreting out and eradicating the undead. Van Helsing and Count Dracula fight over the soul of the innocent Mina, and finally Van Helsing kills the Count by plunging a wooden stake through the vampire's heart.
Dracula was so successful that, almost single-handedly, it rescued Universal Studios from folding, giving the studio its first profit in two years. More importantly, it established talking horror movies as a popular and profitable genre. Lugosi's quintessential Dracula set the stage for the filmic and fictional vampires that followed. Certainly Lugosi's sartorial elegance has become a trademark of Count Dracula--as George Hamilton complains in Love at First Bite (1979), "How would you like to spend 400 years dressed like a head waiter?" From the 1950s forward, Lugosi's image graced a staggering number of incongruous consumer goods, including swizzle sticks, jewelry, card games, decals, transfers, tattoos, cleaning products, Halloween costumes, albums, pencil sharpeners, greeting cards, plastic and wax figurines, clothing, puzzles, wind-up toys, candy, comic books, and bath products. By the 1960s, Dracula had become such a marketable image that he could be co-opted to sell just about anything.

The late 1950s and 1960s saw a resurgence of interest in monster culture centered around television showings of classic horror movies by hosts including Vampira and Ghoulardi, the proliferation of magazines like Famous Monsters of Filmland, and the development of popular television series like The Munsters and The Addams Family, which parodied the American nuclear family. Lugosi's disdainful Count (barely even interested in his female victims) was recreated by Christopher Lee in five films, beginning with Horror of Dracula (1958); by Jack Palance in a prime-time version of Dracula (1973); and by Louis Jordan in a BBC miniseries, Count Dracula (1978). While the kitsch market bearing Dracula's image continues to spread seemingly unabated, like vampirism itself, a new vampire has emerged who bears a resemblance to Lugosi's elegant, aristocratic Dracula, and yet who is markedly sympathetic as well as erotic. Beginning with Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire, published in 1976, novels and movies told from the vampire's point of view have become increasingly popular, as have vampire stories and films created by and for women (e.g., the films Lust for a Vampire and The Hunger, and the novels The Vampire Tapestry (1983) and A Taste of Blood Wine (1992).
The repeated adaptation of a text can serve as a guide to changes in popular understandings of psychological and social issues. Vampirism has been read as a metaphor for gender and racial "otherness"; for the simultaneous desire and fear of female sexuality, male sexuality, and/or homosexuality; for contagion of all sorts; and for the relationship between the "new" worlds of Western Europe and North America and the "old" world of Eastern Europe. Dracula itself has been variously interpreted as a parable of the oppression and resistance of marginalized groups, the power and alienation resulting from technological reproduction, the repression of sexuality and desire, the effects of industrial capitalism on the working class, and the complex interdependencies of colonialism. Of course, on one level, Dracula's popularity lies in its face-value: the fear of (and possible desire for belief in) the notion that the dead are not really dead. Like much horror and monster culture, Dracula deals in the (linked) questions of sex and death. And like most horror films, Dracula tells the story of a contest between good and evil, between the normal and the abnormal or pathological.
Dracula also follows generic conventions by installing normalcy at the end of its story, reinstating and reaffirming the good and the true after an anxious yet enjoyable period of peril. And yet, Dracula plays with the boundary between good and evil, between the normal and the pathological, in a way that goes a long way in explaining the story's popularity. Dracula blurs and transgresses the distinctions between living and dead, East and West, male and female, heterosexual and homosexual, aristocratic and professional, healthy and diseased, and British and foreign before finally reinstating those terms as pairs of fixed opposites with the (apparent) death of the Count. It is Dracula's ability to appear normal, after all, to pass in the nighttime streets of London, which make him both so dangerous and fascinating. Dracula does not look like a monster--in fact, he looks like an upscale version of his victims. It is, in the end, Dracula's very adaptability, his ability to confuse epistemological and social categories, which ensures his everlasting capacity to both frighten and entertain us.

Bibliography for: "Dracula"

Austin Booth "Dracula". St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture. FindArticles.com. 05 Apr, 2011. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g1epc/is_tov/ai_2419100362/

Bram Stoker's Dracula: A Reflection and Rebuke of Victorian Society

By Amanda M. Podonsky

Bram Stoker’s now legendary novel, Dracula, is not just any piece of cult-spawning fiction, but rather a time capsule containing the popular thoughts, ideas, and beliefs of the Victorian era that paints an elaborate picture of what society was like for Bram Stoker’s generation.

The dated ideas reflected in Dracula focus primarily on the concepts of lust, sex, and evil as they were viewed during the late 19th and 20th century in what can be viewed as a strongly conservative society. At the time, sex and homosexuality were controversial topics, with emphasis constantly put upon the importance of using caution and awareness when involving such matters and encouraging an overall chaste and modest lifestyle. Such beliefs are boldly represented throughout the book, and often center on the glorifying resistance of temptation while advising against the inevitable temptation to “taste the forbidden fruit”.

However, it is important to explore the views and atmosphere of the time period of Dracula's writing to better understand how the legendary “evil” that is Dracula came to be. A result of common Victorian-era fears and Stoker’s own personal views on sex and homosexuality, Dracula is a marvel stemming from many sources.

Dracula was written and published before the suffragette movement had “taken off” (Levin 14) during the early-mid 20th century, leaving the expectations and standards for women extremely limiting. Though society maintained strict social standards and expectations for both sexes, men were permitted many more freedoms and pleasures than their female counterparts. The patriarchal tendencies and views of the Victorian society further enforced male superiority and dominance over women (therefore automatically granting them the most freedoms), which in turn also provided countless excuses to justify male sexuality and carnal urges; especially those which women were expected to suppress and constantly refrain from expressing. It was unheard of for a female to be sexually assertive in any way, and such an idea would likely have been a very disturbing and frightening concept to a conservative society, seeing as it was deemed unnatural for and decent lady to behave in such a manner. The theory justifying the abnormality of a female sex drive is that “male sexual pleasure (is) necessary for reproduction and female pleasure (is) not, (therefore) sexual pleasure (is) the sole providence of men,” (Weiman and Dionisapoulas 34; Lyndon 202; Bohn 25).  The mentality ultimately supported the conclusion that the female sex drive has no purpose and, therefore, should not exist. If it was, in fact apparent, one can assume the women would be chastised for being ”unnatural”, and most “unnatural” occurrences of the Victorian era could only be explained by the workings of “evil” forces (chiefly Satanic powers). The three mistress vampires encountered in Dracula’s castle “represent all the qualities of how a woman should not be; voluptuous and sexually aggressive” (Pektas 1).

A main advocate of Stoker’s novel summarizes and epitome of the mixed feelings and emotions which would potentially have surfaced in a situation where the man is confronted by the woman:
“The fair girl went on her knees and bent over me, fairly gloating. There was a deliberate voluptuousness which was both thrilling and repulsive, and as she arched her neck, she actually licked her lips like an animal, till I could see in the moonlight the moisture shining on the scarlet lips and on the red tongue as it lapped the white, sharp, teeth” (Stoker 50).

This particular passage describes the mixed feelings men had towards forward women; temptation made the “unnatural” occurrence of female sexual advances desirable (as it was the “forbidden fruit”), yet from a God-believing gentleman’s standpoint, it was purely evil and almost animalistic. Alluding to the fact that, again, a man’s sexual attraction was not entirely his own fault or “responsibility” (per say), this passage also insinuates that women can only be seductively appealing when deliberately tempting a man to “take the forbidden fruit” himself; another reference to evil’s association with a woman’s sexuality. Even if a woman tempted a man and he took the bate, it would still be considered the woman’s fault for defying the set social expectations for proper ladies, as the men could not easily control what was natural to them.

Expectations and standards concerning ladylike behavior were very confining and limited the expression of many natural emotions and freedoms:
“A woman could not show her legs or even say ‘leg’. Even pianos had ‘limbs’, and those (wore) fluffy coverings so as not to be seen. (Neither) ‘leg’ nor ‘breast’ could be (spoken) in polite company” (Levin 103).

Rules such as the above stated show just how ridiculous and rigid Victorian’s standards for ladies could become. The importance of these “rules” can most likely be accredited to the fact that to their male counterparts, women were a reputation of purity, vulnerability, weakness, and naïve innocence. If a woman were ever to reverse the roles and become “sexually aggressive”(Pektas 1)  and assertive about her desires, her image of chaste fragility and submissive dependence upon men would be shattered, diluting the superior, dominant image of men, as well. One can assume that women who were, in fact, more sexually open and assertive were labeled as having “tainted” their innocence with the deadly sin of “lust”, and were surely on an unholy path to damnation. When Lucy Westerna becomes “tainted” with the evils of Dracula (thus becoming a “lusty” representation of the female figure), her overall mannerisms are described as having a “cold-bloodedness”(Stoker 240) to them, greatly contrasting with the previous descriptions of her loving and virtuous demeanor when she was chaste and conservative.

The concept of “evil” incorporated with aggressive sexual behaviours and sexual temptations very much plays into the evil and appalling behaviors of Dracula. The beliefs of Stoker’s generation magnified the already obscene tendencies of the character himself, adversely creating a shock-factor amongst the Victorian audience, making an epic contribution to the controversial views of sex and sexuality within the society.

Women’s rights in a heterosexual relationship were not nearly as prominent an issue as the ongoing conflicts over the concept of homosexuality, which Stoker was witness to on a first hand account. It was a very serious matter, especially in an age when anything out of the ordinary was considered to be “unnatural” and, again, to be “unnatural” meant to be against God’s will (what was “normal”), therefore making it evil and wrong. Homosexuality was, in fact, so serious a matter within society that it was even considered to be a crime, punishable by imprisonment if tried and found guilty of participating in homoerotic behaviors. Some whom were “(found) guilty” of “committing acts of gross indecency” (ibid 83; Pektas 7) could be “convicted to the maximum of two years in jail with hard labour (ibid 83; Pekats 7).

Further adding to the shock-factor and controversy of the novel, an underlying homoerotic theme is carefully laid down by Stoker via many homosexual references, insinuations, and symbolism throughout the book. Almost as though playing directly off of society’s fears of the “unnatural”, the count seems to be an exaggerated representation of the concept concerning the “evils” of abnormality and how it can stem from one source and infect the surrounding society with discord and misfortune. Mirroring the social fears and distaste towards homosexuality, the count embodies the concept of the “abnormal” mingling among a “normal” society, chiefly by posing as a “sexual threat who threatens to destroy the moral order and turn (his surroundings) into a depraved society through his violation of people” (Pektas 2). Most prominent among his offences, the count violates men “by penetrating and sucking the blood” which is viewed as “a coding of homosexual acts” (Pektas 2). This reinforces the play upon the apprehensive feelings towards the acceptance of what is “different”, as it is an example of how one evil thrown into a “pure” society can cause a large-scale onslaught of chaos and corruption.

 A major underlying sexual connotation Stoker uses as an implication of homosexuality is the excessive use of blood throughout the novel itself. Blood and sexuality within Dracula were very closely related, “reflecting the Victorians belief that blood is sperm” therefore, when feeding upon blood and exchanging bodily fluids “(it) can be associated with intercourse” (Pektas 2). The Victorians most likely concluded that blood did indeed have such an intimate relation to spermatic fluids as a result of shared biological characteristics between the two substances themselves. Sexually transmitted diseases, such as syphilis, had been just recently discovered, and were still relatively enigmatic to a dreading society. Discerning that blood could pass disease/ (identified as “bad blood” at the time) from one being to the next and then discovering that spermatic fluids held the same ability (regarding STDs), a connection between the two was inevitably made, such as “(linking) sexuality to syphilis, and (also) to blood” (Anttonen 9). It was “a time when sexually transmitted diseases (had become) a part of everyday life (Anttonen 9) as a result of being one of the newest and most disturbing scientific discoveries made at that point in time. Thus it became a popular conversational and debatable topic among the intellectual, reinforcing the value of the belief via repetition and the occasional misinterpretation (which distorted its severity and caused it to become more intensely feared).

The emphasis upon the evils of carnal sexuality and lust-driven behaviors in Dracula was derived from various influential sources in the author’s life itself. Fashioning the character Dracula after a real-life historical figure, Bram Stoker’s novel increased the fame of Romanian tyrant, Vladislav Dracula. Stoker’s fascination with the brutality of Dracula began when he “discovered (Vlad Dracula) while researching his novel at the North Yorkshire Library” (Bohn 14) and decidedly was inspired enough to title the main character, and even the very book itself, after the prince. One can assume that Stoker, showing great interest and curiosity in all things sexual, was fascinated not by Dracula’s economic of political achievements during his rule, but by the appalling methods of torture he used to turn sexuality into a concept fixedly associated with pain and evil within the minds of his subjects. “Vlad Dracula (presented) a sadistic sexuality in delivering punishment for moral crimes such as infidelity” (Bohn 14), and often the punishment involved the mangling of the sexual organs or impalement. Using enigmatic approaches to sustain power and control over the minds of his people, Vlad Dracula (also known as “Vlad the Impaler”)  would punish such minor sins as an unfaithful wife by “(cutting out) her sexual organs” and “(skinning) her alive” (Bohn 14). A punishment to maidens who did not remain virgins until marriage was to have the “nipples cut from (the) woman’s breasts or a red hot iron shoved through the vagina until the instrument emerged from the mouth” (Bohn 14), the latter containing several sexual connotations involving the penetration and cleansing of sexual evil via the mouth (oral sex) or vagina (vaginal sex). In general, Vlad the Impaler emphasized the importance of remaining pure and chaste, though taking a much more extremist approach than the Victorians did. Again, these heinous acts of “retribution” further enforced the evils of unruly lust by demonstrating how such qualities bring pain and misfortune upon those who engage in such sins. It is incredibly ironic that Stoker would use such an extremist as an inspiration for his sadistic character, though it furthers the effect which he intended to create by adding an even more sinister twist to the contrast between what was “good and pure” (by Victorian standards), and what was considered to be “vile and unholy”.

A much more recent event which was a strong influence on Stoker’s mixed portrayal on the good and evils of sensual behavior was the prosecution of dear friend and fellow writer, Oscar Wilde, for being accused of participating in homosexual endeavors. It is safe to say that because of his past “intimate history” (Pektas 6) with Wilde, this occurrence greatly contributed to Stoker’s negative portrayal of sex as evil and counterproductive. Stoker himself had “established himself as an open member (of the) homosexual culture” (Pektas 6), and therefore “(Oscar’s) trial made Stoker feel guilty” (7) and loathe his very own sexuality itself, as he could do absolutely nothing to help his dear friend of 20 years but “(to) watch” (Pektas 7). In order to “relieve” his conscience, he suppressed his very own sexuality, and bean writing Dracula about a month after Wilde was convicted of sodomy in 1895. Living “between writing and silence” as a result of being helplessly despairing and unable to help Wilde “(the) result was a text which described Wilde in a diffused and hidden way” (Pektas 7). It seems as though it is almost a sort of underlying “tribute” to Wilde and the homosexual community itself, secretly condemning the “strictly heterosexual” society for their harsh standards and limiting expectations. Though, as a result of constantly being forced to suppress his feelings towards men, the strain and stress of watching a dear and very “close” friend being prosecuted must have caused many of the internally conflicting emotions which led Stoker to personally view (and portray) any sexuality as a vile and painful source of evil and despair. Nilifer Pektas of Soderton University College concludes the following:
“The publicity and hostility surrounding the event itself must have affected Stoker, (Dracula) shows Stoker’s suspicions and anxiety towards all forms of sexuality, especially towards those considered to be ‘perverse’…(the) sinful attractions of the Count suggest Stoker’s fears about his own sexuality.” Pektas 7)

Thus, the underlying homoerotic connections (such as blood being representative of semen) are most likely a direct result of Stoker’s own fear and loathing of the brutal society which forced him to internalize his own sexuality, justifying the evils of homosexuality mostly with references to the Christian belief. “Dracula is Stoker’s striving for expressing a culturally repressed homosexual identity” (Auerbach 7; Antonnen 4) as a result of the bias and hatred expressed towards homosexual males in the later 19th-early 20th centuries.

Though Dracula seems to be inadvertently portrayed as a reflection of Stoker’s suppressed homosexual identity, at some points the character is also represented as a dominant, forceful, male heterosexual; magnified to an extreme and exaggerating various characteristics of expectations set for a typical Victorian male role. Seemingly a jab at the imperfections of a society whom deemed themselves to be “perfect”, Stoker makes quite a few valid points concerning the unrealistic ideals of Victorian society, making a mockery of them by portraying heterosexuality as equally “vile” and “evil”; as people viewed homosexuality in real life.

Insinuating a false love between men and women, Stoker uses the character of Lucy (when she has become a vampire) to portray this concept in a scene when Arthur (Lucy’s fiancé) meets her, for the first time since she had become a vampires.
“She still advanced, however, and with a languorous, voluptuous grace, said-‘Come to me, Arthur. Leave these others and come to me. My arms are hungry for you. Come and we can rest together. Come, my husband, come!’

There was something diabolically sweet in her tones- something of the tingling of glass when struck-which rang through the brains even of us who heard the words addressed to another. As for Arthur, he seemed under a spell…” (Stoker 240)
This particular passage definitely makes apparent the underlying evils and maliciousness concealed by false love and forced emotion. Though it is not truly Lucy, but a mere imitation of what was once a sweet and good woman, Arthur falls for the deceitful counterfeit, mistaking the evil beckoning for the call of his one true love. The theme of this event seems to be insinuating that, though heterosexual love and marriage was “outwardly” normal and “pure”, beneath the surface was a false love forged by pressure, limited self-expression, and the biased opinions of a strict and confining society.

When taking the blood from females (specifically those already claimed by other men), Dracula most notably takes on the exaggerated “male dominance” persona, as previously discerned. The use of such extreme intentional force upon the “weaker” features of susceptible women can constitute as a form of rape, an equally (if not more so) despicable act as homosexually, even though it is a heterosexual inclination. Dracula is portrayed as having an insatiable thirst for blood and power (lust and sex) and is constantly using his intense powers (male dominance and superiority over women) to fulfill his desires, regardless of the well-being of others. He is “a threat to Victorian women such as Mina and (she) becomes victim (only) by force” which can be: interpreted as rape” (Pektas 14). Mina’s emotional portrayal of violation after being “penetrated” by the Count are very similar to those that would be reflected by a rape victim. The scenario which caused such strong and helpless feelings is also representatively played out like a rape scene itself:
“With his left hand, he held both Mrs. Harker’s hands, keeping them away with her arms at full tension; his right hand gripped the back of her neck, forcing her facedown on his bosom. Her white night dress was smeared with blood, and a thin stream trickled down the man’s bare breast which was shone by hi torn-open dress.” (Stoker 319)

A repulsive depiction of a man holding a woman hostage, “forcing” her to do as he wants, this is most definitely one of the most suggestively insinuative scenes relating to the concept of rape and sexual violation. The Count “forcibly” exchanging blood (bodily fluids) with Mina combined with the sexual symbolism of the blood itself forms an exaggerated portrayal of how men in the Victorian era attempted to force emotional (and physical) bonds with women, often through sexual intercourse.

Alongside the heterosexual insinuations are also the homosexual representations, as well. Again, the sexual references are “not directly expressed but (are) expressed through blood, where blood (transfusion) indicates sexual intercourse” (Pektas 11), so when Dracula exchanges blood with man (or an exchange occurs between men themselves), it can be associated with some form of homosexual act in which blood is the substitute for spermatic fluids. Apart from the homosexually-insinuative activities, Dracula also seems to possess some homoerotic emotions when experiencing pleasure, which become apparent at intimate moments with other men. “Dracula’s (exhilaration) at the sight of a man’s blood” (Pektas 18) seems very indicative of homosexual arousal. The best representation of homoerotic symbolism is when Lucy requires a blood transfusion, resulting in the participation of four different men:

“‘I take it both you and Van Helsing had done already what I did today? Is not that so?’…’ (And) I guess Art was in on it too… (Then) I guess, Jack Seward, that that poor, pretty creature that we all love has had put into her veins the blood of four strong men.” (Stoker 174-175)

The description of the blood transfusions themselves seems to emphasize the “connection” and participation of all four men, focusing on the blood of each individual becoming unified in one body. Even when recalling the affair in conversation between participants, the action is merely referenced without speaking of any specifics, making it seem as though the affair was something indecent, forbidden, and therefore not to be openly discussed in public; very much how one would expect homosexuals to discreetly discuss their affairs between one another in Victorian society.


Portraying another exaggeration of the Victorian heterosexual male, Stoker openly alludes to the Counts participation in bigotry, extenuating the “power of men over a woman’s body during the Victorian time” (Pektas 12) and the Victorian belief that “women (are helpless) creatures who are either seduced and penetrated or deluded” by a “masculine ideal” (Pektas 5). The three women whom Dracula seems to keep in his castle are presumably his “brides” and/or “mistresses”. As they are vampires themselves, they have obviously already been “penetrated” and exchanged blood (symbolic of having been deflowered) with the Count. He openly displays his dominance over the three seductresses (referencing the forcibly patriarchal traditions bias) via physical superiority, playing off the common belief that women were the inferior sex as they were physically weaker than their male counterparts,
“With a fierce sweep of his arm, he hurled the woman from him, and then motioned to the others as though he were beating them back; it was the very same imperious gesture that I had seen used to the wolves.” (Stoker 50-51)

Not only does the Count demonstrate physical dominance, but also intellectual superiority as well; he has the women ”trained” in such a manner that the narrator of the passage compares it to the domestication of animals (the wolves). The women seem to have a dependant relationship with Dracula, again, perfectly imitating the expectations of a forcefully male-dominated society, and recognizing the fact that women have a scarce quantity of rights available to them as opposed to the liberated Caucasian male.

“How dare you touch him? Any of you! How dare you cast eyes upon him when I had forbidden it? Back, I tell you all! Beware how you meddle with him, or you shall have to deal with me!” (Stoker 51)
When the women obeyed and were openly denied the “right” of access to the Count’s guest, Dracula carelessly tosses the women a “bag”, presumably containing their “meal” for the night, as a symbolic gesture of how desperately dependant women are upon “man”. They were then said to have “closed around” (Stoker 51) the mediocre gift in a very barbaric and animalistic fashion, as though it were of great value (though it clearly meant nothing to the Count himself). One can view this particular incident as Stoker’s attempt to mock just how “needy” society made women out to be, and how unjustly excessive the control was granted to the heterosexual white male.

Serving as Bram Stoker’s release of sexual frustration and despair in a time when it was suppressed, Dracula contains references to the behaviors known (in his day) as the three “chief” sexual perversions: the sexually active woman, the rapist (an exaggeration of an “excessively powerful” and “dominant” male figure), and, most prominently, the homosexual male. Whether in honor of his dear friend, Oscar Wilde, or an act of pure rebellion set to shock those who forced him to suppress his nature, the many underlying sexual references and connotations were undoubtedly placed to purposefully defy the common beliefs of the 19th century. “Hidden from the literary censors of the day” (Pektas 7), yet existing, nonetheless, was Stoker’s message silently protesting the smothering expectations of an overly confining and limiting society, right beneath their very noses.


Antonnen, Romona. “The Savage and the Gentleman; a Comparative Analysis of Two Vampire Characters in Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Anne Rice’s The Vampire Lestat”. Vaxjo University: School of Humanities. Autumn 2000. February 2008

Bohn, Michelle L. “Shadow of the Vampire: Understanding the Transformations of an Icon in Pop Culture”. Texas State University College; Mitte Honors Program. 2007. February 2008.
Craft, Christopher. “Kiss Me with Those Red Lips; Gender and Inversion in Bram Stoker’s Dracula”. Bram Stoker. Dracula. Ed. Glennis Byron. New York: MacMillian, 1999.
Levin, Judith. The Victorians. Missouri: Andrews and McMeel, 1996.
Pektas, Nilifer. “The Importance of Blood During the Victorian Era: Blood as a Sexual     Signifier in Bram Stoker’s Dracula”. Soderton University Colleges English  Department. Autumn 2005. February 2008.
Stoker, Bram. Dracula: New York: Archibald Constable and Company, 1897.

The History of Dracula

The history of Dracula

http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/dracula.html

In search of the real Dracula

  • Leif Pettersen
  • Lonely Planet Author
Long before Bram Stoker’s literary Dracula sparked a century-long, global obsession with vampires – both the torturing and tortured variety – a lavishly mustachioed Wallachian prince by the name of Vlad Dracula (r 1448, 1456-1462 and 1476) was making a name for himself by heroically repelling successive waves of Ottoman invaders.

How Vlad earned his reputation

Dracula’s name and accomplishments went viral across the continent, often accompanied by liberal embellishment, particularly his array of statement-making prisoner execution methods, ranging from decapitation, boiling and burying alive.
Vlad_Tepes_002
Dracula himself
However, Dracula famously earned the post-mortem moniker ‘Ţepeş’ (impaler) after his preferred form of execution: skewering. A wooden stake was carefully driven through the victim’s buttocks, emerging just below the shoulders. This diabolical method ingeniously (i.e., cruelly) spared all the vital organs, meaning that the now writhing victim faced at least 48 hours of unimaginable suffering before death.
To be fair to poor Dracula, skewering defeated enemies was not unusual in medieval Europe. Vlad’s first cousin, Ştefan cel Mare (Stephen the Great), is said to have ‘impaled by the navel, diagonally, one on top of each other’ 2300 Turkish prisoners in 1473. And they sainted that guy!
Dracula’s legend as wily Ottoman scourge and bloodthirsty combatant was sealed in the spring of 1462 when, after repeated failed attempts to conquer the rebellious prince, an increasingly impatient Sultan Mehmed II raised and personally led an army of 90,000 troops into Wallachia. The momentum and morale of this impressive siege took a serious hit when they stumbled upon a bit of Dracula’s handiwork: a literal forest of stakes adorned with 20,000 men from Mehmed’s previous Ottoman army. Ţepeş’ forces, using disguises and guerrilla tactics, picked away at the Sultan’s demoralized forces, including a daring but unsuccessful assassination attempt on the Sultan himself, for months before they ultimately retreated.
bran3
Interior courtyard of Bran Castle. Image by Leif Pettersen

Finding Dracula’s true home

Ţepeş is still revered as a hero in Romania, though these days you’re more likely to see his face on vampire-themed t-shirts and coffee mugs, cheapening the prince’s good name in the interest of tourist revenue. This enthusiastic effort has unfortunately spilled over into popular ‘Dracula castle tours’ that disingenuously railroad tourists to the undeniably vampiresque Bran Castle in southern Transylvania. However, Vlad never lived there and – it’s disputed – he may not have ever even set foot on the premises.
In fact, Dracula’s true home, Poienari Citadel, is a gorgeous but admittedly long trip southwest over the Carpathian Mountains in Wallachia, so prohibitively far off the tourist beaten path and ill-serviced by public transport that only Dracula purists, historians and the occasional hopelessly lost driver ever visit.
Poienari, built on previous fortress ruins by miserable, soon-to-be-skewered Turkish prisoners in 1459, was a massive defensive fortress, strategically positioned to guard the entrance of Wallachia from Transylvania through the Argeş Valley. Though it was used for centuries after Dracula was forced to flee yet another Ottoman attack, the structure was eventually abandoned. A large section collapsed and fell down the mountain in 1888. What remains is a rather small cluster of semi-restored, head-high ruins, somewhat underwhelming on their own, but enriched by the mountaintop setting and the heart-quickening 1,480 stairs one needs to endure to access the site.
leifatedge
At the edge of the ruins, Poienari Citadel. Image by Leif Pettersen
Leif Pettersen is currently on the road, researching Romania and Moldova for the upcoming Eastern Europe multi-country guidebook.

duminică, 3 aprilie 2011

Vlad III the Impaler - from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vlad III Dracula (Vladimir)
Prince of Wallachia
Vlad Tepes 002.jpg
The most famous portrait, though posthumous, of Vlad III Dracula[1][2]
Reign1448; 1456–1462; 1476
BornNovember or December 1431[1]
BirthplaceSighișoara, Transylvania,
DiedDecember 1476[1] (aged 45)
Place of deathBucharest, Wallachia
Wives1. unnamed Transylvanian noblewoman
2. Ilona Szilágyi
Offspring1st marriage:
Mihnea cel Rău
2nd marriage:
Vlad Dracula IV and another son whose name remains unknown
Royal HouseHouse of Drăculești (branch of the House of Basarab)
FatherVlad II Dracul
MotherCneajna of Moldavia

Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia (1431–1476), more commonly known as Vlad the Impaler (Romanian: Vlad Țepeș pronounced [ˈvlad ˈt͡sepeʃ]) or simply as Dracula, was a three-time Voivode of Wallachia, ruling mainly from 1456 to 1462.
Historically, Vlad III is best known for his resistance against the Ottoman Empire and its expansion[3] and for the impaling of enemies.[4]
Vlad III is believed to have inspired the association of his name to that of the vampire Count Dracula in Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula.[4]

Contents

[hide]

 Names

His Romanian surname Drăculea (also spelled "Drakulya"), by which Vlad was referred to in several documents, is in reference to his father, Vlad Dracul who was a proud member of the monarchical chivalric order for selected nobility with a latin name "Societas Draconistrarum" meaning the Order of the Dragon. A member of this order would be referred to as Dracul, a noun of the Latin word Draco, meaning "dragon" (which was derived from the Greek word Δράκων (Drákōn)). A son of Dracul would then be called Dracula. The emblem of the order was a dragon incurved into the form of a circle. In Romanian language, the word Dracul also has the meaning "devil" which sometimes leads to mistranslation of Dracula's name. In the bible, the devil is also called the dragon - great dragon and the snake. [citation needed for whole paragraph]
His post-mortem moniker of "Țepeș" ("Impaler") originated in his killing opponents by impalement. In Turkish, he was known as "Kazıklı Voyvoda" (pronounced [kazɯkˈɫɯ]) which means "Impaler Prince".
During his life Vlad wrote his name in Latin documents as Wladislaus Dragwlya or Drakwlya.[5]
Today "Drakula" or "Drakulić" (e.g. Slavenka Drakulić) is a common surname in the former countries of Yugoslavia.

Early life

Vlad was born in Sighișoara, Transylvania (part of the Kingdom of Hungary at the time), in the winter of 1431 to Vlad II Dracul, future voivode of Wallachia and son of the celebrated Voivode Mircea the Elder. His mother is believed to be the second wife of Vlad Dracul, Princess Cneajna of Moldavia, eldest daughter of Alexandru cel Bun.[6] He had two older half-brothers, Mircea II and Vlad Călugărul, and a younger brother, Radu cel Frumos.
In the year of his birth Vlad's father, known under the nickname Dracul had traveled to Nuremberg where he had been vested into the Order of the Dragon. At the age of five, young Vlad was also initiated into the Order.[1]
Vlad and Radu spent their early formative years in Sighișoara under the care and tutelage of their mother and the wives of other exiled boyars. During the first reign of their father, Vlad II Dracul, the Voivode brought his young sons to Târgoviște, the capital of Wallachia at that time.
The Byzantine chancellor Mikhail Doukas showed that, at Târgoviște, the sons of boyars and ruling princes were well-educated by Romanian or Greek scholars commissioned from Constantinople. Vlad is believed to have learned combat skills, geography, mathematics, science, languages (Old Bulgarian, German, Latin), and the classical arts and philosophy.[7]

Life in Edirne



In 1436, Vlad II Dracul ascended the throne of Wallachia. He was ousted in 1442 by rival factions in league with Hungary, but secured Ottoman support for his return agreeing to pay tribute to the Sultan and also send his two legitimate sons, Vlad III and Radu, to the Ottoman court, to serve as hostages of his loyalty.
Vlad III was imprisoned and often whipped and beaten because of his verbal abuse towards his trainers and his stubborn behavior, while his younger brother Radu was much easier to control. Radu converted to Islam, entered the service of Sultan Murad II's son, Mehmed II (later known as the Conqueror), and was allowed into the Topkapı Palace. Radu was also honored by the title Bey and was given command of the Janissary contingents.
These years presumably had a great influence on Vlad's character and led to Vlad's well-known hatred for the Ottoman Turks, the Janissary, his brother Radu for converting to Islam and the young Ottoman prince Mehmed II (even after he became sultan). He was jealous of his father's preference for his elder brother, Mircea II and half brother, Vlad Călugărul. He also distrusted the Hungarians and his own father for trading him to the Turks and betraying the Order of the Dragon's oath to fight the Ottoman Empire.
Vlad was later released under probation and taken to be educated in logic, the Quran and the Turkish and Persian languages and works of literature. He would speak these languages fluently in his later years.[8] He and his brother were also trained in warfare and riding horses. The boys' father, Vlad Dracul, was awarded the support of the Ottomans and returned to Wallachia and took back his throne from Basarab II and some unfaithful Boyars.
Bust of Vlad the Impaler near the birthplace plate

First reign and exile

In December 1447, boyars in league with the Hungarian regent John Hunyadi, rebelled against Vlad Dracul, and killed him in the marshes near Bălteni. Mircea, Dracul's eldest son and heir, was blinded and buried alive at Târgoviște.
To prevent Wallachia from falling into the Hungarian fold, the Ottomans invaded Wallachia and put young Vlad III on the throne. However, this rule was short-lived as Hunyadi himself now invaded Wallachia and restored his ally Vladislav II, of the Dănești clan, to the throne.
Vlad fled to Moldavia, where he lived under the protection of his uncle, Bogdan II. In October 1451, Bogdan was assassinated and Vlad fled to Hungary. Impressed by Vlad's vast knowledge of the mindset and inner workings of the Ottoman Empire as well as his hatred of the new sultan Mehmed II, Hunyadi reconciled with his former rival and made him his advisor.
In 1453, the Ottomans, under Sultan Mehmed II took Constantinople after a prolonged siege, putting an end to the final major Christian presence in the eastern Mediterranean, after which Ottoman influence began to spread from this base through the Carpathians, threatening mainland Europe.
In 1456, three years after the Ottomans had conquered Constantinople, they threatened Hungary by besieging Belgrade. Hunyadi began a concerted counter-attack in Serbia: while he himself moved into Serbia and relieved the siege (before dying of the plague), Vlad led his own contingent into Wallachia, reconquered his native land and killed Vladislav II in hand-to-hand combat.

Second reign

 Internal policy

Vlad found Wallachia in a wretched state: constant war had resulted in rampant crime, falling agricultural production, and the virtual disappearance of trade. Regarding a stable economy essential to resisting external enemies, he used severe methods to restore order and prosperity.
Vlad had three aims for Wallachia: to strengthen the country's economy, its defense and his own political power. He took measures to help the peasants' well-being by building new villages and raising agricultural output. He understood the importance of trade for the development of Wallachia. He helped the Wallachian merchants by limiting foreign merchant trade to three market towns: Târgșor, Câmpulung and Târgoviște.
Vlad considered the boyars the chief cause of the constant strife as well as of the death of his father and brother. To secure his rule, he had many leading nobles killed and gave positions in his council, traditionally belonging to the greatest boyars, to persons of obscure origins, who would be loyal to him alone, and some to foreigners. For lower offices, Vlad preferred knights and free peasants to boyars. In his aim of cleaning up Wallachia Vlad gave new laws punishing thieves and robbers. Vlad treated the boyars with the same harshness, because they were guilty of weakening Wallachia through their internal struggles for power.
The army was also strengthened. He had a small personal guard, mostly made of mercenaries, who were rewarded with loot and promotions. He also established a militia or ‘lesser army’ made up of peasants called to fight whenever war came.
Vlad Dracula built a church at Târgșor (allegedly in the memory of his father and older brother who were killed nearby), and he contributed with money to the Snagov Monastery and to the Comana Monastery fortifications.[9]

 Raids into Transylvania

Since the Wallachian nobility was linked to the Transylvanian Saxons, Vlad also acted against them by eliminating their trade privileges and raiding their cities. In 1459, he had several Saxon settlers of Brașov (Kronstadt) impaled.[10]
Vlad was also on guard against the rival Dănești clan, and some of his raids into Transylvania may have been aimed at capturing potential challengers. Several members of the clan died at Vlad's hands, including a Dănești prince suspected to have taken part in his brother Mircea's murder. Vlad condemned him to death and forced him to read his own eulogy while kneeling before his open grave.

War with the Ottomans

Vlad allied himself with Matthias Corvinus , son of John Hunyadi (János Hunyadi), the King of Hungary. Wallachia was claimed as a part of the Ottoman Empire by Sultan Mehmed II. In 1459, Pope Pius II called for a new crusade against the Ottomans, at the Congress of Mantua. The only European leader that showed enthusiasm for the crusade was Vlad Țepeș.
Later that year, in 1459, Mehmed sent envoys to Vlad to urge him to pay the delayed tribute. Vlad refused to pay the tribute, of 10,000 ducats and 500 recruits into the Ottoman forces. In order to provoke and instigate war with the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, Vlad had the Turkish envoys killed on the pretext that they had refused to raise their "hats" to him, by nailing their turbans to their heads. Subsequently, the Ottomans attempted to remove him, and the Turks crossed the Danube and started to do their own recruiting of adolescent Romanians into the Janissary.
Meanwhile, the Sultan received intelligence reports that revealed Vlad's domination of the Danube[11] He sent the Bey of Nicopolis and Hamza Pasha, to make peace and/or eliminate Vlad III.[11]
Vlad Țepeș planned to set an ambush. Hamza Pasha, the Bey of Nicopolis brought with him 1,000 cavalry and when passing through a narrow pass north of Giurgiu, Vlad launched a surprise-attack. The Wallachians had the Turks surrounded and defeated. The Turks' plans were thwarted and almost all of them caught and impaled, but Hamza Pasha escaped.[11]
In the winter of 1462, Vlad crossed the Danube and devastated the entire Bulgarian land in the area between Serbia and the Black Sea. Disguising himself as a Turkish Sipahi, he infiltrated and destroyed Ottoman camps. In a letter to Corvinus dated 2 February he wrote:
I have killed peasants men and women, old and young, who lived at Oblucitza and Novoselo, where the Danube flows into the sea, up to Rahova, which is located near Chilia, from the lower Danube up to such places as Samovit and Ghighen. We killed 23,884 Bulgars without counting those whom we burned in homes or the Turks whose heads were cut by our soldiers...Thus, your highness, you must know that I have broken the peace with him (Sultan Mehmet II).[10][12]
In response to this, Sultan Mehmed II raised an army of around 60,000 troops and 30,000 irregulars[13] and in 1462 headed towards Wallachia. Commanding only 40,000 men, Vlad was unable to stop the Ottomans from entering Wallachia and occupying the capital Târgoviște. He was constantly organizing small attacks and ambushes on the Turks, such as The Night Attack when 15,000 Turks were killed.[1]
Vlad III defeated Ottoman Sipahi commanders such as Iosuf Bey, Turkhanbeyoglu Omer Bey and Evrenos Bey. This instigated Mehmed II, who then crossed the Danube.
Vlad the Impaler's attack was celebrated by the Saxon cities of Transylvania, the Italian states and the Pope. A Venetian envoy, upon hearing about the news at the court of Corvinus on 4 March, expressed great joy and said that the whole of Christianity should celebrate Vlad Țepeș's successful campaign. The Genoese from Caffa also thanked Vlad, for his campaign had saved them from an attack of some 300 ships that the sultan planned to send against them.[12]

Defeat

Vlad III's younger brother, the highly capable Radu Bey and his Janissary battalions were given the task of leading the Ottoman Empire to victory at all expense by Sultan Mehmet II. After the Sipahis incursions failed to subdue Vlad, the few remaining Sipahis were killed in a night raid by Vlad III in 1462, killing possibly 4,000 of Radu's troops. However the war raged on, Radu and his formidable Janissary battalion was well supplied with a steady flow of gunpowder and dinars, this advantage allowed them to push deeper into the realm of Vlad III. Radu and his well equipped forces finally besieged and captured Poenari Castle the famed lair of Vlad III. After his difficult victory Radu was then given the title Bey of Wallachia by Sultan Mehmet II.
Vlad III was defeated because the Boyars had been alienated by Vlad's policy and disliked him because he was undermining their authority, and weakening their control over Wallachia. They joined Radu and believed that Ottoman protection was better than Hungarian occupation. Others had their families contained by the Ottomans in Millets (districts) and thus also sided with Radu in order to reunite with their loved ones.
Until 8 September, Vlad obtained another three victories. But continuous war had left him without any money and he could no longer pay his mercenaries. Vlad travelled to Hungary to ask for help from his former ally, Matthias Corvinus. But instead of receiving help he found himself arrested and thrown into the dungeon for high treason. Matthias Corvinus feared that Vlad III and his forces might devastate the rural countryside of Hungary and instigate an Ottoman invasion.

 First marriage

Vlad's first wife, according to local legend, was a noblewoman of unknown origin who died during the siege of Poenari Castle, which was surrounded by the Ottoman army led by his brother Radu Bey and the Wallachian Janissary. A woodland archer, having seen the shadow of Vlad's wife behind a window, shot an arrow through the window into Vlad's main quarters with a message warning him that Radu's army was approaching. McNally and Florescu explain that the archer was one of Vlad's relatives who sent the warning out of loyalty despite having converted to Islam and served in the ranks of Radu Bey. Upon reading the message, Vlad's wife threw herself from the tower into a tributary of the Argeș River flowing below the castle, saying she would rather rot and be eaten by the fish of the Argeș than be led into captivity by the Turks. Today, the tributary is called Râul Doamnei (the "Lady's River", also called the Princess's River). This legend is the only known historical reference to Vlad's first marriage.

Captivity in Hungary

Matthias Corvinus had received from the Pope a consistent financial support to fight against the Turks. But he had spent the money on completely different purposes. He now had the Ottomans at his borders, and needed someone to use as a scapegoat.
When Vlad came to him to ask for his help with fighting the war, Matthias Corvinus arrested him using false documents: a forged letter, in which Vlad pledged loyalty to Mehmed II and promised to strike an agreement with the Ottomans over Wallachia.
Vlad was imprisoned at Oratia, a fortress located at Podu Dâmboviței Bridge. A period of imprisonment in Visegrád, near Buda followed, where the Wallachian prince was held for 10 years. Then he was imprisoned in Buda.
The exact length of Vlad's period of captivity is open to some debate, though indications are that it was from 1462 until 1474. Diplomatic correspondence from Buda seems to indicate that the period of Vlad's effective confinement was relatively short. Radu's openly pro-Ottoman policy as voivode probably contributed to Vlad's rehabilitation.

Second marriage

Gradually winning back King Matthias's favour, he married Ilona Szilágyi, a cousin of the king, and in the years before his final release in 1474, lived with her in a house in the Hungarian capital.
Around 1465, Ilona bore him two sons: the elder, Vlad IV Dracula, spent most of his time in the king's retinue and later was an unsuccessful claimant to the Wallachian throne. The younger, whose name is unknown, lived with the Bishop of Oradea in Transylvania until 1482, when he fell ill. He returned to Buda, where he died in his mother's presence.[14] The descendants of Vlad and Ilona married into Hungarian nobility.

Third reign and death

On 26 November 1476, Vlad III declared his third reign. Vlad began preparations for the reconquest of Wallachia and in 1476, with Hungarian support, invaded the country and crossed the river Danube. Vlad’s third reign lasted little more than two months when he was killed on the battlefield, during a fierce confrontation with the Ottoman Sipahis near Bucharest in 1476.[15] Vlad III was buried in the Snagov monastery, and his head is believed to be in Istanbul.[16]
He was taken back to Wallachia and buried. In the early 1900s Vlad was exhumed for research. The researchers found nothing. Remains were found around his grave, and were thought to be the prince's. He was buried again and left there until another dig took place years later. His grave was found destroyed and no remains were found.[17] The other theory is that Vlad is buried at Snagov, an island monastery located near Bucharest.[18]

Legacy

Methods of execution

Woodblock print of Vlad the Impaler dining in the presence of numerous impaled corpses
When he came to power, Vlad ruled with the intention of exacting revenge on the boyars for killing his father and eldest brother. Though Vlad took nearly a decade to do so, he fulfilled this vow, completing the task on an Easter Sunday around 1457. The older boyars and their families were immediately impaled. The younger and healthier nobles and their families were marched north from Târgoviște to the ruins of Poienari Castle in the mountains above the Argeș River, 40 miles north of Târgoviște. Vlad was determined to rebuild this ancient fortress as his own stronghold and refuge so he might monitor the movements of the Hungarians coming through Transylvania and the Turks of the Ottoman Empire. The enslaved boyars, their families and some master masons were forced to labor until their deaths, rebuilding the old castle with materials from another nearby ruin. According to tradition, they labored until the clothes fell off their bodies and then were forced to continue working naked. None survived the construction of castle Poienari, as those who did not die from exhaustion were impaled.
Throughout his reign, Vlad 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. Vlad was determined that his own power be on a modern and thoroughly secure footing. In place of the executed boyars, Vlad promoted new men from among the free peasantry and middle class, who would be loyal only to their prince.
Vlad the Impaler's reputation was considerably darker in Western Europe than in Eastern Europe and Romania. The fame of his cruelty spread in the form of a pamphlet, seriously exaggerated, and promoted by Matthias Corvinus. Matthias tarnished Vlad’s reputation and credibility for a political reason: as an explanation for why he had not helped Vlad fight the Ottomans in 1462, for which purpose he had received money from most Catholic states in Europe. Matthias employed the charges of Southeastern Transylvania, and produced fake letters of high treason, written on 7 November 1462.
In the West, Vlad III Țepeș has been characterized as a tyrant who took sadistic pleasure in torturing and killing. The number of his victims ranges from 40,000 to 100,000.[19] According to the German stories the number of victims he had killed was at least 80,000. In addition to the 80,000 victims mentioned he also had whole villages and fortresses destroyed and burned to the ground.[20] These numbers are most likely exaggerated.[21]
The atrocities committed by Vlad in the German stories include impaling, torturing, burning, skinning, roasting, and boiling people, feeding people the flesh of their friends or relatives, cutting off limbs, and drowning. All of these punishments mainly came from things people did that displeased Vlad the most; stealing, lying, and adulterous relations. Other methods of punishment included skinning the feet of thieves, then putting salt on them and letting goats lick off the salt. This was a way that Vlad kept his people in order and taught them that stealing would not be tolerated in his lands. No exceptions were made: he punished anyone who broke his laws, whether men or women, no matter the age, religion or social class.
Impalement was Vlad's preferred method of torture and execution. His method of torture was a horse attached to each of the victim's legs as a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. Death by impalement was slow and agonizing. Victims sometimes endured for hours or even days. Vlad 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.
One of the most famous woodcuts of the period shows Vlad feasting in a forest of stakes and their grisly burdens outside Brașov, while a nearby executioner cuts apart other victims. This place was famously known as the Forest of the Impaled. In this forest is a story of Vlad's "sense of humor": a servant was holding his nose and Vlad said to him while feasting, "Why do you do that?" The servant replied, "I cannot stand the stench." Vlad immediately ordered him impaled on the highest stake and said, "Then you shall live up there, where the stench cannot reach you." [22]
Vlad the Impaler is alleged to have committed even more impalements and other tortures against invading Ottoman forces. It was reported that an invading Ottoman army turned back in fright when it encountered thousands of rotting corpses impaled on the banks of the Danube.[10] It has also been said that in 1462 Mehmed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, a man noted for his own psychological warfare tactics, returned to Constantinople after being sickened by the sight of 20,000 impaled corpses outside Vlad's capital of Târgoviște. 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 40,000. The warrior sultan turned command of the campaign against Vlad over to subordinates and returned to Constantinople, even though his army had initially outnumbered Vlad's three to one and was better equipped.

German stories about Vlad the Impaler

Vlad the Impaler as Pontius Pilate judging Jesus Christ. National Gallery, Ljubljana, 1463
The German stories circulated first in manuscript form in the late 15th century and the first manuscript was probably written in 1462 before Vlad's arrest.[21] The text was later printed in Germany and had major impact on the general public becoming a best-seller of its time with numerous later editions adding and altering the original text.
In addition to the manuscripts and pamphlets the German version of the stories can be found in the poem of Michel Beheim. The poem called "Von ainem wutrich der hies Trakle waida von der Walachei" ("Story of a Madman Called Dracula of Wallachia") was written and performed at the court of Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor during the winter of 1463.[23]
To this day four manuscripts and 13 pamphlets are found as well as the poem by Michel Beheim. The surviving manuscripts date from the last quarter of the 15th century to the year 1500 and the found pamphlets date from 1488 to 1559–1568.
Eight of the pamphlets are incunabula: they were printed before 1501. The German stories about Vlad the Impaler consist of 46 short episodes, although none of the manuscripts, pamphlets or the poem of Beheim contain all 46 stories.
All of them begin with the story of the old governor, John Hunyadi, having Vlad's father killed, and how Vlad and his brother renounced their old religion and swore to protect and uphold the Christian faith. After this, the order and titles of the stories differs by manuscript and pamphlet editions.[20]
The German stories were written most likely for political reasons, especially to blacken the image of the Wallachian ruler. The first version of the German text was probably written in Brașov by a Saxon scholar. According to some researchers, the writer expressed the general feelings of the Saxons in Brașov and Sibiu who had borne the brunt of Vlad’s wrath in 1456–1457 and again in 1458–1459 and 1460.
Against this political and cultural backdrop, it is quite easy to understand the hostility towards Vlad the Impaler. Although there is historic background for the events described in the German stories, some are either exaggerated or even fictitious.
The Hungarian king, Matthias Corvinus, also had political reasons for promoting Vlad's image as an evil prince. Corvinus had received large subsidies from Rome and Venice for the war against the Ottomans, but because of a conflict with Holy Roman Emperor, Emperor Frederick III, he could not afford the military support for the fight.
By making Vlad a scapegoat, Corvinus could justify his reasons for not taking part in the war against the Ottomans. He arrested Vlad and used a forged letter in which Vlad announced his loyalty to Mehmed II, as well as horror stories about Vlad, to justify his actions to the Pope. In 1462 and 1463, the court in Buda fostered negative stories of Vlad in central and Eastern Europe, and capitalized on the horrors attributed to him.[21]
The stories eventually changed from propaganda to literature and became very popular in the German world in the 15th and 16th centuries. Part of the reason for this success was the newly invented printing press, which allowed the texts to filter to a wide audience.
Vlad the Impaler as Aegeas, the Roman proconsul in Patras, crucifying Saint Andrew. Approximately 1470–1480, Belvedere Galleries, Vienna

Russian stories about Vlad the Impaler

The Russian or the Slavic version of the stories about Vlad the Impaler called "Skazanie o Drakule voevode" ("The Tale of Warlord Dracula") is thought to have been written sometime between 1481 and 1486. Copies were made from the 15th century to the 18th century, of which some twenty-two extant manuscripts survive in Russian archives.[24] The oldest one, from 1490, ends as follows: "First written in the year 6994 of the Byzantine calendar (1486), on 13 February; then transcribed by me, the sinner Efrosin, in the year 6998 (1490), on 28 January". The Tales of Prince Dracula is neither chronological nor consistent, but mostly a collection of anecdotes of literary and historical value concerning Vlad Țepeș.
There are 19 anecdotes in The Tales of Prince Dracula which are longer and more constructed than the German stories. It can be divided into two sections: The first 13 episodes are non-chronological events most likely closer to the original folkloric oral tradition about Vlad. The last six episodes are thought to have been written by a scholar who collected them, because they are chronological and seem to be more structured. The stories begin with a short introduction and the anecdote about the nailing of hats to ambassadors heads. They end with Vlad's death and information about his family.[25]
Of the 19 anecdotes there are ten that have similarities to the German stories.[26] Although there are similarities between the Russian and the German stories about Vlad, there is a clear distinction with the attitude towards him. The Russian stories tend to portray him in a more positive light: he is depicted as a great ruler, a brave soldier and a just sovereign. Stories of atrocities tend to seem to be justified as the actions of a strong ruler. Of the 19 anecdotes, only four seem to have exaggerated violence.[27] Some elements of the anecdotes were later added to Russian stories about Ivan the Terrible of Russia.[28]
The nationality and identity of the original writer of the anecdotes Dracula is disputed. The two most plausible explanations are that the writer was either a Romanian priest or a monk from Transylvania, or a Romanian or Moldavian from the court of Stephen the Great in Moldavia. One theory claims the writer was a Russian diplomat named Fyodor Kuritsyn.[29]

Vampire legend

It is most likely that Bram Stoker found the name for his vampire from William Wilkinson's book, An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia: with various Political Observations Relating to Them. [30] It is known that Stoker made notes about this book.[31] It is also suggested by some that because Stoker was a friend of a Hungarian professor (Ármin Vámbéry) from Budapest, Vlad'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 lent itself to Stoker's purposes. However, recent research suggests that Stoker actually knew little about the Prince of Wallachia.[31]
The legend of the vampire was and still is deeply rooted in that region. There have been vampire-like creatures in various stories from across the world. However, the vampire, as he became known in Europe, largely originated in Southern Slavic folklore – although the closest equivalent in Romanian folklore relates to strigoi. A veritable epidemic of vampirism swept through Eastern Europe beginning in the late 17th century and continuing through the 18th century. 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 Ludovico Fatinelli wrote his famous treatise on vampirism in Hungary. It was also during this period that authors and playwrights first began to explore the vampire legend. 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 legend in Europe, it is perhaps natural that Stoker should place his great vampire in the heart of the region that gave birth to the story. 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.

Romanian attitudes

Romanian folklore and literature, on the other hand, paints Vlad Țepeș as a hero. His reputation in his native country as a man who stood up to both foreign and domestic enemies gives him the virtual opposite symbolism of Stoker's vampire. In Romania he is considered one of the greatest leaders in the country's history, and was voted one of "100 Greatest Romanians" in the "Mari Români" television series aired in 2006.
A contemporary portrait of Vlad III, rediscovered by Romanian historians in the late 19th century, had been featured in the gallery of horrors at Innsbruck's Ambras Castle. This original has been lost to history, but a larger copy, painted anonymously in the latter half of the 16th century, now hangs in the same gallery.[1][2] This copy, unlike the cryptoportraits contemporary with Vlad III, seems to have given him a Habsburg lip, although he was not a member of the Habsburg lineage.
His image in modern Romanian culture clashes with foreign perceptions. It is the last part of a rather popular 19th century poem by Mihai Eminescu,"Scrisoarea a III-a", that helped turn Vlad's image into modern legend, by having him stand as a figure to contrast with presumed social decay under the Phanariotes and the political scene of the 19th century (even suggesting that Vlad's violent methods be applied as a cure). Notably though, the first author to depict Vlad as a Romanian heroic character was a Transylvanian who probably never travelled to Wallachia, Ioan Budai-Deleanu. Around 1800 he wrote a Romanian epic heroicomic poem, "Țiganiada", in which prince Vlad Țepeș stars as a fierce warrior fighting the Ottomans. Well in advance of Romanian literature at that time, this work, unlike Eminescu's, remained unpublished and ignored for a century, and did not exert any influence.
All accounts of his life describe him as ruthless, but only the ones originating from his Saxon detractors paint him as sadistic or insane. These pamphlets continued to be published long after his death, though usually for lurid entertainment rather than propaganda purposes. It has largely been forgotten until recently that his tenacious efforts against the Ottoman Empire won him many staunch supporters in his lifetime, not just in modern day Romania but in the kingdoms of Hungary, Poland, the Republic of Venice, the Holy See, and the Balkans. A Hungarian court chronicler reported that King Matthias "had acted in opposition to general opinion" in Hungary when he had Dracula imprisoned, and this played a considerable part in Matthias reversing his unpopular decision. During his time as a "distinguished prisoner" before being fully pardoned and allowed to reconquer Wallachia, Vlad was hailed as a Christian hero by visitors from all over Europe.

Film and book adaptations

Unlike the fictional Dracula films, there have been comparatively few movies about the man who inspired the vampire. The 1975 documentary In Search of Dracula explores the legend of Vlad the Impaler. He is played in the film by Christopher Lee, known for his numerous portrayals of the fictional Dracula in films ranging from the 1950s to the 1970s.[32]
In 1979, a Romanian film called Vlad Țepeș (sometimes known, in other countries, as The True Story of Vlad the Impaler) was released, based on his six-year reign and brief return to power in late 1476. The character is portrayed in a mostly positive perspective though the film also mentions the excesses of his regime and his practice of impalement. The lead character is played by Ștefan Sileanu.[33]
Vlad was depicted in his youth in the 1989 Romanian film Mircea, which focused on the reign of his grandfather, Mircea I of Wallachia (AD 1386-1418).
Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula, a film released in 2000, tells the life story of Vlad the Impaler mostly accurately, but has a fictitious ending in which Vlad rises from the grave as an immortal with supernatural powers, implying he has now become the legendary vampire character. Vlad is portrayed in the film by German actor Rudolf Martin, who also portrayed Dracula in an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in the same year.
Numerous film adaptations of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula and original works derived from it have incorporated Vlad the Impaler's history into the fictional Count Dracula's past, depicting them as the same person. These include, among others: the 1972–1979 comic book series The Tomb of Dracula from Marvel Comics, the 1973 film Dracula, starring Jack Palance, the 1979 BBC/Masterpiece Theater production Dracula, starring Louis Jordan, the 1992 film Bram Stoker's Dracula, starring Gary Oldman as Dracula, and the anime and manga, Hellsing.
In The Diaries of the Family Dracul, a trilogy by Jeanne Kalogridis, Vlad Țepeș is merged with his fictional counterpart, Count Dracula. The novels use elements of both Vlad's life and Stoker's novel to portray the character of Vlad the Impaler.
The Historian, a 2005 novel by American author Elizabeth Kostova, also blends the history and folklore of Vlad Țepeș and his fictional equivalent Count Dracula. Much of Vlad's life is portrayed accurately, despite the novel's supernatural overtones.
In his 2009 novel Vlad: The Last Confession C.C. Humphreys presents a fictionalized version of the life and times of Vlad Țepeș.
On Spike TV's show Deadliest Warrior, Vlad was pitted against Chinese philosopher Sun-Tzu. Vlad emerged the overall victor with a score of 652 kills to Sun Tzu's 348 in 1,000 computer-simulated head-to-head battles.
Vlad Tepes is also one of the supporting characters of Jeannie Frost's "Night Huntress" series, as well as the main character in two of her upcoming spin-off books, part of the "Night Huntress World". Frost's Vlad is a combination of the historical character with the legend of Vampirism. He hates to be called "Dracula" and the heroine of the "Night Huntress" books, Cat, calls him "an "over-publicized bat" (even though they are good friends) referring to the many books written and movies made about him. He is, like the historical character, very protective of his people. Part of his background story is similar to the background story Francis Ford Coppola gave to his Dracula in 1992.
In 2009 Alternative Rock group Kasabian released a song named after Vlad 'Vlad The Impaler', the promo video features Noel Fielding dressed up as the figure himself, in a grotesque and exaggerated way. The lyrics include "cut throat this blood runs thick" this relates to the torturous ways of Vlad himself and the character of Dracula.