Saturday, September 26, 2009

The Real Dracula

I live in Transylvania.

“What? That's a real place?” you ask.

Yes. Transylvania is a real place. It is one of the three main geographic regions of Romania (Wallachia and Moldova being the others). Transylvania has a fascinating history, but I will share that in another post. Right now, let me tell you just a little bit about the most famous resident of Transylvania.

Vlad II Dracul was a prince of Wallachia between 1436-1442, and 1443-1447. He received the surname Dracul in 1431, after being inducted into the Order of the Dragon, by Sigismund, the king of Hungary (and later the Holy Roman Emperor). This medieval knightly order aimed at defending Christianity and defending it against its enemies (mainly the Ottoman Empire), symbolized by the dragon. However, in the Slavonic language, “Dracul” can also be translated, “devil.” Consequently, when people saw Vlad with the insignia of a dragon, they interpreted it as meaning that he was in in league with the devil.

Before he came to power, he lived in Sighişoara (supposedly in or near the house pictured to the right). It is said that while living there, he had a son, also named Vlad. As was custom, -ea was added to his son's name, to distinguish it from the father's name (like Johnson). Draculea literally means “son of the Dragon,” and he became known as the “son of the devil.”

Vlad III Draculea also became a prince in Wallachia. He became known for his cruel punishment to his adversaries. His most common form of execution was to impale his enemies. He, therefore, became known as Vlad Tepeş, which, when translated, means “Vlad the Impaler.” He continues to be a controversial figure in Romania. Some consider him a national hero because he saved Wallachia from the Turks. Others emphasize his severe forms of punishment.

Over time, the “e” was dropped from his surname, and he has become known simply as Vlad III Dracula. History might have forgotten about Dracula, had it not been for Irish novelist Bram Stoker, who used Transylvania as the setting for his 1897 novel and stole the name of Dracula from the pages of history. The historical Dracula (pictured to the right) was a prince, not a count; he impaled people, he was not a vampire.

But legends abound concerning Dracula. At times it is hard to separate the fact from the fiction from the historical Dracula. The growing tourism industry in Transylvania caters to people's fantasies. One thing is to be sure. There are no blood-thirsty vampires in Transylvania.

2 comments:

Unknown said...

Thanks for posting Jonathan,
I did research on both fater and son last year for a US author. It is good off you to set the record straight on Romania and especially Transylvania as it was so important in the early 1500's to the history of both Russia and Western (Frankish) Europe. I wish people stopped portraying it as a back water.
Without the Dracul and the Corvinus struggle Paris would be speaking Turkish and Moscow would be a little known village in a villayet ruled from Kiew or Akkerman.
May today be a reason for praise.

Anonymous said...

I have heard that not all the rumors of Vlad were true - but it seems odd that those are the only facts that led to Bram Stoker's Dracula. I'm still very interested in coming up to visit with you - and see some of the true sites and well as commercial tourist-y sites dealing with Dracula.

Hope all is well - Jake