Even the most cursory look at the secondary and tertiary sources on Vlad Dracula shows a stunning (or tedious, depending on your personality) number of resources on how bloodthirsty and cruel this particular historical figure was.
To find out where they got their information, I did what every self-respecting historian does. I checked their bibliographies for their primary sources. This is what I found.
Vlad Dracul II lived from 1431-1476.
No sources survive from Vlad himself (despite it being commonly reported that he was highly educated and literate). This includes any of his legislative acts.
No sources survive from his brothers, father, wives, other relatives, or even friends.
The only primary source that is contemporary to Vlad's life is in the Monastery of St. Gall, in Switzerland. It was written by an unknown author in 1462. The manuscript gives a number of anecdotes about Vlad (thirty-two, according to the translation I read). The translator claims that six of those thirty-two stories are confirmed by other sources, but does not name those sources.
The stories discussing Vlad's crimes against humanity were not verified by other contemporary sources.
The Russian and German documents that discuss Vlad's preference for disemboweling animals, etc., etc., etc., date from 1490 at the earliest.
The woodcut portraits of Vlad date from 1488 and 1491. The famous oil portrait comes from the second half of the 17th century. Which, I might point out, is nearly 200 years after Vlad died.
Many scholars make much of the oral transmissions of the folk tales of Romania. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any analysis of these stories by anthropologists or historians that would confirm the accuracy. Folk tales often are multipurpose stories - they could be cautionary tales or money makers to fleece the unsuspecting. I've not seen any studies done of where the folktales agree with the primary sources.
For example, contemplate the relationship people in the United States have with George Washington. The old cherry tree tale has been discredited, but how many of us still remember it and tell it?
What all this boils down to is very simple:
We don't know that much about this historical figure.
So as a result, I felt like I could play with this person, bring my own interpretation to the story of Dracula. After all, my outrageous ideas seem to fit right in with the rest. :)
I'm sure that I've missed a lot of information on the historical Dracula. I look forward to hearing from others who want to share their research with me.
The oil portrait image shamelessly www.dracula.info. Fabulous website and lots of fun.
I think that when you have very little primary source material, you need to look at what it says very closely. It is all we are likely to have. I like to look how long it takes for legends to grow. A slow growing legend that matches back up to the remaining primary source is likely to either be mostly accurate or blown out of proportion on purpose. For the story to be blown up on purposes, I look for a reason for it. If I do not find one, then I tend to think the stories have a solid and true origin.
ReplyDeleteI am theorizing that the Dracula stories have grown the way the did for a couple of reasons:
ReplyDelete1. To discourage invaders, especially the Ottoman Turks, by naming all the horrible things that will happen to them.
2. They discuss the common tortures and punishments of the time.
and
3. They make great boogie-men stories.
I'm not saying that Vlad Dracul wasn't creepy as all get out. I am saying we don't really know what his real actions were.
Of course since it is such a wonderful bogeyman story, this all leads to a super fun conversation about why Vlad is such a rich jumping off point for all kinds of literature. Scaring potential invaders is a practical use of the myth.
ReplyDeleteStoker used him as a metaphor for the corruption of a decaying monarchy. (Among other things) He was able to use this platform to talk about the sexual agency of women and predatory sexuality in general without having to talk about sex at all.
It is totally amazing to me that you can read a child a story about Vlad the Impaler (or the gruesome Grimm's tales) and we take it for granted.
But if you try to talk to children about what a clitoris is, all hell breaks loose.
No wonder we embrace shaky scholarship, since we are forbidden to talk about the truth.