Good Ol' Dracula

This year marks the 8th anniversary of the first printing of my first book, Dracula's Secret! As a result, I'm revisiting some early blog posts about my process.

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.

Blast from the Past: Primary Source Research

A blast from the past - a blog post from 2010.

For Dracula's Secret, I had to do a lot of research into the Nazi war effort. I wasn't satisfied with the usual secondary and tertiary sources, so I went hunting.




 I got sidetracked by some research. I was figuring out how modern Berlin differed in layout from World War II Berlin, especially what happened to the land where the final bunker was.

(It's an apartment block and playground now. How very cool!)

In the course of looking that up, I found a book called In the Bunker with Hitler by Bernd Freytag von  Loringhoven.

Von L, as I started to call him, was a Captain in the regular Army, and was aide-de-camp to the Army chiefs of staff- Guderian and Krebs. He describes his experiences in the Bunker from July 23, 1944 to April 29, 1945.

It's a fast,  fascinating read, and I suddenly wanted to do a paper on Group Think and the Third Reich. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, by Irving L. Janis is one of my favorite books. This would be an amazing study, full of footnotes and quotes (and parenthetical statements).

But alas, there is only so much time in the world. So instead, I'm going to use In the Bunker... as a primary source on Hitler's behavior and personality in the last days of World War II. Some of my notes:

1. Never underestimate the power of charismatic, motivated, deluded idiot.
2. As much as it sucks, it really does help to listen to people who disagree with you.
3. As nice as it is in your own little world where your soldiers are at full strength with plenty of food, ammunition, fuel, and not being killed by your enemy, you might want to maybe, just maybe try playing make-believe.
4. The regular Army really didn't know about the war atrocities. I never understood that before, but after hearing how Hitler ran things, I see how he did it, and why. (Secret meetings with the Nazi party because he didn't trust or like the regular Army men).

This is why primary source research is the most fun of all.

Aha!

Remember how I said that the sources for Vlad Dracula really really suck?

Other people think so, too.

"Vlad Dracula was doubtlessly cruel, but not more so than other princes of his time," said Margot Rauch, the Austrian curator of the exhibition, entitled "Dracula - Voivode and Vampire".

Getting Cynical on Vlad Dracula.

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.

Digging around in Primary Sources.

Now you have your sources, primary and otherwise, all laid out. Now what? What criteria do you use to select which ones you wish to consult?

For an example, I will use a famous case of really bad sources and a vicious historical hatchet job, namely, King John I of England (I know this blog is about Dracula's. This example does have relevance to Dracula. Be patient!).

The best structure for an evaluation uses the classic "who, what, when, where, and how" criteria. Here's how to apply these questions to a primary source.

Who?
Who created it? A monk? An adversary? A hagiographer? An admirer? A satirist - hey, are you taking a sarcastic book seriously? (I've done that. It's very embarrassing.) The only contemporary chronicles for King John for whom we know the authors are Gervase of Canterbury and Ralph of Coggeshall. There are scanty anonymous annals from monks from Dunstable, Worcester, and Tewkesbury, and the abbes in Margam in Glamorgan and Waverly in Surrey.

When?
When did they write it? Are they a contemporary of the person or action? Did they write it later using their memories or rumor? John of Wendover wrote his stories after 1226. Matthew Paris began plagiarizing Wendover's stories starting in 1235. King John died in October 1216. John's son, Henry, did not take the throne until September 1217. Does something about those sources look funny to you, too?

What?
What did they create? A book, artwork, or an object? What kind of condition is the item in now? What purpose did it serve? Roger of Wendover very honestly stated that his book was not a history; he wanted an effective foil for sermons against various sins.

Where?
Note that there are regional and temporal differences in climate of opinion. Also, different geographical climates preserve things better than others. So we have wonderful artifacts from dry climates like Egypt, but few from moist climates like SubSaharan Africa. Remember, books are destroyed in a particular pattern as are scrolls and pottery.

How?
Did the creator use eyewitnesses? Other accounts? Is the account littered with unsubstantiated rumor? A good question to ask is how good is the rest of the source. Roger of Wendover's "chronicle" of King John is full of stories that no-one would take seriously. He writes of a washerwoman who broke the Sabbath to work and was exsanguinated by a small black pig for punishment. He writes another story of a loaf bread that because it had been baked on Sunday, ran with blood when it was to be sliced.

"There is one, (it is eighteen pages long) about a peasant named Thurkill from the village of Twinstead in Essex, who, in 1206, was led through the realms of Purgatory by St. Julian. As Wendover tells it, the story has many realistic touches, from the man's name and place where he lived to precise details about the torture chambers of the underworld: in one, for example, stand cauldrons of inky water so bitter that if a piece of wood is thrown in the bark instantly peels off. It is a grim and lively story; but is it true? Wendover certainly seems to think it as authentic as his stories about John; and it is difficult to see on what grounds historians should reject the former while accepting the latter." Warren. P. 11

Now, what if don't have a smoking gun" like the King John example? What if you just feel uncomfortable about using that source? Many historians are nervous about basing a text on controversial "primary sources". Historians will tell you to do another search to see if you can find any sources to supplement, replace, or confirm the references you are using from these sources. The citation will have more authority if you are able to back up your point with multiple sources.


The historiography for this section is based on W.L. Warren's book, King John, published in London by Eyre & Spottiswoode c. 1961. I highly recommend it.