Most accept that there is a link between Bram Stoker's Count Dracula and the historical figure of Vlad Tepes, the 15th century ruler of Wallachia, known for his ruthlessness and his bloody atrocities, who was also known as Dracula. A debate rages though about how closely Stoker modeled his vampire after Vlad Tepes. Some point out numerous similarities between Count Dracula and Vlad Tepes and claim that Stoker deliberately used Vlad Tepes as his model for Dracula. But Professor Elizabeth Miller maintains that Bram Stoker merely made use of a name he found in a book by William Wilkinson, entitled An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. In his notes Stoker commented on a footnote from the book, "Dracula in Wallachian language means Devil." She states he liked the name and used it without knowing much about the original Dracula. For a good summary of this debate, check out http://www.donlinke.com/drakula/vlad.htm and of course Dr. Elizabeth Millers -- Dracula's Homepage http://www.ucs.mum.ca/~emiller
My opinion on the debate -- as a writer, I can well imagine Stoker being attracted to the name Dracula, a great name is a great name, and believe me Dracula is a great name. I'm always looking for interesting names, watching the credits at ends of movies, reading phone books. In fact, I sometimes wonder if Dracula would have been as popular without the name. After all, do we remember the name of John Polidori's vampire? Or would it be the same if it was Count Tepes? Yes, I tend to agree with Professor Miller, I think Stoker used the name without trying to write about a historical figure because it is a lot easier to make up a character than be tied to a need for historical accuracy.
Then you have a few facts, first, Vlad Tepes was Vlad III, a Prince (Voivode), the ruler of Wallachia. He was not a count, nor was he from Transylvania, although the vampire legends, the hysteria that had spread across Europe in the late 1700s and early 1800s was from Transylvania. Then we have Vlad's atrocities. He was, depending on who was writing the accounts, either a cruel barbarian who impaled 10,000 to 30,000 people at a time, whose cruelty included women and children and such senseless acts as nailing hats to ambassador's heads, or he was a great warrior who fought the Turks, took away the power of the boyars and raised up the common people, whose harsh punishment created a kingdom without crime, and who hated lies and awarded honesty. His acts though excessive were no more than what others were
Go To Page: 1 2
