The Dracula fiction and Transylvania

The extent of Dracula image in today society make people believe that it has some real basis.

In fact, there is nothing true. Everything was invented by Bram Stoker but is true that he inspired from several real elements which he put together.


I think he firstly was incited by the romanticism of name Transylvania or perhaps he have read about the medieval German cronicle which depicted a 15th century Wallachian voivod, Vlad the 3rd, in a fantasmagoricaly way.

Bram Stoker picked superficialy some data about Transylvania and produced a completely commercialy book which created a genre in literature and even more, in cinematography. He have seen on a map of Transylvania (at the end of 19th century Transylvania was still part of Austroungarian empire) the toponym Bargau (Borgo on Hungarian maps) which for him sounded close to Burgum and he placed there the castle of his imaginary vampire count. But Bargau toponym is not derivating from Burgum.

Bargau is very quiet mountain pass between Transylvania and Moldavia, in Bistrita Nasaud county. In Ceausescu's time, here was built a hotel with a "medieval" architecture, to atract foreigner tourists as customers.


Vlad the 3rd preserved in the popular memory as Vlad tepes (Vlad the Impaler) was one of most important voivods og Wallachia. He was very devoted to his country, very brave and wise.

But also, he has drastical methods to keep the country in clean estate. He was killing the beggers, the boyars and the Turkish invaders by impaling them. For this, he gained the reputation of a bloodish figure during his time.

But the mythified image was created by German and Hungarian detractors, with him Vlad have had conflicts:


"German Pamphlets

At the time of Vlad Dracula�s death Matthias Corvinus of Hungary was seeking to bolster his own reputation in the Holy Roman Empire and may have intended the early pamphlets as justification of his less than vigorous support of his vassal. It must also be remembered that German merchants were often the victims of Vlad Dracula�s cruelty. The pamphlets thus painted Vlad Dracula as an inhuman monster who terrorized the land and butchered innocents with sadistic glee."

http://www.donlinke.com/drakula/vlad.htm#Evidence



The article on Wikipedia is quite complete:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_Dracula




So, Bram Stoker exploited the name of Transylvania and the figure of Vlad Tepes to make money with his book.

But which have been the effects for Transylvania and Romania?

Untill the first decades of 20th century, when the story of Dracula was not largely popular, Transylvania was a land like others, maybe just finer in its natural and cultural heritage.

But the propagation of Dracula image and implicitly of a misterious Transylvania lead to a phenomenon: this land was no more seen as a normal territory but as a land of vampires, dark and mistery. Foreigners can't think at Transylvania without thinking at Dracula and this creates a collective psychosis.

The people in Romania, especialy the Transylvanians, are very affected by this, even they don't realise this. Dracula's story make Transylvania has an aura of superiority which is a deformed percepetion of reality which extent not just to the conscience about this territory and its culture: Transylvanians are tended to see everything distorted due to this spirit created by Bram Stoker's book.


Edited by Menumorut - 23-Mar-2007 at 13:59

Heh heh.. I still think Transylvania is mysterious, the whole Carpathians are. Any mountain range that isolates an area/culture will tend to give an air of mystery or timelessness.

I think the mysterious feeling is due to Dracula legend. Without it, everything would have been more luminous.

I know where Banat is.I am studying about Romanian ethnogenesis,and i am currently in the 5th century AD.I have some more centuries to study, up to creation of Romanian Nation-State.I think i will manage it.

Interesting stuff Manumorut.

There are a few things I have to disagree with.

You are right that the Dracula myth is fiction and has not connection to Romania, except in a modern culturally imported fashion. Bram Stoker's imagination was extremely strong and his research on Transylvania was extremely small.

Bram Stoker did not base Dracula on Vlad Tepes, this is actually a creation based on amateur Historians imagination, not the imagination of Stoker. Now the word Dracula I believe means devil in Romanian and this is what Stoker was using, Dracula was supposed to be the image of Evil not a historical character. He was the Devil, or a form of the devil. In Bram Stokers research for the book, he never once read anything about Vlad the Impaler and the only reference too Vlad the Impaler did not use the World Vlad Dracul or something similar.

So, Bram Stoker exploited the name of Transylvania and the figure of Vlad Tepes to make money with his book.

This is more or less a half truth. You are right that Transylvania as a place is extremely important for the book and its early success. It wasn't actually the first place that he was going to set the place. I believe the first place was in Slovakia (I'm not sure which region, I've not got my research here). His inspiration for Transylvania possibly came from two areas, it is known he took out a travel book from a certain period, that had pictures of Transylvanian castles and architecture. This book really highlights the gothic side of the region, which is really a central theme of the book anyway.

The other issue is Transylvania's position in Europe - it is on the fringe. It is a place that is close but not too close. A dark corner of home, something like this. It is the perfect setting of a book of this type and worked well in the imagination of Britons of the day, to some extent it still does.

The other myth is Bran Castle, suitably named and rather well placed as a tourist destination for all those 'dracula' tourists. It is the perfect castle for Dracula. Unfortunately there is no evidence that Bram Stoker actually had any knowledge of the existence of this Castle, it was not in any of the books Bram Stoker used to research the books. Rebecca Haynes, a Historians researching the topic, cites plenty of other possible sites, but believes its probably an amalgamation and, more importantly, a creation.

You are right about Transylvania as a dark region of Europe, it still does possess a certain amount of wonder. Its like the haunted house down your street. Obviously this is far from reality, having travelled frequently to the area, all I can say is that it does have some 'scary' parts - the forests and the old architecture, but its just normal.

Indeed, as a Romanian living abroad, I find that often the only things that North-Americans know about Romania are Transylvania and Nadia Comaneci! My father was from Transylvania (actually from Banat, but no one here knows where that is), and when I tell people about that, they instantly start making comments about vampires. There's even documentaries about Transylvania on TV, concentrating almost exclusively on "Dracula" and Vlad Tepes, and in fact they do little to help the problem, because they show almost exclusively the German side of the story of Vlad Tepes. The historical Vlad is presented as little better than Dracula...

Are you second generation Romanian or First? I've been studying Romanians living in London, you really are an interesting bunch. Its amazing some of the people you get to talk too - including descedents of Voivoids.

I was asking them about similar things - their opinions about what British people thought of them as Romanians and about ROmania. I must admit Nadia Comenci, Ceasescu (because of the visit) and execution, orphanages and stealing, seem to be the sorts of things that are connected to Romania. The Vampire and Communist mentality, these are the funniest ones though. I talked to one person who said she had been asked about these things and she was confused, having lived in the UK since before Communism and before the re-emergence of Dracula!


As for Vlad Tepes. I don't know the Historical truth about the character. He is popularised by Romanian Historians and Amateur Historians alike, if it wasn't for stories like Dracula, I think he would be completely ignored outside of Romania and academic circles. What i find weird is how Mihai Bravu/Vitezul is often overshadowed by Vlad Tepes. I find Lucian Boia's arguments about why very interesting.

I think that the worst effect of this whole Dracula story was that it propagated an absolutely false image of the people living in Romania, as being primitive, isolated and backward. This image may be "good"  for tourism, but it's definitely bad for other businesses...I mean, who would buy for instance high end electronic devices made in "the land of Dracula"...

Although this is the modern problem of Bram Stokers book. It certainly wasn't the main aim of his book when he wrote it. yes, he used a region that based on contemporary attitudes already was fairly mysterious, but he didn't have any image creation motives. I think his main motives were to make a good book. He was also writing a book that was part of a trend of 'invasion' stories, based on themes of degeneracy and evil. So I don't think he was specifically writing against the Romanians, he was just writing popular fiction in the late 19th century.




Edited by Ovidius - 29-Mar-2007 at 15:12

Originally posted by Ovidius   Indeed, as a Romanian living abroad, I find that often the only things that North-Americans know about Romania are Transylvania and Nadia Comaneci! My father was from Transylvania (actually from Banat, but no one here knows where that is), and when I tell people about that, they instantly start making comments about vampires. There's even documentaries about Transylvania on TV, concentrating almost exclusively on "Dracula" and Vlad Tepes, and in fact they do little to help the problem, because they show almost exclusively the German side of the story of Vlad Tepes. The historical Vlad is presented as little better than Dracula... Are you second generation Romanian or First? I've been studying Romanians living in London, you really are an interesting bunch. Its amazing some of the people you get to talk too - including descedents of Voivoids.

In the end ,Dracula will survive up to the end of human species' time,if we suppose there are archives of any form.That's a plus for Romania.

I think that the worst effect of this whole Dracula story was that it propagated an absolutely false image of the people living in Romania, as being primitive, isolated and backward. This image may be "good"  for tourism, but it's definitely bad for other businesses...I mean, who would buy for instance high end electronic devices made in "the land of Dracula"...

 

 

Sorry xaser, but thats pure rubbish, did you actually read the book? Do you know what era it is set? Bram Stoker wasn't thinking about tourism when he wrote the book, no one would care where the goods came from as long as they were cheap and good, etc etc

 

I loved the book, and the way it's written through a series of memos and diary entries, made the ending a bit of a damp squib though, because we already knew that they had survived. Good topic though..

Yet, if you should go to Dracula's Castle in Bistrita Nasaud (just been there this week, I'm in Baia Mare now) you will notice that except Dracula fanatsyes there are not also historical facts shown to the public.

You speak about the hotel in Piatra F�nt�nele, B�rgau mountain pass, built in the '80-s in the athmosphere of medieval castles and called "Hotel Dracula":




Edited by Menumorut - 15-Jun-2007 at 11:10

No one would care about electronic goods being made in the 'land of Dracula' as long as they were cheap and quality. Plus, the dracula fiction has brought nothing but money to these areas with tourism centred around the stories and fantasy.

I read that book long time ago, but I remember one detail.