Search the FAQ Archives

3 - A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M
N - O - P - Q - R - S - T - U - V - W - X - Y - Z
faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

[FAQ] The alt.vampyres DRACULA faq


[ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index | Property taxes ]
Archive-name: paranormal/vampyres/dracula-faq
Posting-Frequency: semimonthly
Last-Altered: 10 August 2005
Copyright: (c) 2001 BJ Kuehl

See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge
[NOTE:The alt.vampyres DRACULA faq may be downloaded for personal use.
However, any publication, webhousing, or reposting of this faq must be
with the writer's permission and the copyright must remain intact.
Citations may be attributed to: Kuehl, B.J. (2000). The alt.vampyres
Dracula Faq. Retrieved (date) from Usenet newsgroup: alt.vampyres.]


  This is the alt.vampyres DRACULA FAQ. Comments, corrections, additions
  to this FAQ should be directed to the newsgroup. For other versions
  of alt.vampyres faqs, consult the faq archives on the HoMePaGe of the
  newsgroup at http://altvampyres.com/

  Last altered:
    8 March 2004: Added additional wrong spellings (Teppes, Zeppes)
  of Vlad Tepes to 2.02.
    1 July 2003: General editing. No major changes.
   17 April 2003: Eliminated old 1.03 re: versions of the faq. Updated
  websites and newsgroups [4.01-4.06].

             FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) on alt.vampyres
                             about Dracula

  CONTENTS -

PART 1: FAQs ABOUT THE ALT.VAMPYRES NEWSGROUP
  [1.01] What is the alt.vampyres newsgroup about?
  [1.02] Is there some form of netiquette I should follow if I post?
  [1.03] Is there a homepage for the alt.vampyres newsgroup?

PART 2: FAQs ABOUT THE VOIVODE VLAD "TEPES" DRACULA
  [2.01] Is it true that Stoker based _Dracula_ on Vlad Tepes because
         Tepes liked to impale his enemies and drink their blood?
  [2.02] I've seen Vlad the Impaler's name spelled many different
         ways--Tepes, Tsepes, Tsepesh, Teppes, Zeppes. Which is
	 correct?

PART 3: FAQs ABOUT BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA
  [3.01] How did Stoker come up with the name "Dracula"?
  [3.02] Did Stoker ever write a sequel to _Dracula_?
  [3.03] In which year were the events in _Dracula_ supposed to have
         taken place?
  [3.04] What was the name of the ship in _Dracula_?
  [3.05] How was Dracula finally destroyed?
  [3.06] Why didn't Lucy turn to dust when she was destroyed?
  [3.07] Why did it take both staking AND decapitation to destroy Lucy
         and the three vampiresses?
  [3.08] If the undead cannot be killed except by staking and
         decapitating them, how is is that Dracula was destroyed by
         two perfectly normal knives?
  [3.09] What is St George's Day?
  [3.10] If St George's Eve is 22 April, why is Jonathan's diary entry
         for 4 May?
  [3.11] Who is Arminius? Is he a real person?
  [3.12] On what vampire story did Stoker base _Dracula_?

PART 4: MISCELLANEOUS DRACULA STUFF
  [4.01] Do you know of any good websites about Dracula?
  [4.02] Where can I get a copy of the BBC version of "Dracula" starring
         Louis Jourdan?

PART 5: WHO HAS HELPED TO MAKE THIS FAQ POSSIBLE?


PART 1: FAQ ABOUT THE ALT.VAMPYRES NEWSGROUP

  [1.01] What is the alt.vampyres newsgroup about?

  Alt.vampyres is for the discussion of vampire lore in any culture,
  ancient or modern. The group is also for the discussion of vampires in
  fiction, such as novels, stories, poetry, comics, movies and television,
  as well as for sharing original vampire fiction. Finally, alt.vampyres
  is a place for the discussion of theories about biology, psychology,
  and sociology with respect to the legendary vampire.

  [1.02] Is there some form of netiquette I should follow if I post?

  It is not the purpose of the a.v VAMPIRE LITERATURE faq to be a primer
  for Usenet or newsgroup etiquette. If you are interested in that, search
  out one of the newuser newsgroups, e.g. news.newusers.questions. For a
  quick look at how to post to alt.vampyres, see the Posting Guideline
  which is posted to the newsgroup at the beginning of each week. In
  truth, if you join in with the same friendliness and respect you would
  give to any group of people engaged in conversation, you'll be fine.

  [1.03] Is there a homepage for the alt.vampyres newsgroup?

  There certainly is. The alt.vampyres homepage http://altvampyres.com
  was created by DrLucadra when she was the faqkeeper between 1996 and
  1998. After a two year medical absence during which she literally died
  three times, DrLuc returned to a.v. and redesigned the site, reviving
  the newsgroup's homepage as our place, that is, belonging just to the
  newsgroup. Here you will find copies of other a.v. faqs, hard-to-find
  pre-20th century vampire stories, vampire puzzles and poetry, a Dracula
  quiz, MSTings of bad vampire movies, and a huge number of links to
  other vampire websites.


PART 2: FAQs ABOUT THE VOIVODE VLAD ^”TEPES^‘ DRACULA

  [2.01] Is it true that Stoker based _Dracula_ on Vlad Tepes because
         Tepes liked to impale his enemies and drink their blood?

  The connection between the Count Dracula of Stoker's novel and the
  historical Dracula (Vlad the Impaler) has been greatly overstated. It is
  often stated that Vlad was the "inspiration" for Stoker's novel or that
  the character Dracula was "based" on Vlad. This is mere speculation and
  cannot be supported by documentary evidence.

  This is what we do know. Bram Stoker started working on his novel before
  he ever encountered the name "Dracula". He had originally intended to
  name his vampire "Count Wampyr". But in the summer of 1890, while he was
  vacationing in Whitby, he came across a book by William Wilkinson titled
  _An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia_ (1820). In
  this book there was a short section about a 15th century Wallachian
  voivode [prince/warlord] named Dracula who crossed the Danube River and
  fought against the Turks. The excerpt contains little information about
  Dracula (e.g., there is no reference to his name being Vlad and nothing
  about his impalements and other atrocities). In fact, Wilkinson confuses
  Dracula and his father (Vlad Dracul). But Wilkinson does add a footnote
  indicating that "'Dracula' in the Wallachian language means 'devil'."
  Stoker copied this into his Notes for Dracula, which suggests that this
  was probably why he chose the name.

  The brief references in Wilkinson's book are the only known sources of
  information that Stoker had about the historical Dracula. Everything
  else is speculation. For example, there is no evidence that Stoker did
  any further research on Vlad; there is nothing to indicate that he read
  any of the 15th century manuscripts or ever saw a portrait of Vlad;
  there is nothing to prove that anyone (such as Arminius Vambery) told
  him a single thing about Vlad. It is highly unlikely, given his source
  material, that he even knew that the historical Dracula was named Vlad.
  And he certainly knew nothing about Vlad Dracula's castle at Poenari,
  the location of which was not revealed to the world until 1972. It is
  also important to note that there were never any stories or legends
  connecting Vlad the Impaler with vampires. There is no evidence at all
  to support the story that Vlad actually drank the blood of his victims.

  Even though the connection between the two Draculas has been greatly
  exaggerated, the fact that there was a real Dracula has increased the
  general interest in the fictional Count of Stoker's novel.
  [w/b Elizabeth Miller]

  [2.02] I've seen Vlad the Impaler's name spelled many different ways--
         Tepes, Tsepes, Tsepesh, Teppes, Zeppes. Which is correct?

  The spelling is "Tepes". The problem is that in Romanian, there is a
  cedilla under the "T" (indicating its pronunciation as "Ts") and one
  under the "s" (indicating its pronunciation as "sh"). So "Tsepesh" is
  an attempt to spell it as it sounds rather than as it looks. BTW, Vlad
  Dracula never used the name Tepes. That was a nickname bestowed upon
  him by the Turks. Vlad's family name was Basarab. [w/b Elizabeth Miller]


PART 3: FAQs ABOUT BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA

  [3.01] How did Stoker come up with the name "Dracula"?

  The name of the mythical Dracula comes from a real person, known to the
  world as Vlad Tepes, or Vlad the Impaler. Vlad was voivode (prince and
  warlord) of Wallachia (a province of Romania) during the 1400s. Vlad's
  father, Vlad II, was a knight of the Order of the Dragon and so took for
  himself the name "Dracul." As the son of Vlad II Dracul, Vlad III became
  known as Vlad Dracula (son of Dracul).

  In modern Romanian, "drac" means "devil". "Dracul" means "the devil"
  (the suffix -ul is the definite article). However, the original meaning
  of "drac", as noted above, was "dragon" from the Latin "draconis" or
  "draco." The connection of the Romanian "drac" with the Latin "drac"
  comes from the fact that Romanian is actually a Latin-based language
  related to other Romance languages such as French, Italian, Spanish,
  and Portuguese. The later meaning of "devil" probably derives from the
  medieval association of the devil with the image of the dragon, as in
  St George slaying the dragon.

  Stoker found the name "Dracula" in an 1820 book about Romania. The
  author noted that the name in Romanian meant "devil" (which is probably
  why Stoker selected it for his Count Wampyr). So, by that time the
  meaning had moved from "dragon" to "devil". There is no evidence that
  Stoker knew anything about the Order of the Dragon or that one of the
  Draculas referred to in the book was actually Vlad ^”Tepes^‘ Dracula,
  notorious for his atrocities. But that's another story [q.v. 2.01].

  [3.02] Did Bram Stoker ever write a sequel to _Dracula_?

  No, although his wife did publish his short story "Dracula's Guest",
  which some say was the original first chapter in the novel [this is
  being debated]. A copy of "Dracula's Guest" can be downloaded from the
  alt.vampyres homepage [q.v. 1.03]. You'll be happy to know, however,
  that other authors have added to the storyline with prequels, sequels,
  retellings and alternative timelines. See the alt.vampyres VAMPIRE
  LITERATURE faq for a list.

  [3.03] In which year were the events in _Dracula_ supposed to have
         taken place?

  Stoker began the outline of his novel in March 1890 and finished it in
  April 1896. _Dracula_ was published in 1897. Unfortunately, the novel
  itself yields few dates from which to build a timeline.

  In the endnote, for example, Jonathan writes "Seven years ago we all
  went through the flames." Considering that publication of the novel was
  in 1897, that dates the events as 1890. However, Mina's journal for 1st
  August mentions George Canon's tombstone dated July 29, 1873 and notes
  that Mr. Swales has used it as a seat for "nigh twenty years", which
  puts events around 1893. That, of course, means that Jonathan wrote the
  endnote 'nigh' three years--not seven--after the novel was printed!

  Based on the fact that Stoker's own notes show him to be obsessive about
  details, attempts have been made to date the events by his references to
  train schedules, shipping schedules, and even the phases of the moon.
  For example, using descriptions of the moon given in the characters'
  journals, Leonard Wolf, in _The Annotated Dracula_ assigned the events
  to 1887. But a.v.'s own Bill Thompson also tried to date the events by
  comparing the phases of the moon against an astronomical program. No
  credible matches came up, not without assuming that the moon jumped
  around in its orbit. Stoker seems to have a full moon in the sky
  whenever someone needed the light.

  Fortunately, there are a few items in the book that help to pinpoint a
  possible year. First, there's mention of the Orient Express in Harker's
  diary entry for 15 October. The Orient Express went into service in
  1883. Mina's mention of the 'New Woman' is based on a term which was
  apparently coined in 1893 in the feminist newspaper _The Woman's
  Herald_. Dr. Seward's diary entry for 26 September has Van Helsing
  lamenting the death of "the great Charcot" (referring to Dr. Jean Martin
  Charcot, a French physician whose studies included hypnotism). The
  Encyclopedia Britannica puts Charcot's death on 16 August 1893.

  Moreover, Raymond McNally and Radu Florescu in _The Essential Dracula_
  refer to Stoker's notes which mention "May 2, Tuesday; May 7, Sunday;
  May 9; Tuesday; May 10, Wednesday" [snip two more lines of dates and
  weekdays]. After consulting _Whitaker's Almanac_ for 1893, they found
  that these dates/days of the week coincide with that year. Elizabeth
  Miller corroborates these dates and, in her book _Dracula: Sense &
  Nonsense_, she notes that 21 September (the day of Mr. Hawkins's
  funeral) is a Thursday, as it was in 1893.

  From the evidence above, it appears that Stoker used 1893, certainly
  no earlier, to sort out the timeline for his story. Of course, this
  means that the endnote was indeed added three years after the book was
  printed. What must be remembered is that _Dracula_ is a fictional
  story and need not be tied too closely to literal reality in terms of
  dates or consistency.

  [3.04] What was the name of the ship in _Dracula_?

  Actually, there were two ships. The one that brought Dracula to Whitby
  was named the Demeter. The one that took Dracula from London back to
  Varna was called the Czarina Catherine. An interesting aside is that the
  picture Stoker portrays of the landing of the Demeter in Whitby harbor
  is based on an actual October 1885 grounding in the Whitby harbor of a
  Russian schooner named the Dimitry. We know this because it's recorded
  in Stoker's working notes for _Dracula_.

  [3.05] How was Dracula finally destroyed?

  Dracula has been destroyed in the movies by a wide variety of methods,
  from frying to a crisp in the sunlight to being impaled on a cross. His
  destruction in the novel was nowhere near as dramatic. Lying in his
  earthbox, Dracula was being transported back to his castle by his
  faithful gypsies with the Englishmen hot in pursuit. Jonathan managed
  to fling the box to the ground, and he and Quincey used their knives to
  pry open the lid just as the sun set below the horizon, leaving no time
  for Van Helsing to open his bag, remove stake and hammer, and do it
  traditionally. As Dracula prepared to rise, Quincey desperately plunged
  his bowie knife through Dracula's heart while Jonathan sheared through
  his throat with his Kukri knife. Almost immediately, Dracula's body
  crumbled into dust. In that same instance, the burn on Mina's forehead
  also disappeared.

  [3.06] Why didn't Lucy turn to dust when she was destroyed?

  The three vampiresses also turned to dust when van Helsing destroyed
  them. Van Helsing gives the following explanation: "...hardly had my
  knife severed the head of each, before the whole body began to melt away
  and crumble into its native dust, as though the death that should have
  come centuries agone had at last assert himself and say at once loud
  'I am here!'" [van Helsing's memo, dated 5 November]

  This has been taken to mean that a vampire's body, at its destruction,
  reverts to the state expected had it decomposed naturally. Lucy had
  only recently died, so her body would still look fresh. Dracula and his
  vampiresses were several centuries old. The fact that their bodies
  turned to dust is simply evidence of their advanced age.

  [3.07] Why did it take both staking AND decapitation to destroy Lucy
         and the three vampiresses?

  In traditional vampire lore, the stake through the heart doesn't kill a
  vampire. It merely serves to hold the vampire in place so that other
  means of destruction, such as decaptitation, can be performed without
  having to worry about the vampire escaping or changing form. However,
  Lucy and the vampiresses were dispatched during the daylight hours while
  lying helplessly in their coffins, so why bother staking them? Stoker
  seems to have invented another reason for the staking--that of releasing
  their souls.

  This is evidenced prior to Lucy's staking, when Van Helsing explains
  that, through staking, "the soul of the poor lady whom we love shall
  again be free." He then asks if there is one among them who will "strike
  the blow that sets her free." Arthur is chosen, and he drives the stake
  through Lucy's heart. After her writhing and quivering ceases, but
  before Van Helsing starts the beheading, they look upon her body "as we
  had seen her in her life," and Van Helsing says, "No longer she is the
  devil's Un-Dead. She is God's true dead, whose soul is with Him!" Only
  then does Van Helsing cut off Lucy's head and fill her mouth with garlic
  which presumably serves to destroy the physical body so that it can
  never again rise as a vampire.

  [3.08] If the undead can't be killed except by staking and decapitating
         them, how is it that Dracula was destroyed by two perfectly
         normal knives?

  Stoker (as Van Helsing) mentions other ways of destroying a vampire,
  such as removing the heart or firing a blessed bullet into the coffin.
  But the destruction of Dracula [q.v. 3.05] is one inconsistency in the
  novel that has fueled many lengthy discussions. Several explanations
  have been offered.

  One is that Stoker was rushing to finish the novel, which was written
  and rewritten over a 6-7 year period, and his editing simply suffered
  at the end. Elizabeth Miller addresses this and other inconsistencies
  in the novel in her book in _Dracula: Sense and Nonsense_, suggesting
  that Stoker might have benefitted from a good editor.

  A second explanation is that Dracula wasn't really dead because Stoker
  was planning a sequel. He only allowed us to believe that Dracula had
  turned to dust when actually he had simply transformed himself into
  dust to elude total destruction by Van Helsing et al. Fred Saberhagen
  seized this idea and used it in _The Dracula Tape_. There is no
  evidence, however, in Stoker's writing notes to suggest that he was
  intending a sequel. It seems pretty clear that he meant for Dracula to
  be destroyed because the burn on Mina's forehead disappeared; so, the
  curse of Dracula had passed away.

  Assuming, however, that Stoker was not a careless writer nor was he
  planning a sequel and that Dracula's death was exactly the way Stoker
  intended it, how might it be explained that the great and powerful
  Dracula was dispatched with mere bowie and Kukri knives, especially
  after Van Helsing's speech about a vampire being killed only by such
  traditional methods as staking and decapitation?

  Some literary critics, after describing the orgiastic deaths of Lucy
  and the vampiresses, speculate that such a death committed on a male
  by a male would have been taboo in Victorian England. Others argue that
  Dracula could only have been killed with weapons emblematic of British
  imperialism rather than with a simple wooden stake. The simplest
  explanation seems to be that Stoker's description of Jonathan's knife
  "shear[ing] through the throat" meant to imply that Dracula was indeed
  decapitated, even though Stoker's choice of words was a bit ambiguous.

  Ambiguous or not, taboo or not, sequel or not, the fact still remains
  that Stoker constructed Dracula's death in a manner different from that
  of tradition. Did he do so in order to be more dramatic? Consider the
  the conditions of Dracula's death. He was destroyed at the exact moment
  the sun set below the horizon. He was no longer helpless, as were the
  vampiresses and Lucy, even though he still lay in his earthbox. But he
  had to be destroyed NOW, while still trapped between his day limits
  and his night powers. If not, all was for naught--Mina was lost, and
  there would be no salvation for those who were pursuing him. Dracula
  would have won. The men were desperate.

  Perhaps Quincey remembered the driving of a stake through Lucy's heart
  and so instinctively drove his bowie knife into Dracula's. And perhaps
  Jonathan sheared through Dracula's throat in a desperate attempt to
  behead him, just as Jonathan had seen Van Helsing do to Lucy. Perhaps
  these two actions sufficently mimicked the traditional way of killing a
  vampire. Or perhaps Stoker meant to imply that vampires are not
  necessarily bound by the old traditions? Or maybe Quincey's bowie knife
  through Dracula's heart served to release his immortal soul, returning
  his body to its mortal state so that slitting his throat with Jonathan's
  knife was all it took to destroy the king of the vampires?

  Unfortunately, we may never know the truth about why Stoker created a
  different demise for Dracula, one that did not follow tradition. This
  will likely remain one of the great mysteries of the novel.

  [3.09] What is St George's Day?

  In Jonathan's diary entry for 4 May, he tells about a hysterical old
  lady who comes to his room just as he's leaving for Castle Dracula. She
  asks: "Do you know what day it is?" He answers that it's the 4th of May.
  She agrees but goes on to explain that it's also the eve of St George's
  Day, and asks him: "Do you not know that to-night, when the clock
  strikes midnight, all the evil things in the world will have full sway?"
  St George was a Christian martyr who lived in the 3rd century. In 1222,
  the Council of Oxford set the feast of St George on 23 April. Stoker's
  source for his information about St George's eve was Emily Gerard's
  "Transylvanian Superstitions" (1885). "Perhaps the most important date
  of the year is St George's, the 23rd of April," she writes. "...the Eve
  of which is still frequently kept by occult meetings taking place at
  night in lonely caverns or within ruined walls, and where all ceremonies
  usual to the witches' sabbath are put into practice."

  Agnes Murgoci wrote in "The Vampire in Roumania" (1927) that it was
  generally believed that vampires, witches, and other nasties walk the
  earth from St Andrew's Eve (30 November) to St George's Day. After St
  George's Day, they have no power "because flowers and the holy sweet
  basil begin to grow, and this shows that the power of God is
  increasing."

  Murgoci describes how, on St George's Eve, all windows, keyholes, doors,
  and even cows must be rubbed down with garlic to keep away vampires.
  Furniture should be overturned so that vampires cannot ask a chair or
  pot to open the door for them. You should put your shirt on inside out
  and sleep with your feet where your head usually is so that, should a
  vampire gain entrance, it won't be able to find you. The best thing is
  not to sleep at all but to stay up till cockcrow telling stories,
  because vampires cannot approach when you are telling stories.

  [3.10] If St George's Eve is 22 April, why is Jonathan's diary entry
         for 4 May?

  This is because the two major calendars in use in Europe in the 1890s--
  the Julian and Gregorian calendars--were out of whack with each other.
  Although both calendars were based on 12 months, each with 30 or 31
  days except for February which has 28 days, 29 in a leap year, the
  Julian calendar (which was set to use by Julius Caesar in 46 BCE), was
  based on a year of 365.25 days, while the true revolution of the earth
  around the sun takes only 365.2422 days. That might not seem like a big
  problem, but look at it like this:


     1        2        3        4        5        6        7        8
J-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
G------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
     1       2       3       4       5       6       7       8       9


  If the J line stands for the Julian calendar which is just slightly
  longer than real time (G line), it's easy to see how, over a period of
  thousands of years, the Julian calendar will come to lag behind real
  time. In fact, by 1582, the Julian calendar was 10 days behind. So Pope
  Gregory XIII ordained that, in order to catch up to real time, October
  5-14 be cancelled. Thus, Thursday, 4 Oct 1582 was followed by Friday,
  15 Oct 1582. That, and a few other revisions (i.e., centesimal years
  such as 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, etc. are leap years only if divisible
  by 400), heralded the birth of the Gregorian calendar.

  Although the Catholic states of Europe (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland,
  France, Luxembourg, and parts of Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, and the
  Netherlands) adopted the Gregorian calender almost immediately, the
  rest of the world was not quite so accomodating. Britain, for example,
  held out until 1752. By then, the error had grown to 11 days, so 3-13
  September 1752 were cancelled. British people went to bed on Wednesday,
  2 Sep 1752 and woke up on Thursday, 14 Sep 1752. (And don't think they
  didn't complain royally about being robbed of 11 days of their lives! :)

  Eastern Europe didn't adopt the Gregorian calendar until after 1912. So,
  when Jonathan went to Transylvania in the 1890s, his Gregorian calendar
  was 11 days ahead of the Transylvanian (Julian) calendar. Note, however,
  that the feast day of St George falls on 23 April regardless of the
  calendar being used. It is incorrect to say that St George's Eve falls
  on 4 May in England. Had Jonathan celebrated St George's Day in England,
  he would have done so on 23 April. It's just that, in the 1890s, the
  Gregorian calendar of an Englishman traveling in Romania would be 11
  days ahead of the Julian calendar in use in Romania.

  The fact that the old Romanian lady agrees with Jonathan when he says it
  is May 4th is probably more evidence of some bad writing or editing on
  Stoker's part. She should have been confused by, not in agreement with,
  Jonathan's response because, for her, it was still April 22nd.

  [3.11] Who is Arminius? Is he a real person?

  Van Helsing refers to Arminius in Mina's journal, 30 Sept., when he says
  that he got his information about vampires from his "friend Arminius, of
  Buda-Pesth University."

  In real life, Stoker really knew an academic named Arminius Vambery.
  Vambery was a Hungarian ethnographer of the peoples of Central Asia.
  From Stoker's writings, we know that he met the real Arminius on at
  least two occasions--in London on 30 April 1890 and about two years
  later in Dublin. McNally & Florescu state that Stoker corresponded with
  Vambery in the course of researching _Dracula_ and that Vambery was his
  source of detail about Vlad the Impaler. But there is not a shred of
  evidence to support this.

  Stoker mentions both of these meetings in his book _Personal
  Reminiscences of Henry Irving_ (1906) and even highlights what was
  discussed at them. Nothing about vampires, Dracula, or Transylvania.
  (Of course they may have talked about these things, but there is
  nothing to indicate that they did.) Furthermore, Vambery's voluminous
  writings contain not a single reference to either vampires or Vlad.

  The probability is that the relationship between Arminius Vambery and
  "my friend Arminius, of Buda-Pesth University" is approximately that
  of Dracula and Vlad ^”Tepes^‘ Dracula. That is, Stoker took the name and
  some cursory facts from his biography, and that was it. [written in part
  by Elizabeth Miller and Arminius of a.v.]

  [3.12] On what vampire story did Stoker base _Dracula_?

  It is unknown from where Stoker got his inspiration for _Dracula_.
  Certainly there were a great number of vampire stories which had already
  been published and which Stoker may or may not have read. Some of the
  more popular vampire stories already in circulation before Stoker began
  writing his novel include (but are not limited to) the following:

c1815 "The Bride of the Grave" by Johann Ludwig Tieck
  1816 "The Vampire" by John Stagg (poem)
  1819 "The Vampyre" by John Polidori
  1819 _Lord Ruthven ou les Vampires_ by Berard (said to be the
            first vampire novel)
  1820 "Wake Not the Dead" attributed to Johann Ludwig Tieck
  1828 "The Skeleton Count, or the Vampire Mistress" by Elizabeth Grey
  1830 "The Dead Lover" by Theophile Gautier
  1845 _Varney the Vampyre, or, the Feast of Blood_ by James Malcolm
      Rymer
  1860 "The Mysterious Stranger", anonymous
  1860 "The Cold Embrace" by Mary Elizabeth Braddon
  1872 "Carmilla" by J. Sheridan Le Fanu
  1884 "The Family of the Vourdalak" by Alexis Tolstoy
  1887 "The Horla" by Guy de Maupassant
  1890 "The Tomb of Sarah" by Frederick George Loring

  What is agreed upon by most _Dracula_ scholars is that Bram Stoker
  consulted numerous sources in order to provide background for his story.
  The source for this conclusion is Stoker's own working papers which are
  currently housed at the Rosenbach Museum and Library in Philadelphia,
  Pennsylvania. A list of some 29 books noted by Stoker himself in his
  working papers may be found in Elizabeth Miller's _Dracula: Sense &
  Nonsense_, pp. 21-22 or in Clive Leatherdale's _Dracula Unearthed_,
  pp. 18-19.

PART 4: MISCELLANEOUS DRACULA STUFF

  [4.01]  Do you know of any good websites about Dracula?

  There are dozens, far too many to include in this faq. A good place
  to start is probably with Elizabeth Miller's homepage for Dracula at:
  http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emiller/. Dr. Miller is a professor of English
  at Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada. Her site contains
  well-researched academic information on the fictional Dracula, his
  creator Bram Stoker, and the individual from whom the fictional count
  took the name "Dracula", Prince Vlad ^”Tepes^‘ Dracula.

  [4.02] Where can I get a copy of the BBC version of "Dracula" starring
         Louis Jourdan?

  Try Tapes of Terror. Write them for a catalog at P. Riggs, 6226 Darnell,
  Dept. VC, Houston, TX 77074-7416, USA. You can also view their online
  catalog at: www.tapesofterror.com. BTW, the correct title of the BBC^“s
  version is "Count Dracula". Look for it in the Cs, not the Ds. [NOTE: I
  receive no kickback from ToT. It's just that I've not seen as
  extensive a list of hard-to-find vampire/horror movies anywhere else.]


PART 5: WHO HAS HELPED TO MAKE THIS FAQ POSSIBLE?

  [5.01] Special thanks to these contributors who provided ideas,
  answers, and corrections.

  In order to give thanks where thanks are due, the names of faq
  contributors are in brackets following the passages they have
  written. If your contribution appears uncredited in the a.v.
  DRACULA faq, please contact the faqkeeper with the details.

  Dr. Elizabeth Miller [q.v. 4.01]
  Cathy Krusberg, "The Mad Bibliographer"
  Bill Thompson
  Arminius
  Lucadra

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

  A copy of the most recently-posted version of this faq may be obtained
  at ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/alt/vampyres

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


User Contributions:

Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


[ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ]

Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer:
bj@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (B J Kuehl)





Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:12 PM