More On That Book Proving Bram Stoker Knew About The Historical Dracula

Revealed by author Dacre Stoker, great-grand-nephew of Bram Stoker and a gifted storyteller in his own right, Bram Stoker consulted a book entitled ROUMANIA PAST AND PRESENT at the London Library when he was writing his novel DRACULA. This former book makes detailed mention of the historical Dracula, thus proving that Bram *did* know about “the Impaler” when he wrote his book! Previously it was commonly accepted that he did not. It was formerly believed that Bram got the name “Dracula” from a single book, AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPALITIES OF WALLACHIA AND MOLDAVIA by William Wilkinson. That may be where he first learned of the name, but we now know that it was *not* the only book he consulted with a mention of Dracula!

The copy of ROUMANIA PAST AND PRESENT at the London Library today, Dacre Stoker revealed, is not the one that Bram would have used—somebody borrowed that one and neglected to return it—and thus none of Bram’s handwriting graces the pages. Even so, Bram did reference the book in his personal notes for DRACULA, so we know he read it.

Check out the photograph at the top of this article. (The underlining is mine.) Visual proof, discovered by Dacre Stoker, that Bram knew about Vlad!

A lot of books are going to have be rewritten over this one!

By TheCheezman

WAYNE MILLER is the owner and creative director of EVIL CHEEZ PRODUCTIONS, specializing in theatrical performances and haunted attractions. He has written, produced, and directed (and occasionally acted in) over two dozen plays, most of them in the Horror and True Crime genres. He obtained a doctorate in Occult Studies from Miskatonic University and is an active paranormal investigator. Is frequently told he resembles Anton Lavey. And Ming the Merciless.

Denn die totden reiten schnell!

3 replies on “More On That Book Proving Bram Stoker Knew About The Historical Dracula”

Still,. reading in from a modern point of view I feel. The highlighted text does indeed mention Vlad… but I can’t see the word Dracula, indeed having checked the text the word Dracul does appear, in relation to his father, but on a different page. To be fair that does say Dracul (devil) but given his notes highlight Dracula as Devil I see it as suspect that it isn’t listed (at least with a page number) in the notes.

My honest feel – we really are stretching to solidify a connection. Whether it is to rehabilitate McNally & Radescu (who really did just spin a connection, no rehabilitation possible) or whether it is to satisfy the modern viewpoint I don’t know.

I maintain it is an amalgam character, he knew the name. There is no direct correlation of name and Vlad in this book, there is no evidence that he read those pages (I don’t doubt that he had the book, but whether he read those pages is supposition) and if he did there is no evidence of Bram making a connection. My two-peneth-worth.

Everyone who has written about Dracula for the past four decades acknowledges that Stoker took the name and some history of Vlad III; this includes Leonard Wolf, David Skal, and even Elizabeth Miller – probably the scholar who has done the most to torpedo the “Vlad Is Dracula” theory. The point of disagreement is the contention that Dracula is based on Vlad, which is simply not true. The character was created independently, then Stoker grafted a name and some anecdotes culled from history books.

Whether or not Stoker knew that Vlad III had earned the sobriquet “Tsepes” (Impaler), the author mentions neither the name Vlad nor Tsepes, nor anything about impaling Turks to scare away the Turkish army. It’s just not there.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.