Dracula, Prince of Many Faces

by Radu R Florescu

  It seems likely that the portrait was taken from life, since it closely matches the only known detailed written description of Dracula, which came from the pen of the man who was soon to be papal legate to Buda, Niccolò Modrussa (Modrŭs), who knew the prince during his Hungarian captivity. His description reads:

  He was not very tall, but very stocky and strong, with a cold and terrible appearance, a strong and aquiline nose, swollen nostrils, a thin and reddish face in which the very long eyelashes framed large wide-open green eyes; the bushy black eyebrows made them appear threatening. His face and chin were shaven, but for a moustache. The swollen temples increased the bulk of his head. A bull's neck connected [with] his head from which black curly locks hung on his wide-shouldered person.

  This disagrees with the portrait only concerning Dracula's complexion and the color of his hair. The overall impression derived from both views is that of a sensitive man with a keen and lively intelligence. His looks also suggest an overpowering, haughty, authoritarian personality with cruel instincts.

  Such was the man destined to become the absolute autocrat of Wallachia and the two Transylvanian duchies of Fgra and Amia during the next six years. Although, as we have noticed, the total size of his country was not large, Dracula preferred to center his authority in the northern part of the country, where his ancestors had established their capitals, because of the protection afforded by the Carpathian mountains and proximity to his Transylvanian possessions. Although the internal documents of the period are not ample, they at least provide us information on the various locations where Dracula chose to establish his headquarters for varying periods of time. An interesting trait in terms of preference was his love of inner spiritual peace, solitude, and tranquillity afforded by the monasteries of Wallachia such as Tismana, located in the eastern part of the country; Cozia, where his grandfather was buried, in the valley of the river Olt; and the island monastery of Snagov, all of which, given his evil reputation, will require much more extensive comment. Like his grandfather Mircea, Dracula also wished to make a point of spending more of his time in the Danubian plain. In this respect, Dracula founded the fortress of Bucharest, hitherto a series of connected villages, the present-day capital of Romania. He accordingly strengthened the city and built its outer walls. The initial Dracula document commemorating this site refers to its location near the Dîmbovia River and is dated June 13, 1458. It became a fortress only the following year, when Dracula signed and dated a letter on September 20, from the Castle of the Dîmbovia River.

  Most of Dracula's internal documents, founding monasteries, granting land to boyars, et cetera, were issued from Tîrgovite, which had been the capital of the country since his grandfather Mircea's time. In Dracula's day, the capital city and ecclesiastical see of Tîrgovite was a sprawling town, with outskirts spreading beyond the limits of the city walls. Like Louis XIV's Versailles, Tîrgovite was not only the seat of power but the center of the nation's social and cultural life. Its general location is in the foothills of the Carpathian mountains, a fertile wine-producing area of northern Wallachia known as the podgorie. Surrounding the city, as far as the eye could see, there was a network of interconnecting lakes called eleteile, richly stocked with trout and other fish, which provided sporting activities for the rich. It is conceivable that on these hills to the north of the city there already existed in Dracula's time a small wooden monastery called Saint Nicholas of the Wines, long since gone — at the site of which the renowned Monastery of Dealul was later built — where many members of Dracula's family, including his father (whose tomb has totally disappeared), were buried. As one crosses the moat and the city walls, which, judging by contemporary prints, were never heavily fortified, one is able to catch a glimpse of the city itself, dominated by various churches, the first of which was once the cathedral, of which we have lost all traces, where princes were invested by the metropolitan. The ruins of a fourteenth-century Franciscan church, built on a knoll on the outskirts of the city, which Dracula occasionally visited — an important landmark for our story — still exist. Sprawled throughout the city were the Byzantine-style houses of the boyars, containing more diminutive chapels, of which not a trace remains. Within the comparative security of walled palaces, the upper class, which included the prince, attempted to imitate the Constantinople-inspired etiquette of a royal court. Beyond the boyars' houses and interspaced among gardens with lavish floral layouts were located the more modest houses of the merchants, the artisans, and other dependents of the princely and boyar courts.

  The principal surviving monument of Dracula's Tîrgovite is the ruined princely palace, destroyed several times by the Turks and rebuilt many times. The ruins of Dracula's palace can still be distinguished from the more massive remains of subsequent additions, but little is left of his palace except for the Chindia Tower, which was poorly restored during the nineteenth century; the ruins of the cellar, where the partitions of the cells can still be noticed; and the remains of the foundation, indicating the general plan of the palace. The old palace complex was undoubtedly built by Prince Mircea at the close of the fourteenth century. We can only speculate on its architecture, which was probably Byzantine. The materials used were brick and river stone. The north wing was bordered by the Chindia watchtower, which was built by Dracula himself. Its principal function was to allow the garrison to keep a vigil on the countryside for an impending attack on the city. In addition, it provided a suitable platform for Dracula to watch the punishments that were meted out in the courtyard below.

  The princely chapel of the Holy Paraclete, closest to the palace, was connected by an underground passage to Dracula's living quarters. To the west there lay the prince's gardens, extending even beyond the palace walls. The whole area was surrounded by tall and thick battlements, which coincided with a portion of the city walls in the fifteenth century. Under the bell tower to the southeast was the chief entrance to the courtyard.

  Study of the foundations suggests that the principal building had only one floor above the foundation, was rectangular in shape, and of modest proportions. Even the main hall, presumably the notorious throne room or banqueting hall, was no longer than about forty feet. This was the room where Dracula held boyar councils, received diplomats, and entertained foreign visitors, and where some of his famous massacres took place. The only serious problem raised by its small size concerned the number of victims who may have perished at one time — for the room could hardly encompass more than a few hundred. We know next to nothing of the prince's private or working quarters and those of his wife and children, beyond the fact that they were probably located nearby. The deep and roomy cellars built of stone — with walls over twelve inches thick — have been preserved best. They contained the princely kitchens, the baths, the wine cellars, and also torture chambers for prisoners. The governor, palace officials, guards (sluji), and courtiers (curteni) undoubtedly lived in other buildings.

  All in all, the importance of Tîrgovite as a political and diplomatic center cannot be overemphasized: judicial and chancellery enactments, decisions affecting peace and war, massacres and impalements, and most of the surviving Dracula correspondence emanate from this palace.

  Even though Tîrgovite continued to remain Dracula's official capital, the prince showed increasing preference for Bucharest, and during his brief third reign, he did not consider his campaign finished until he had recaptured Bucharest in the late fall of 1476. We presume, in fact, that during his third reign Bucharest had become de facto the official capital of the land, as the fortress had been greatly reinforced by Dracula's brother Radu, who had secured the throne in 1462. At that time Matthias Corvinus, John Hunyadi's son, described the city to Pope Sixtus IV as the most powerful fortress of the land. The reason for this preference for Bucharest over Tîrgovite is easily apparent: as a new town, it was immune from the spirit of intrigue and anarchy rampant in the old capital, which Dracula had never really trusted; economically, too, it was a sound location between Tî
rgsor, an important commercial center, and the Danube. Strategically, it lay closer to the Turkish border, and thus represented a first line of defense preventing Turkish penetration of the country.

  All that is left of Dracula's Bucharest are the remains of his palace (Curtea Domneasc) in the heart of the city. The visitor can still distinguish a large hallway where Dracula and his boyars held court and the location of his private quarters. Given the thickness of the surviving walls, one can presume that the fortress was constructed with the help of Saxon builders from Braov and Sibiu, masters in the art of defensive construction. However, the fact that, at least during Dracula's first reign, Bucharest was merely referred to as a castro (minor fort) indicates it was not then designed to serve as a powerful fortress, such as Giurgiu on the Danube, or, for that matter, Castle Dracula on the Arge River. It was no more than a fortified palace surrounded by a powerful wood palisade on one side and the Dîmbovia River on the other.

  Dracula had an obsession for building walls. He built the walls of Bucharest; he may also have fortified the monastery of Snagov nearby, used as a princely treasury for some years. He built small mountain fortresses at various strategic frontier points, some of which have totally disappeared, surviving only in local folklore. Of course by far the most notorious fortress was Castle Dracula, even though Stoker centered his plot on another castle connected with Dracula's name near Bistria at the Borgo Pass.

  Castle Dracula is located to the north of the city of Curtea-de-Arge, the old ecclesiastical capital at the source of the river bearing that name, on the peak of a remote mountain rock in the foothills of the Fgra range. It had an important role in the defense of the ecclesiastical capital, and tradition holds that the princely church would communicate with the tower of the castle by light signals from the church tower — clearly visible at the castle. It occupies an eerie position and has a commanding view. The castle can be described as remote and inaccessible.

  More likely than not, the original castle was built by one of the early Basarab princes in the fourteenth century, as an observation outpost serving the larger Transylvanian castle of Bran on the other side of the mountains, a warning point for discerning attacks from the south. Because of its position near the Hungarian border, the castle was certainly of strategic value to the early Wallachian princes. One factor is more or less certain: when Dracula came to the throne in 1456, only ruins were left of the castle of the Arge. It had suffered serious damage at the hands of both Turkish and Tatar invaders.

  Dracula's decision to rebuild this famous castle provides the opportunity for beginning the discussion of his policies toward the various classes of society at home, the kind of power politics that made him an ideal model for Machiavelli's future Prince.

  In Dracula's quest for power, one of the central issues he posed was his relationship to the boyar class. Since the birth of the principality, power had always been shared between princes and boyars. Given the brevity of individual reigns (no fewer than twelve had taken place since 1418, which made for an average of just over two years per prince), the absence of primogeniture, and the fact that a boyar establishment had predated the very formation of the principality, effective political sovereignty tilted heavily in favor of the boyars, who were, up to Dracula's time, encroaching upon the authority of the prince. Collective leadership, however, and all that it entails were scarcely compatible with Dracula's overpowering personality, his exalted concept of the role of sovereignty, or his premature idealization of the nation-state. Dracula in this respect may well be viewed as the first modern Renaissance prince of the land, determined to crush the power of the nobility, centralize the administration of the state, and create a military force loyal only to himself, a process well-nigh completed in most of the western states. There were in

  addition considerations of external policy in Dracula's decision to emasculate the boyar monopoly. With cynical realism, they tended on the whole toward a policy of appeasement toward the Turks, particularly after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. In addition, there were the partisans of Vladislav II, still in hiding on their estates, who had to be eradicated to the last male heir, no matter how young.

  The stage was thus set for a massive purge of hostile noble families, carried out by the small loyal force to whom Dracula had owed his throne. In a manner reminiscent of a Louis XIV, Dracula revealed his political philosophy in a quite explicit fashion, in a letter addressed to the mayor of Braov in 1457: “Pray, think that when a man or prince is powerful and strong at home, then he will be able to do as he wills. But when he is without power, another one more powerful than he will overwhelm him and do as he wishes.” These words contain Dracula's whole domestic political program in embryonic form. They are not substantially different from those later to be contained in The Prince. This philosophy helps explain why Dracula was so anxious to assuage both the Hungarian king and the sultan during the first two years of his reign. Clearly he wished to deal with unruly boyars first, to strengthen the state, and thus to be able later to face his enemies, both east and west. In some instances, the treachery of individual boyar families was all too obvious and demanded instant action. Such was the case of the boyar Albu the Great, the son of Albu Taxaba, one of the principal followers of Alexandru Aldea, the opponent of Dracula's father, Dracul. With a private army of his own, the younger Albu had organized a revolt just a few months after Dracula had seized power. He was ambushed and then impaled, together with his whole family, whom Dracula considered equally dangerous. Only Albu's younger brother survived; he joined the increasing number of Dracula's opponents who sought refuge at Braov. Beyond outright revolt, the boyars had deliberately weakened the central government by playing the traditional political game of pitting against each other candidates of the two branches of the ruling family (Dneti and Drculeti), and even complicating that struggle by added factionalism within each of these two protagonists. It was in the interests of the boyars to chose the weakest possible candidate, the one least likely to intervene in the decisions of the council — hence the instability of the central power and the rapid succession of princes we have noted above. Dracula had the courage to bring this general situation to the fore in a well-known incident narrated to us by the Holy Roman Emperor's meistersinger Michael Beheim and also recalled by an anonymous Turkish historian. The poet refers to the incident in the following words:

  He [Dracula] asked the assembled noblemen:

  “How many princes have you known?”

  The latter answered

  Each as much as he knew best.

  One believed that there had been thirty,

  Another twenty.

  Even the youngest thought there had been seven.

  After having answered this question

  As I have just sung it,

  Dracula said: “Tell me,

  How do you explain the fact

  That you have had so many princes

  In your land?

  The guilt is entirely due to your shameful intrigues.”

  With ample proof of the boyars' deceit and treacherous intents, Dracula decided it was timely to inflict upon them an exemplary punishment. He was additionally motivated by learning the details concerning the brutal manner in which his brother Mircea had been suffocated. Revenge for that crime may have provided an additional incentive for the mass impalement of the boyars in the courtyard of his palace, an event that in turn is linked with the reconstruction of his eagle's nest on the river Arge. The oldest Romanian historical chronicle records the event two centuries later. It had taken place in the spring of 1457, during the Easter celebrations that the boyars were attending at the palace. “He [Dracula] had found out that the boyars of Tîrgovite had buried one of his brothers alive. In order to know the truth he searched for his brother in the grave and found him lying face downward. So when Easter Day came, while all the citizens were feasting and the young ones were dancing he surrounded them … led them together with their wives and children, just as they were dr
essed up for Easter, to Poenari [a reference to Castle Dracula], where they were put to work until their clothes were torn and they were left naked.” In actual fact, this episode, which is also recalled by the Greek historian Chalcondyles and firmly anchored in popular folklore, involved some two hundred boyars and their wives, as well as leading citizens of Tîrgovite who were equally guilty of plotting Mircea's death. They were seized by Dracula's men as they were finishing their meal in the main banqueting hall of the palace, following the elaborate Easter ritual at the Paraclete Chapel. In Dracula's ingenious mind, one aspect of the punishment had a utilitarian purpose: the reconstruction of the famous castle high up on the Arge, which would not only provide him with a shelter from his enemies both within and outside the country, but also a safe haven for his princely treasury. On the way out of the chapel the old boyars and their wives were apprehended by Dracula's henchmen and impaled beyond the city walls. The young and able-bodied were manacled and chained to each other and then marched northward under the vigilant eye of Dracula's men. They marched some fifty miles up the Arge River, until they reached a location called the Source of the River. The journey took them two days. The boyar trek from Tîrgovite to the site of Castle Dracula was a long and painful one. It undoubtedly claimed many victims long before they caught sight of the ruins of the castle to be reconstructed. The arriving men must have presented a strange sight to the peasants, since the boyars were still dressed in what was left of their fine Easter apparel. Within the villages surrounding the castle site, Dracula had given orders for brick ovens to be built, as well as lime kilns. Under the threat of the whip, the boyars formed a huge human chain extending from the villages to the castle of the Arge, and passed materials from hand to hand. While some worked up on the mountainside, others were busy making bricks, one vast army of slaves toiling, sweating, building the present castle.