|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 07/14/2005 : 17:33:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hybrid:
The History channel doc was on the real count dracula, and where bram sotker got his ideas for the movie.
Not to be nit picky but Bram Stoker wrote Dracula. He had nothing to do with the movie. If the History Channel said that he had anything to do with the movie, what other mistakes might they have made? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2005 : 17:51:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Hybrid:
The History channel doc was on the real count dracula, and where bram sotker got his ideas for the movie.
Not to be nit picky but Bram Stoker wrote Dracula. He had nothing to do with the movie. If the History Channel said that he had anything to do with the movie, what other mistakes might they have made?
And apparently, contrary to popular myth, he did not base his character after Vlad the Impaler, though Vlad used to call himself Dracula - a word meaning 'devil'.
quote:
But this raises a key question. To what extent did Bram Stoker actually base his Count Dracula on Vlad the Impaler? Although for many people today the two have become almost synonymous, the nature of the connection is highly speculative. There is no longer any doubt where Stoker found the name "Dracula". We know from his working papers (housed at the Rosenbach Museum in Philadelphia) that by March 1890 he had already started work on the novel, and had even selected a name for his vampire - Count Wampyr. We also know that, in the summer of the same year while vacationing at Whitby, he came across the name "Dracula" in a book that he borrowed from the Whitby Public Library. William Wilkinson's An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia (1820) contains a few brief references to a "Voivode Dracula" (never referred to as Vlad) who crossed the Danube and attacked Turkish troops. But what seems to have attracted Stoker was a footnote in which Wilkinson states that "Dracula in Wallachian language means Devil." Stoker supplemented this with scraps of Romanian history from other sources (which he carefully listed in his notes) and fleshed out a history for his Count Dracula. Wilkinson is Stoker's only known source for information on the historical namesake. Everything else is speculation.
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emiller/kalo.htm |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2005 : 17:59:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
As Cuneiformist translates cuneform writing as a profession, his question stems from written communication not going back that far. He isn't suggesting that it doesn't exist. He is asking how you can trace something back that pre-dates writing with any sort of accuracy.
To be fair, Val, writing probably does go back to 3,200 BC, but only just. But since those texts are a) difficult to understand, and b) entirely administrative or lexical in nature, I'm not sure how we can say these documents can tell us about "mystery schools". So in that regard, you're right.
Nevertheless, I'm always willing to give a person the benefit of the doubt-- especially when talking about the ancient world. I am unsatisfied to say the least that a reliable authority is a university, as a university-- especially a big flagship school like Indiana-- is made up of scores of departments and hundreds of faculty members, not to mention grad students, etc. Indeed, it's a bit of a cop-out to say "if you don't buy my argument, just ask the University of Indiana"-- as if the university were a singular entity able to be asked direct questions!
Ideally, if an argument comes down to "well, this is what I learned in college" then it could be something that could be backed up with supplementary data. For instance, a particular class or a professor would help (a web link including a syllabus would be great). Also, important books are articles mentioned or used would be good, too.
That way, skeptical people could look at the evidence themselves and ask questions and find answers.
So I'll wait, and perhaps HYBRID will be able to help me in my own quest to figure out about these ancient "mystery schools"! |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 07/14/2005 18:02:33 |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2005 : 18:05:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Hybrid:
The History channel doc was on the real count dracula, and where bram sotker got his ideas for the movie.
Not to be nit picky but Bram Stoker wrote Dracula. He had nothing to do with the movie. If the History Channel said that he had anything to do with the movie, what other mistakes might they have made?
Well, this essay from Dracula scholar elizabeth Miller's Web site is worth reading. Her research has cast doubt on the popular premise that the character Dracula was really based on Vlad Tepes.
Her examination of Stoker's notes for the book and of what his known sources were indicate that the only provable connection between the Wallachian prince and the Transylvanian count appears to be Stoker's appropriation of his handle (the name "Dracula" having been applied as a nickname to Vlad during his lifetime).
This, of course doesn't disprove the hypothesis that Stoker based his character directly on Vlad Tepes, but it does seem to demolish the view of this connection as proved.
Incidentally, Dracula is one of my favorite novels. Having seen the flick billed as "Bram Stoker's Dracula", all I can say about it is that it's a dreadful desecration of a rattling good story. |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
| Edited by - ktesibios on 07/14/2005 18:07:23 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2005 : 19:53:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
Well, this essay from Dracula scholar elizabeth Miller's Web site is worth reading. Her research has cast doubt on the popular premise that the character Dracula was really based on Vlad Tepes.
Her examination of Stoker's notes for the book and of what his known sources were indicate that the only provable connection between the Wallachian prince and the Transylvanian count appears to be Stoker's appropriation of his handle (the name "Dracula" having been applied as a nickname to Vlad during his lifetime).
This, of course doesn't disprove the hypothesis that Stoker based his character directly on Vlad Tepes, but it does seem to demolish the view of this connection as proved.
Incidentally, Dracula is one of my favorite novels. Having seen the flick billed as "Bram Stoker's Dracula", all I can say about it is that it's a dreadful desecration of a rattling good story.
[off-topic]On a vampire-inspired whim, I picked up Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot and re-read it on a long bus ride. Last fall, I made my way half through Stoker's book before school took away my free time. However, I'm now re-energized to try again this fall and hope I can finish![/off-topic] |
|
|
|
HYBRID
BANNED
USA
344 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2005 : 20:45:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Hybrid:
The History channel doc was on the real count dracula, and where bram sotker got his ideas for the movie.
Not to be nit picky but Bram Stoker wrote Dracula. He had nothing to do with the movie. If the History Channel said that he had anything to do with the movie, what other mistakes might they have made?
You know what I mean. Not the actual movie, but the story behind it. If I made it sound different I apologize.And they made no mistakes buddy.You guys will try to break down everything, even if professionals are involved, just because it could prove you wrong. Pride is a motherfucka. |
|
|
|
HYBRID
BANNED
USA
344 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2005 : 20:47:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Hybrid:
The History channel doc was on the real count dracula, and where bram sotker got his ideas for the movie.
Not to be nit picky but Bram Stoker wrote Dracula. He had nothing to do with the movie. If the History Channel said that he had anything to do with the movie, what other mistakes might they have made?
And apparently, contrary to popular myth, he did not base his character after Vlad the Impaler, though Vlad used to call himself Dracula - a word meaning 'devil'.
Dracula comes from a word Dracul', meaning dragon.
quote:
But this raises a key question. To what extent did Bram Stoker actually base his Count Dracula on Vlad the Impaler? Although for many people today the two have become almost synonymous, the nature of the connection is highly speculative. There is no longer any doubt where Stoker found the name "Dracula". We know from his working papers (housed at the Rosenbach Museum in Philadelphia) that by March 1890 he had already started work on the novel, and had even selected a name for his vampire - Count Wampyr. We also know that, in the summer of the same year while vacationing at Whitby, he came across the name "Dracula" in a book that he borrowed from the Whitby Public Library. William Wilkinson's An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia (1820) contains a few brief references to a "Voivode Dracula" (never referred to as Vlad) who crossed the Danube and attacked Turkish troops. But what seems to have attracted Stoker was a footnote in which Wilkinson states that "Dracula in Wallachian language means Devil." Stoker supplemented this with scraps of Romanian history from other sources (which he carefully listed in his notes) and fleshed out a history for his Count Dracula. Wilkinson is Stoker's only known source for information on the historical namesake. Everything else is speculation.
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emiller/kalo.htm
Why am I still waisting time with this, I don't know. There is other info on Vlad and his son.Why am I even adressing this. I feel insulted. |
|
|
|
HYBRID
BANNED
USA
344 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2005 : 20:51:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Hybrid:
The History channel doc was on the real count dracula, and where bram sotker got his ideas for the movie.
Not to be nit picky but Bram Stoker wrote Dracula. He had nothing to do with the movie. If the History Channel said that he had anything to do with the movie, what other mistakes might they have made?
Well, this essay from Dracula scholar elizabeth Miller's Web site is worth reading. Her research has cast doubt on the popular premise that the character Dracula was really based on Vlad Tepes.
Her examination of Stoker's notes for the book and of what his known sources were indicate that the only provable connection between the Wallachian prince and the Transylvanian count appears to be Stoker's appropriation of his handle (the name "Dracula" having been applied as a nickname to Vlad during his lifetime).
This, of course doesn't disprove the hypothesis that Stoker based his character directly on Vlad Tepes, but it does seem to demolish the view of this connection as proved.
Incidentally, Dracula is one of my favorite novels. Having seen the flick billed as "Bram Stoker's Dracula", all I can say about it is that it's a dreadful desecration of a rattling good story.
The Turkish Army said it was him. How he impaled people and drank their blood.Not to say he was dracula or not, the stories where based on him, but he was into some sic shit. |
| Edited by - HYBRID on 07/14/2005 20:53:39 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2005 : 21:24:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HYBRID...
Why am I still waisting time with this, I don't know. There is other info on Vlad and his son.Why am I even adressing this. I feel insulted.
Probably because you are delusional, and one of the common manifestations of delusion is a sense of persecution. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2005 : 05:30:35 [Permalink]
|
Siberia: "And apparently, contrary to popular myth, he did not base his character after Vlad the Impaler, though Vlad used to call himself Dracula - a word meaning 'devil'."
HYBRID: "Dracula comes from a word Dracul', meaning dragon.
From Wikipedia:quote:
Translation Note: "Dracula" loosely translates as "Son of Dracul," although ironically, history will no doubt most remember Vlad II as "Father of Dracula" which literally translates into "Father of the Son of Dracul."
An alternative translation of Dracul is devil, in addition to dragon.
The bolding is mine to highlight that neither of you were completely right. And at the same time, not completely wrong either. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2005 : 06:45:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Hybrid:
The History channel doc was on the real count dracula, and where bram sotker got his ideas for the movie.
Not to be nit picky but Bram Stoker wrote Dracula. He had nothing to do with the movie. If the History Channel said that he had anything to do with the movie, what other mistakes might they have made?
And apparently, contrary to popular myth, he did not base his character after Vlad the Impaler, though Vlad used to call himself Dracula - a word meaning 'devil'.
From the programs I have watched, one of them being a History channel program on the legend of Dracula (In which they list both Vlad the Impaler as well as Elizabeth Bathory.). In that program, they suggested that Vlad's father called himself Dracul (Dragon) and Vlad took the name "son of the Dragon" which in the language of the area came out as Dracula.
It could bear out some further research. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2005 : 07:09:49 [Permalink]
|
Val, this is what I found.
quote:
In Chapter 18 of Dracula, Van Helsing says this of the Count: “He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkey-land” (291).
Vlad Tepes has been associated with an image of cruelty and possibly he was, indeed, a cruel bastard. However there is no evidence that Bram Stoker even knew much about him - he doesn't mention anything of the sorts in his notes. Count Dracula was even named Count Wampyr before Bram Stoker came in contact with the name of Voivode Dracula (like I quoted before, the footnote in his sourcebook said it meant 'devil' and this attracted Stoker's attention), which enforces the idea he wasn't aware that Vlad Tepes named himself Dracul.
quote:
In spite of the attention paid to Vlad by historians both in Romania and the West, he is still to some extent an enigma. Even the name by which he is called is a matter of disagreement. While there is ample evidence that he himself used the sobriquet "Dracula" (or variations thereof) and was referred to as such in several 15th and 16th century sources, many Romanian historians still insist on using the name "Tepes" (meaning "Impaler"), a hardly flattering nickname first assigned to him by Turkish chroniclers. Historians attempting to reconstruct his life have had to sift through numerous printed accounts of his atrocities (many of which are clearly biased) as well as equally biased Romanian oral narratives and legends that paint him as a heroic patriot. There are also conflicting versions about key events, most notably how he was killed and where his remains are buried. But one fact does emerge from all of this material. Whatever Vlad might have been, nowhere is it stated that he was (or was believed to have been) a vampire. That association is clearly the result of the fact that Bram Stoker decided to appropriate the name "Dracula" for his villainous Count - much to the chagrin of many Romanians who see the novel as a denigration of one of their national heroes.
It goes on to say the book was even prohibited in Romania as the locals felt it was a denigration to one of their national heroes - portrayed as a patriot by the locals and a vile bastard by his enemies. Apparently, no fear of Dracula in Transylvania.
quote:
But this raises a key question. To what extent did Bram Stoker actually base his Count Dracula on Vlad the Impaler? Although for many people today the two have become almost synonymous, the nature of the connection is highly speculative. There is no longer any doubt where Stoker found the name "Dracula". We know from his working papers (housed at the Rosenbach Museum in Philadelphia) that by March 1890 he had already started work on the novel, and had even selected a name for his vampire - Count Wampyr. We also know that, in the summer of the same year while vacationing at Whitby, he came across the name "Dracula" in a book that he borrowed from the Whitby Public Library. William Wilkinson's An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia (1820) contains a few brief references to a "Voivode Dracula" (never referred to as Vlad) who crossed the Danube and attacked Turkish troops. But what seems to have attracted Stoker was a footnote in which Wilkinson states that "Dracula in Wallachian language means Devil." Stoker supplemented this with scraps of Romanian history from other sources (which he carefully listed in his notes) and fleshed out a history for his Count Dracula. Wilkinson is Stoker's only known source for information on the historical namesake. Everything else is speculation.
By Elizabeth Miller, Dracula scholar. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2005 : 07:13:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HYBRID
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by HYBRID
DO you have any ideas that i studied mystery schools in a COLLEGE INSTITUTION? DO you know there symbols, beliefs creeds?Probably not, but go ahead and tell me some more stuff that is not true, because you are obviously and expert. Oh great one.
I apologize for jumping in late here, but what class, exactly, is it that teaches "mystery schools"?
This is a vast amount of knowlegde. I will adress this after these stupid comments made below.
Since I'm really curious about this and have had no luck finding anything on the Internet (besides crack pots and such), I thought I'd post this as a reminder... |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2005 : 07:26:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
Val, this is what I found.
quote:
In Chapter 18 of Dracula, Van Helsing says this of the Count: “He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkey-land” (291).
Vlad Tepes has been associated with an image of cruelty and possibly he was, indeed, a cruel bastard. However there is no evidence that Bram Stoker even knew much about him - he doesn't mention anything of the sorts in his notes. Count Dracula was even named Count Wampyr before Bram Stoker came in contact with the name of Voivode Dracula (like I quoted before, the footnote in his sourcebook said it meant 'devil' and this attracted Stoker's attention), which enforces the idea he wasn't aware that Vlad Tepes named himself Dracul.
quote:
In spite of the attention paid to Vlad by historians both in Romania and the West, he is still to some extent an enigma. Even the name by which he is called is a matter of disagreement. While there is ample evidence that he himself used the sobriquet "Dracula" (or variations thereof) and was referred to as such in several 15th and 16th century sources, many Romanian historians still insist on using the name "Tepes" (meaning "Impaler"), a hardly flattering nickname first assigned to him by Turkish chroniclers. Historians attempting to reconstruct his life have had to sift through numerous printed accounts of his atrocities (many of which are clearly biased) as well as equally biased Romanian oral narratives and legends that paint him as a heroic patriot. There are also conflicting versions about key events, most notably how he was killed and where his remains are buried. But one fact does emerge from all of this material. Whatever Vlad might have been, nowhere is it stated that he was (or was believed to have been) a vampire. That association is clearly the result of the fact that Bram Stoker decided to appropriate the name "Dracula" for his villainous Count - much to the chagrin of many Romanians who see the novel as a denigration of one of their national heroes.
It goes on to say the book was even prohibited in Romania as the locals felt it was a denigration to one of their national heroes - portrayed as a patriot by the locals and a vile bastard by his enemies. Apparently, no fear of Dracula in Transylvania.
quote:
But this raises a key question. To what extent did Bram Stoker actually base his Count Dracula on Vlad the Impaler? Although for many people today the two have become almost synonymous, the nature of the connection is highly speculative. There is no longer any doubt where Stoker found the name "Dracula". We know from his working papers (housed at the Rosenbach Museum in Philadelphia) that by March 1890 he had already started work on the novel, and had even selected a name for his vampire - Count Wampyr. We also know that, in the summer of the same year while vacationing at Whitby, he came across the name "Dracula" in a book that he borrowed from the Whitby Public Library. William Wilkinson's An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia (1820) contains a few brief references to a "Voivode Dracula" (never referred to as Vlad) who crossed the Danube and attacked Turkish troops. But what seems to have attracted Stoker was a footnote in which Wilkinson states that "Dracula in Wallachian language means Devil." Stoker supplemented this with scraps of Romanian history from other sources (which he carefully listed in his notes) and fleshed out a history for his Count Dracula. Wilkinson is Stoker's only known source for information on the historical namesake. Everything else is speculation.
By Elizabeth Miller, Dracula scholar.
I think that the information you provided is compelling to say that Stoker probably used Dracula from the Wallachian reference. And given that the source of the information I have is a program on the legend of Dracula, it could be made up of speculative statements to tell a story.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2005 : 07:39:30 [Permalink]
|
Long story short,
Vlad the Impailer, called himself Dracul meaning dragon.
Bram Stoker, liked the name Dracul because it also means devil and loosely based Dracula on the psycho ruler Vlad who called himself Dracul, while probably not knowing the dragon meaning.
And we wait for the names of the courses in question at IU. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
