Itt-Ott, 1977 (10. évfolyam, 1-6. szám)

1977 / 1. szám

KOMME BUTÁBB, KIÉ EKEI.

Dracula current figure in Rumanian politics

By C.L. SULZBERGER

MUNICH — Of the millions of readers familiar with Bram Stoker’s “Dracula,” published 80 years ago, the majority are unaware that the famous, bloodsucking Transylvanian vampire depicted ir, the novel was theoretically based or a real historical figure who bore the unpleasant name of Vlad the Impaler.

Vlad Dracul, prince of Wailachia, one of Rumania’s main provinces, ruled ferociously but effectively in the 15t.h century.

Drac means devil.

The current Bucharest regime has just celebrated the 500th anniversary of his death with a spate of studies, SULÜÍ.IERGER sculptures, poems and pa * ;ngs.

1 am indebted to the ..ff of Radio Free Europe, the American i siormation and propaganda center here, and especially to Geor ge Cicranescu for material assembied about Prince Viad and implications that can be drawn from this in terms of Rumania’s contemporary policy.

Bucharest makes no effort to diminish the cruel reputation of the great Wallachian voevod, or ruler, but it explains his savagery in terms of medieval necessity, praising “the modern style in which he conducted himself as head of state.’’

He is hailed as the European leader who did most to thwart the advance of the greatest military threat from the East, Ottoman Turkey. If one considers present circumstances, it is striking to read the following judgment by Rumania’s historian, Stefan Stefanescu.

“Certainly it was not easy for a small country to defy a power that, despite the defeat it had suffered at Belgrade, was gradually wiping countries and provinces off the political map of southeastern Europe.” It is hardly necessary to recall that the Soviet Union’s first defeat on “the political map of southeastern Europe“ came “at Belgrade” from Marshal Tito; and the second from Vlad the Impaler’s titular successor, Nicolae Ceausescu.

Vlad can never be dressed up by historians as a gentle Boy Scout. He impaled thousands of noblemen and their households because he claimed their intrigues were weakening the homeland. He frightened invaders out of their wits by setting up a virtual forest of impaled Turks to greet an advancing Ottoman army near Targoviste. He was renowned for having cripples, old people and the destitute slaughtered so that “there be no more poor people but only rich ones in my country.”

Nevertheless, the current Rumanian assessment is that Viad “had a clear-cut political goal in mind that justified his actions.” He is now regarded as “a voevort who upheld good, strictly observed order ... a knight of justice and freedom who would fte*er forgive an oppressor of the people.”

Cezar Avram, a contemporary analyst, writes; “The country can prosper only under an authoritarian rule.” Another historian, Nicolae Stoicescu adds: “Vlad the Impaler realized that only strong rule, capable of insuring order at home, would make it possible to organize defense against danger of abroad.”

Marxist historiography rarely encourages the kind of impartial approach familiar in the West. While it may shift between orthodoxy and revisionism, depending on official views, it almost invariably seeks to adjust analyses of past personalities and events against a background of current attitudes.

With this in mind it is especially interesting to read the observations of one Rumanian commentator, Constantin Cazanisteanu, who credits Vlad with organizing a “people’s army” to oppose the massive threat on Rumania’s frontiers.

“A fighting pattern that we nowadays call a people’s war,” he writes, “was born out of the will to defend the freedom of his people and the military skill of his leaders in that great struggle that set the Rumanians against one of the strongest empires of the time."

Cazanisteanu concludes: “Vlad also teaches a major political lesson: Love for the fatherland, undaunted support for the high ideals of the people, represent a material force capable of curbing the surge of even the mightiest power.” It is perfectly apparent that the impact of these analyses, using Vlad’s anniversary as a peg on which to hang judgments, is intended as more than a gesture of Rumanian satisfaction with a proud moment of its past, little known elsewhere.

34