Radu Florescu (1925–2014)
Author of In Search of Dracula: The History of Dracula and Vampires
About the Author
Image credit: Radu Florescu
Series
Works by Radu Florescu
The Struggle Against Russia in the Romanian Principalities: A Problem in Anglo-Turkish Diplomacy, 1821-1854 (1997) 4 copies
Drácula: Mito ou Realidade 1 copy
Römer in Rumänien — Contributor — 1 copy
Associated Works
The Folio Book of Historical Mysteries (2008) — Author: Who was the Pied Piper of Hamelin?, some editions — 112 copies
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Legal name
- Florescu, Radu
- Birthdate
- 1925-10-23
- Date of death
- 2014-05-18
- Gender
- male
- Education
- University of Oxford (Christ Church College)
Indiana University - Occupations
- college professor
historian - Organizations
- Boston College
U.S. State Department - Awards and honors
- honorary Romanian consul, New England
- Nationality
- Romania
USA - Birthplace
- Bucharest, Romania
- Places of residence
- Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Southern France - Associated Place (for map)
- Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Members
Reviews
This book attempts to tell the story of the Edinburgh dignitary who dabbled in crime and was the inspiration for Robert Louis Stevenson's Jeckyll and Hyde novella. Sadly, it is so badly written, that the original ambition becomes lost. There are so many howlers that the main enjoyment for the reader quickly becomes one of spotting the mistakes.
I started keeping a list of some of the better ones:
Factual error: “ostlers” are not “hotel owners” as the authors helpfully explain on page show more 39, but were in fact stablehands at hotels.
Sloppy sentence structure: ' “Old Braxie" (Chief Justice Braxfield) later would serve as a model for one of Stevenson's most famous works, The Weir of Hermiston.' What, as the weir? And this unfinished work is hardly considered one of Stevenson's most famous works.
Parochialism: Starting the chapter on the life of William Brodie with the sentence: "Just over a decade before the birth of George Washington (1732), and close to the events that preceded the American Revolution, there was born on September 28, 1741, William …." It is possible that uneducated American readers might need the help of some context, but as Brodie had absolutely nothing to do with Washington or the American revolution, perhaps this reference would have been better presented as an aside in the body of the chapter?
Hyperbole (and sloppy sentence structure): “The trial … could be ranked among the most famous trials in history both because of this unusual case, the oratorical flourish from a galaxy of legal luminaries, and the harshness of a sentence punishing a man for the theft of a relatively modest sum.” (Page 49) Well, where do we start? A trial that will be unknown to most until they attempt to read this book is hardly likely to qulaify as one of the "most famous" of trials. And surely the death sentence was not so unusual as to make this case one of the “most famous”? In England in 1820 (30 years later) there were still 160 crimes that were punishable by death (a neighbouring jurisdiction to Scotland, but comparable in severity). And while there many reprieves, hangings were commonplace. (At one site, Tyburn, there were 800+ death sentences in 8 years up to 1883, of which more than 400 were carried out.) And lastly, sentence structure: “both” would almost universally imply two instances, except in this sentence, in which it is followed by three causes.
Bad history: Page 55: "After the American Revolution of 1776, Britain had no readily available place left for prison exiles until Australia was later used for that purpose during the 19th century.” It is true that the loss of the American colonies interrupted the flow of convicts out of Britain, but the first Australian convict colony had already been established by the time of this trial, not 'during the 19th century'. The authors are both history professors at an American college, but the concept of history might be different in this US college - I see from the blurb that one author teaches a course in "The History of Horror", a comparitive study of classic horror literature and movies!
Sloppy sentence structure P. 55: “Erskine tried to discredit the testimony against Brodie by John Brown … because he was a convicted felon who had been sentenced to exile in England.” Remember, the court case is taking place in Scotland. Perhaps what is meant is: sentenced to exile from England, or: sentenced in England to exile?? But a better phrasing would replace exile with transportation, the term used by both the legal system and the lay community at the time, and most historians ever since.
Bad grammar: P.56: “… the incriminating evidence of the circumstances leading to the numerous thefts and, particularly, the attack on the Excise Office were, to say the least, overwhelming.” In this sentence the subject of the verb is evidence, which calls for the singular verb, was, not were. More troubling is the fact that from the following two sentences it seems that the authors actually mean that the evidence was not overwhelming.
Sloppy sentence structure, P. 61 In discussing the fact that two accomplices were allowed immunity from prosecution for giving evidence against Brodie and another, the authors write: “The prosecution was so dedicated to convicting Brodie that they were willing to sacrifice two hardened criminals for it.” Perhaps they meant to write: … willing to sacrifice gaining the convictions of two hardened criminals …”
Just plain bad writing: Robert Louis Stevenson is introduced in a chapter beginning on page 67. On page 70 we find the sentence: “The relationship between Louis and his father was particularly close during early boyhood.” This is the first reference to someone called Louis. Who is he? Well, if you wait for a couple of pages we find on page 72 that: “His family and friends called him Lou or Louis, not Robert because there always so many other relatives called Robert.” Was the editor asleep? Was this book actually given the benefit of an editor?
Huh? On P. 72 we find: “This was the retreat of his maternal grandfather Pastor Louis Balfour, the husband of his beloved aunt Maggie.” While it may not be impossible for ones grandfather to be married to ones aunt, it is, at the very least, extremely unusual. From a quick search I can find no details of this particular family relationship, but if Robert Louis Stevenson’s grandfather was actually married to RLS’s aunt, then some further explanation is called for.
Where was the fact checker? RLS’s step-daughter, Belle marries a younger man, Ned. Page 160: “At the time Belle was 56, Ned barely 34. …. they lived a charmed life that lasted until the death of Ned on the eve of his 78th birthday. She survived him by 15 years.” If Belle was 22 years older when they married, then she must have been 100 when he died at 78. If she then survived him by 15 years, she would have been 115 at her death. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. A quick Wikipedia check shows that Belle survived her younger husband by 17 years, but that Ned died at 58, not 78. Belle was 95 when she died in 1953. show less
I started keeping a list of some of the better ones:
Factual error: “ostlers” are not “hotel owners” as the authors helpfully explain on page show more 39, but were in fact stablehands at hotels.
Sloppy sentence structure: ' “Old Braxie" (Chief Justice Braxfield) later would serve as a model for one of Stevenson's most famous works, The Weir of Hermiston.' What, as the weir? And this unfinished work is hardly considered one of Stevenson's most famous works.
Parochialism: Starting the chapter on the life of William Brodie with the sentence: "Just over a decade before the birth of George Washington (1732), and close to the events that preceded the American Revolution, there was born on September 28, 1741, William …." It is possible that uneducated American readers might need the help of some context, but as Brodie had absolutely nothing to do with Washington or the American revolution, perhaps this reference would have been better presented as an aside in the body of the chapter?
Hyperbole (and sloppy sentence structure): “The trial … could be ranked among the most famous trials in history both because of this unusual case, the oratorical flourish from a galaxy of legal luminaries, and the harshness of a sentence punishing a man for the theft of a relatively modest sum.” (Page 49) Well, where do we start? A trial that will be unknown to most until they attempt to read this book is hardly likely to qulaify as one of the "most famous" of trials. And surely the death sentence was not so unusual as to make this case one of the “most famous”? In England in 1820 (30 years later) there were still 160 crimes that were punishable by death (a neighbouring jurisdiction to Scotland, but comparable in severity). And while there many reprieves, hangings were commonplace. (At one site, Tyburn, there were 800+ death sentences in 8 years up to 1883, of which more than 400 were carried out.) And lastly, sentence structure: “both” would almost universally imply two instances, except in this sentence, in which it is followed by three causes.
Bad history: Page 55: "After the American Revolution of 1776, Britain had no readily available place left for prison exiles until Australia was later used for that purpose during the 19th century.” It is true that the loss of the American colonies interrupted the flow of convicts out of Britain, but the first Australian convict colony had already been established by the time of this trial, not 'during the 19th century'. The authors are both history professors at an American college, but the concept of history might be different in this US college - I see from the blurb that one author teaches a course in "The History of Horror", a comparitive study of classic horror literature and movies!
Sloppy sentence structure P. 55: “Erskine tried to discredit the testimony against Brodie by John Brown … because he was a convicted felon who had been sentenced to exile in England.” Remember, the court case is taking place in Scotland. Perhaps what is meant is: sentenced to exile from England, or: sentenced in England to exile?? But a better phrasing would replace exile with transportation, the term used by both the legal system and the lay community at the time, and most historians ever since.
Bad grammar: P.56: “… the incriminating evidence of the circumstances leading to the numerous thefts and, particularly, the attack on the Excise Office were, to say the least, overwhelming.” In this sentence the subject of the verb is evidence, which calls for the singular verb, was, not were. More troubling is the fact that from the following two sentences it seems that the authors actually mean that the evidence was not overwhelming.
Sloppy sentence structure, P. 61 In discussing the fact that two accomplices were allowed immunity from prosecution for giving evidence against Brodie and another, the authors write: “The prosecution was so dedicated to convicting Brodie that they were willing to sacrifice two hardened criminals for it.” Perhaps they meant to write: … willing to sacrifice gaining the convictions of two hardened criminals …”
Just plain bad writing: Robert Louis Stevenson is introduced in a chapter beginning on page 67. On page 70 we find the sentence: “The relationship between Louis and his father was particularly close during early boyhood.” This is the first reference to someone called Louis. Who is he? Well, if you wait for a couple of pages we find on page 72 that: “His family and friends called him Lou or Louis, not Robert because there always so many other relatives called Robert.” Was the editor asleep? Was this book actually given the benefit of an editor?
Huh? On P. 72 we find: “This was the retreat of his maternal grandfather Pastor Louis Balfour, the husband of his beloved aunt Maggie.” While it may not be impossible for ones grandfather to be married to ones aunt, it is, at the very least, extremely unusual. From a quick search I can find no details of this particular family relationship, but if Robert Louis Stevenson’s grandfather was actually married to RLS’s aunt, then some further explanation is called for.
Where was the fact checker? RLS’s step-daughter, Belle marries a younger man, Ned. Page 160: “At the time Belle was 56, Ned barely 34. …. they lived a charmed life that lasted until the death of Ned on the eve of his 78th birthday. She survived him by 15 years.” If Belle was 22 years older when they married, then she must have been 100 when he died at 78. If she then survived him by 15 years, she would have been 115 at her death. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. A quick Wikipedia check shows that Belle survived her younger husband by 17 years, but that Ned died at 58, not 78. Belle was 95 when she died in 1953. show less
A very fascinating book for fans of Dracula, esp. if you are interested in the history behind the real figure (Vlad Tepes), locations, etc.... Part history, part folklore, part opinion, this book has a nice variety of information.
In addition to the historical sections about Romania & the Dracula family, I also enjoyed the section on Bram Stoker, his research, & other books that have been variations on the Dracula/vampire legends. The film section was fine (but I haven't seen any of the films show more mentioned, so it wasn't entirely applicable to me).
That said, between the sections on the mass murders & extreme cruelty of Vlad Tepes and Elizabeth Bathory, real life is much scarier & horrific than fiction. Dracula, the vampire character, seems tame in comparison to these blood-thirsty sadists of history. There is definitely some disturbing information in this book.
The extensive bibliography is wonderful. I do wish there had been more/better maps.
Overall, highly-recommended for Dracula fans.
----------------
(Earlier comments while I was reading the book...)
Still in progress, but I'm finding this to be a bizarre, creepy, & riveting history book.
For those interested in some of the history of Dracula (the real, historical person, not the vampire), a few quotes from In Search of Dracula: The History of Dracula and Vampires...
(Again, referring to the historical figure of Dracula...)
And, just as I was thinking the same thing, the authors state...
Indeed. I believe that may be an understatement.
And, on an interesting side note, I saw this portrait (Petrus Gonsalvus) & two of his "wolf children" in the book:
Wondering why this portrait would be in a book about Dracula?...
In addition to the historical sections about Romania & the Dracula family, I also enjoyed the section on Bram Stoker, his research, & other books that have been variations on the Dracula/vampire legends. The film section was fine (but I haven't seen any of the films show more mentioned, so it wasn't entirely applicable to me).
That said, between the sections on the mass murders & extreme cruelty of Vlad Tepes and Elizabeth Bathory, real life is much scarier & horrific than fiction. Dracula, the vampire character, seems tame in comparison to these blood-thirsty sadists of history. There is definitely some disturbing information in this book.
The extensive bibliography is wonderful. I do wish there had been more/better maps.
Overall, highly-recommended for Dracula fans.
----------------
(Earlier comments while I was reading the book...)
Still in progress, but I'm finding this to be a bizarre, creepy, & riveting history book.
For those interested in some of the history of Dracula (the real, historical person, not the vampire), a few quotes from In Search of Dracula: The History of Dracula and Vampires...
"The names of Dracula and his father, Dracul, are of such importance in this story that they require a precise explanation. Both father and son had the given name Vlad. The names Dracul and Dracula and variations thereof in different languages (such as Dracole, Draculya, Dracol, Draculea, Draculios, Draculia, Tracol) are really nicknames. What's more, both nicknames had two meanings. Dracul meant "devil," as it still does in Romanian today; in addition it meant "dragon." In 1431, the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund invested Vlad the father with the Order of the Dragon, a semimonastic, semi-military organization dedicated to fighting the Turkish infidels. Dracul in the sense of dragon stems from this. It also seems probable that when the simple, superstitious peasants saw Vlad the father bearing the standard with the dragon symbol they interpreted it as a sign that he was in league with the devil."
(Again, referring to the historical figure of Dracula...)
"The progressive popularization of the Dracula story, however, was due to the coincidence of the invention of the printing press in the second half of the fifteenth century and the production of cheap rag paper. The first Dracula news sheet destined for the public at large was printed in 1463 in either Vienna or Wiener Neustadt. Later, money-hungry printers saw commercial possibilities in such sensational stories and continued printing them for profit. This confirms the fact that the horror genre conformed to the tastes of the fifteenth-century reading public as much as it does today. We suspect that Dracula narratives became bestsellers in the late fifteenth century, some of the first pamphlets with a nonreligious theme. One example of the many unsavory but catchy titles is: The Frightening and Truly Extraordinary Story of a Wicked Blood-thirsty Tyrant Called Prince Dracula.
No fewer than thirteen different fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Dracula stories have been discovered thus far in the various German states within the former empire. Printed in Nuremberg, Lubeck, Bamberg, Augsburg, Strasbourg, Hamburg, etc., many of them exist in several editions."
And, just as I was thinking the same thing, the authors state...
"The deeds attributed to Dracula in the German narratives are so appalling that the activities of Stoker's bloodsucking character seem tame by comparison."
Indeed. I believe that may be an understatement.
And, on an interesting side note, I saw this portrait (Petrus Gonsalvus) & two of his "wolf children" in the book:
Wondering why this portrait would be in a book about Dracula?...
"Ironically, the only existing life-size portrait of Dracula is at Castle Ambras near Innsbruck. Ferdinand II, Archduke of the Tyrol, who owned Castle Ambras during the sixteenth century, had a perverse hobby of documenting the villains and deformed personalities of history. He sent emissaries all over Europe to collect their portraits and reserved a special room in the castle for displaying them. It made no difference whether the subjects were well known or comparatively obscure. What did matter was that they were actual human beings, not fictional ones. If such persons could be found alive, the archduke tried to settle them, at least temporarily, at his court, where paintings could be made of them on the spot. A few giants, a notorious dwarf, and the wolfman from the Canary Islands stayed on at Castle Ambras for some years. Dracula was already dead by the time this degenerate Hapsburg began his hobby, but the prince's reputation as a mass murderer was already largely established in the Germanic world because of the tales told by the Saxons of Transylvania. We do not know how or where Ferdinand's portrait of Dracula was painted or who the artist was."show less
Florescue and McNally have written a a biography about Vlad the Impaler that is interesting, rich in detail, even-handed and circumspect. The book does a wonderful job of weaving together Dracula's personal life and ambitions with the cultural, social, political and military realities of the time. The authors also manage to separate fact from speculation without ruining the flow of the narrative. They were also at pains to separate the myth from the man. The book also examines Bram Stoker's show more Dracula novel in light of the real Dracula and his country. Dracula: Prince of Many Faces examines who Dracula was to various people - his family, his countrymen, the neighbouring states and his Ottoman enemies. Overall, this is one of the better biographies I have enjoyed. show less
Wikipedia, that most unimpeachable of all sources, tells me that Radu Florescu's theories on the inspiration for Mary Shelley's Frankenstein remain "controversial." It doesn't say why, mind you: it merely alleges that a controversy exists. However, I've read this book a couple of times during the past twenty years and Florescu's research seems perfectly sound to me. Shelley did, after all, name her title character after the real-life Frankenstein family of Germany, so how could it possibly show more be controversial to suggest a link? (Florescu notes that Baron Frank von Frankenstein and Vlad Dracula were bitter enemies, which is especially interesting in relation to this book's companion volume In Search of Dracula, co-authored by Florescu and Raymond T. McNally.) Also named as a likely influence on Shelley's novel is the alchemist Johann Konrad Dippel, who was born at Castle Frankenstein and who claimed to have created his own version of the legendary elixir of life.
In Search of Frankenstein is a bit dry, earning three stars for pure readability but five for depth of research. The only problem I have with Florescu's work is his querulous insistence that Frankenstein should not be classified as true science fiction because Shelley neglected to explain how Victor Frankenstein actually brought his creature to life. Extensively illustrated with engravings, paintings, photos from the various Frankenstein films, etc. show less
In Search of Frankenstein is a bit dry, earning three stars for pure readability but five for depth of research. The only problem I have with Florescu's work is his querulous insistence that Frankenstein should not be classified as true science fiction because Shelley neglected to explain how Victor Frankenstein actually brought his creature to life. Extensively illustrated with engravings, paintings, photos from the various Frankenstein films, etc. show less
Lists
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 13
- Also by
- 1
- Members
- 1,715
- Popularity
- #14,976
- Rating
- 3.8
- Reviews
- 20
- ISBNs
- 45
- Languages
- 5
- Favorited
- 1