The 20 Greatest Historical Myths
20:04 Nov 11 2011
Times Read: 514
It is said that those who don't know history are condemned to repeat it - and as any history buff can tell you, much of history is something you would NOT want to repeat. However, many well-known historical "facts" are myths, with no basis in fact. Here (and in the next few segments) are 20 of the most common, which have misled and misinformed people for years, decades, or centuries.
If more people knew the facts, a few of the great history-makers would be recognised (anyone heard of Ub Iwerks?), some famous people would stop taking so much credit, and we would stop blaming apples for everything! Let's start with the following misconceptions...
20. Eve ate a bad apple
An apple a day might keep the doctor away, but they have still had bad publicity as the "forbidden fruit" that Eve tasted in the Garden of Eden, thereby making life difficult for all of us. Yet nowhere in the biblical story of Adam and Eve is an apple mentioned. It is simply called "the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden" (Genesis 3:3). OK, it COULD have been an apple, but it might just as well have been an apricot, a mango, or any other sort of fruit.
19. Newton was hit by an apple
Apples continued to get bad press with the famous story that scientist Sir Isaac Newton was under a tree, minding his own business, when an apple fell on his head. Just as well it provided him the inspiration for the laws of gravity, or the poor apple would never be forgiven! But while the falling apple is a good story, it probably never happened. The story was first published in an essay by Voltaire, long after Newton's death. Before that, Newton's niece, Catherine Conduitt, was the only person who ever told the story. It was almost certainly an invention.
18. Walt Disney drew Mickey Mouse
One of the world's most famous fictitious characters, Mickey Mouse, is credited to Walt Disney. However, Mickey was the vision of Disney's number one animator, Ub Iwerks. Disney, never a great artist, would always have trouble drawing the character who made him famous. Fortunately for him, Iwerks was known as the fastest animator in the business. He single-handedly animated Mickey's first short film, Plane Crazy (1928), in only two weeks. (That's 700 drawings a day.) But give some credit to Disney - when sound films began later that year, he played Mickey's voice.
17. Marie Antoinette said "Let them each cake"
In 1766, Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote of an incident he recalled from some 25 years earlier, in which "a great princess" (name unknown) was told that the country people had no bread. "Then let them eat cake," she replied. When Rousseau wrote of this, Marie Antoinette was an 11-year-old child in Austria. The French Revolution would not begin for another 23 years. The myth that she spoke these infamous words was probably spread by revolutionary propagandists, to illustrate her cold indifference to the plight of the French people.
In the next chapter of this list, we uncover a tall tale about Napoleon, and find out how witches did NOT die, whatever you might have heard...
16. The Great Train Robbery was the first feature film
When it was released in 1903, "The Great Train Robbery" pioneered several techniques, includes jump cuts, medium close-ups and a complex storyline. But the first feature film? It was only ten minutes long! Even most short films are longer than that. The first feature-length film was a 100-minute Australian film, "The Story of the Kelly Gang", released three years later. Even if you think of a feature film as the "feature" of a cinema program, the title would go to one of a number of French films made during the 1890s (but I won't name one, as that could cause any number of arguments).
15. Van Gogh sliced off his ear
Van Gogh is known as the archetypal starving artist, only selling one painting in his lifetime, and - in a quarrel with Gauguin - slicing off his ear, not long before committing suicide. Though he did face a tragic end, and his own paintings sold poorly, it is worth noting that he spent most of his life teaching and dealing art. He only spent eight years of his life painting, which helps to explain why he didn't starve to death. Also, he didn't slice off his entire ear, just a portion of his left lobe. Painful, but not nearly as bad as you might have thought.
14. Witches were burned at stake in Salem
The Salem (Massachusetts) witch trials of 1692 led to the arrests of 150 people, of whom 31 were tried and 20 were executed. But just as these trials were based on ignorance, there are many misconceptions about them. For starters, the 31 condemned "witches" were not all women. Six of them were men. Also, they were not burned at stake. As any witch-hunter would know, a true witch could never be killed by this method. Hanging was the usual method - though one was crushed to death under heavy stones.
13. Napoleon was a little corporal
Some people believe that Napoleon's domineering ambitions were to compensate for being so physically small. Not so. True, Napoleon was called Le Petit Corporal ("The Little Corporal"), but he was 5 feet, 7 inches tall - taller than the average eighteenth-century Frenchman. So why the nickname? Early in his military career, soldiers used it to mock his relatively low rank. The name stuck, even as he became ruler of France.
12. King John signed the Magna Carta
The Magna Carta (Great Charter) is known as a landmark in history, limiting the power of the King of England and sowing the seeds of democracy. Paintings show King John reluctantly signing the Magna Carta in a meadow at Runnymede in 1215. Fair enough, except for one thing. As well as being a rogue, John was probably illiterate. As anyone could see from looking at one of the four original Magna Cartas in existence, he simply provided the royal seal. No signature required.
11. Walter Raleigh introduced potatoes and tobacco to England
Sir Walter Raleigh - explorer, courtier, privateer - Is one of greatest myth figures ever to come from England. Virtually every reason for his fame is untrue. Was he handsome? According to written accounts, he was no oil painting - though somehow he charmed Queen Elizabeth I, and had a reputation as a ladies' man. Did he lay his cloak across a puddle so that the Queen could step on it? No, that was pure fiction. Most importantly, he didn't return from his visit to the New World (America) with England's first potatoes and tobacco. Though Raleigh is said to have introduced potatoes in 1586, they were first grown in Italy in 1585, and quickly spread throughout Europe (even across the English Channel). Also, though people all over Europe blame Sir Walter for their cigarette addictions, Jean Nicot (for whom nicotine is named) introduced tobacco to France in 1560. Tobacco spread to England from France, not the New World.
10. Magellan circumnavigated the world
Everyone knows two things about Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan. One, he was the first man to circumnavigate the world; and two, during this historic trip, he was killed by natives in the Philippines. Of course, those two things tend to contradict each other. Magellan only made it half-way around the world, leaving it to his second-in-command, Juan Sebastian Elcano, to complete the circumnavigation.
9. Nero fiddled while Rome burned
We all know the story of mad Emperor Nero starting the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, then fiddling while the city burned. However, this would have been impossible. For one thing, the violin wouldn't be invented for another 1,600 years. OK, some versions of the story suggest that he played a lute or a lyre - but then, scholars place the emperor in his villa at Antium, 30 miles away, when the fire began. Though he was innocent of this disaster, however, there is much evidence to show that he was ruthless and depraved.
8. Captain Cook discovered Australia
Many Australians will agree that this isn't so - but for the wrong reasons. They will point out that, many years before Cook arrived in Sydney in 1770, Australia had already been visited by Dutchmen Abel Tasman and Dirk Hartog, and an English buccaneer, William Dampier. Of course, it had been previously been discovered some 50,000 years earlier by the indigenous Australians.
But in fairness to Cook, he did discover a new part of the country - and more importantly, this led to the first white settlers (an opportunity that Tasman, Hartog and Dampier didn't take). So let's say that Cook DID discover Australia! Fine, but Cook was actually a Lieutenant when he sailed to the Great South Land. The "captain" rank might be a minor point, but it's certainly inaccurate - and as he is called "Captain Cook" so often that it might as well be his name, it's one worth correcting.
7. Shakespeare wrote the story of Hamlet
William Shakespeare is generally known as the greatest playwright who ever lived, even though most of his plays were not original, but adaptations of earlier stories. "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark" (1603), probably his most famous play, was based on an ancient Scandinavian story. But while it might not have been the original version of the story, we can safely assume it was the best.
6. America became independent on July 4, 1776
Hold the fireworks! As most American school children (and many non-American ones) are aware, America's founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. However, the war raged for another seven years before independence from England was finally granted on September 3, 1783. On that day, Britain's George III and US leaders signed the Definitive Treaty of Peace.
5. Edison invented the electric light
Thomas Edison is known as the world's greatest inventor. His record output - 1,093 patents - still amazes us, over a century later. Astonishing, except for one thing: he didn't invent most of them. Most Edison inventions were the work of his unsung technicians - and his most famous invention, the electric light, didn't even belong to his laboratory. Four decades before Edison was born, English scientist Sir Humphry Davy invented arc lighting (using a carbon filament). For many years, numerous innovators would improve on Davy's model. The only problem: none could glow for more than twelve hours before the filament broke. The achievement of Edison's lab was to find the right filament that would burn for days on end. A major achievement, but not the first.
4. Columbus proved that the Earth was round
It was American author Washington Irving, some 500 years after Columbus sailed to America, who first portrayed the Italian explorer as launching on his voyage to prove that the Earth was round, defying the common, flat-earther belief of the time. In fact, most educated Europeans in Columbus's day knew that the world was round. Since the fourth century BC, almost nobody has believed that the Earth is flat. Even if that wasn't the case, Columbus would never have set out to prove that the Earth was round... simply because he didn't believe it himself! Columbus thought that the Earth was pear-shaped. He set sail to prove something else: that Asia was much closer than anyone thought. Even in this, he was wrong. To further besmirch his memory, it should also be noted that he never set foot on mainland America. The closest he came was the Bahamas. Pear-shaped, indeed!
3. Gandhi liberated India
To westerners, Mahatma Gandhi is easily the most famous leader of India's independence movement. He deserves credit for promoting the ancient ideals of ahimsa (non-violence). However, most historians agree that Indian independence was inevitable. Gandhi was just one of several independence leaders. The Indian National Congress was founded as early as 1885, when he was only 16. Gandhi's much-publicised civil disobedience was only a small part in the movement, and some historians even suggest that India would have achieved independence sooner if they had focused on the more forceful methods that they had used 50 years earlier, and which were still advocated by other independence leaders, such as Gandhi's rival Netaji Chandra Bose (who is also revered in India).
2. Jesus was born on December 25
Christmas is meant to celebrate the birth of Jesus, but there is no evidence whatsoever, biblical or otherwise, that He was actually born on that day. Nor is there anything to suggest that He was born in a manger, or that there were three wise men (although, as any nativity play will remind you, three gifts were mentioned). There are differing views as to why December 25 was chosen as Christmas day, but one of the most interesting is that the day was already celebrated by followers of Mithras, the central god of a Hellenistic cult that developed in the Eastern Mediterranean around 100 BC. The followers of this faith believed that Mithras was born of a virgin on 25 December, and that his birth was attended by shepherds...
Which brings us to the number one historical myth - something that is drilled into the heads of nearly all American schoolchildren...
1. George Washington was America's first President
Everyone "knows" that Washington was the first of the (so far) 43 Presidents of the US. However, this isn't strictly the case. During the American Revolution, the Continental Congress (or the 'United States in Congress Assembled') chose Peyton Randolph as the first President. Under Randolph, one of their first moves was to create the Continental Army (in defence against Britain), appointing General Washington as its commander. Randolph was succeeded in 1781 by John Hancock, who presided over independence from Great Britain (see myth #6). After Washington defeated the British at the Battle of Yorktown, Hancock sent him a note of congratulations. Washington's reply was addressed to "The President of the United States". Eight years later, as a revered war hero, Washington himself became America's first popularly elected President - but strictly speaking, the FIFTEENTH President!
By: Noivedya Juddery. Noivedya is a writer and journalist based in Australia. A member of the Sri Chinmoy Centre He can be contacted via his website: http://www.markjuddery.com/
05:04 Nov 10 2011
Times Read: 522
Excerpt of a long article
Dracula The Undead, Ian Holt, interview
http://suvudu.com/2010/12/an-interview-with-ian-holt-co-author-dracula-the-un-dead.html
Dracula the Un-Dead sold for the biggest first time author sale in history, received rave reviews, became an international best-seller, got me to the A-List, made me famous and a semi-celebrity and gave me the career I always wanted and dreamed of. Now, as hard as it is to believe, I am part of the five century plus, great and amazing history of Dracula and the century plus phenomenon of Bram Stoker.
Dracula, Bram Stoker and I are now linked for all eternity and I have become my childhood fantasy. All my life, I know it sounds crazy, but it’s true, Dracula has always been there for me and never let me down, and I will never let him down.
How did you become involved with the Stoker family, and how interested was Dacre and the rest of the clan in his famous ancestor before you two met? What was the writing process like? How did you two collaborate?
Answered in Author’s Note at the end of the novel. If you have any follow up questions after reading the Author’s Note please feel free to contact me.
I understand that Dracula The Un-Dead diverged from the original novel in a few ways, and I wanted to see if you would share some of the authorial thinking behind these decisions. The most notable to me was Mina’s observation that vampires burst into flames when exposed to sunlight, but Count Dracula walked by day in several scenes from the original novel, and further, many people say that the vampire’s weakness to sunlight began with Hollywood. Additionally, The Un-Dead positions Count Dracula and Mina as lovers, and this too diverges somewhat from the original text. What was the decision process like for you two when it came to veering away from the canonical text?
I would only add for clarification that only about 25% of Dracula fans ever actually read the novel. The rest only know the story from the films that have always included for the most part a romance with Mina and vampires being destroyed by the light of the sun. Although vampires could walk in the sun in Stoker’s novel, the very first vampire film, Nosferatu, created the idea that the sun destroys the vampire and it just stuck.
Now, when many film fans finally get around to reading Stoker’s novel they think it’s an error in the text that Count Dracula can walk in the sun and an omission from the text that Dracula doesn’t have an out and out love affair with Mina. One of the reasons the Stoker family was so upset with the loss of the original copyright was how Hollywood so changed Bram’s story consistently for 80 years, that people think Bram made mistakes in his novel. Dacre and I used this conceit to our advantage in writing Dracula the Un-Dead in the hopes of reconciling the novel fans with the film fans. The sad truth is that Hollywood has never actually filmed Stoker’s novel. Even Coppola’s film, other than including all the main characters, is no closer to Bram’s novel than any of the other movies produced inside or outside of Hollywood. The only time the book practically scene for scene was actually filmed is the made for TV BBC miniseries starring Louis Jourdan and even that version retains a love affair between Mina and Dracula.
While I don’t want to give away anything from the book, Count Dracula does indeed play a role in Dracula The Un-Dead and is even a bit of a hero. This isn’t the first time that the Count has been reinterpreted in a sympathetic light. I was wondering if you had read Fred Saberhagen’s The Dracula Tape, and if this had any influence in your own story. Actually for that matter, could you talk about other influences on Dracula The Un-Dead? Movies? Books? What about Coppola’s Dracula?
I never read Saberhagen’s novel and as far as I know Dacre never read it either. Believe it or not, for me, a big influence on Dracula The Un-Dead was the film, Die Hard. I found the villainous Hanz Gruber as portrayed by Alan Rickman a great example for me to follow of a character people loved to hate and even liked. I wanted the character of Dracula to come off the same way in Un-Dead. He does reprehensible things, but from his point of view, he does what he has to do to survive. That was one of the key points in the novel. Since Bram’s original was written from the point of view of Mina and the supposed victors, we wanted in Dracula The Un-Dead to let Dracula have his say on the events portrayed in Bram’s novel.
Coppola’s film was also an influence on Un-Dead from one perspective. It was the first film to merge the historical Prince Dracula with Bram’s Count Dracula. Dacre and I did the same for Dracula The Un-Dead. Our reasoning for this is explained in the Author’s Note at the end of the novel.
How has the reaction from the Dracula community been to the book? What about casual horror readers? How have you two handled the fame (and even notoriety) that must come with the release of a book like this?
The reaction from the fans has been phenomenal. Dacre and I were mobbed by hundreds of screaming fans at our book signing at the Virgin Atlantic superstore on the Champs Élysées in Paris. In the states, everywhere we go people line up for our book signings. It’s truly remarkable. We’ve even gotten rave reviews from the overwhelming majority of the critics. From the casual horror readers we’ve been honored to hear how we have made them Dracula fans and love when they cry out in person and in e-mails on my Facebook page, “Sequel! Sequel!”
I believe the key to our success has been the risks we took. Bram’s character, Count Dracula, has become so cliché, if we didn’t change certain things, modernize certain things there would’ve been no point in writing the novel, no surprises for the reader.
As Murphy’s Law would have it, for the very reasons that so many loved the novel, there are those for the same reasons that hate it. There is no pleasing this small contingent of fans. They pick apart everything and will accept nothing, especially a sequel that has not been written by the original author. Since Bram Stoker died almost a century ago, the chances of him writing a sequel aren’t very good. These same fans hate ALL the movie versions and only love the original novel. Some are literary snobs, others are British and don’t like that Americans wrote the sequel to a classical British novel. That Bram was Irish and wrote part of the novel in Philadelphia is not part of their fantasy. Some don’t like that we merged the historical Prince Dracula with Bram’s Count Dracula. Some don’t like that Dracula’s not the ultimate villain in our novel. Some don’t like that we slightly softened Dracula’s character in our novel. In Bram’s novel, Dracula is described by his enemies as “the personification of evil.” Here’s a newsflash! Even Hitler had moments when he laughed, told jokes, had dinner with friends and romanced women. To all of these most loyal fans to Bram, I kid with them. I have no real quarrel with them. I only say to them with respect, if you’re not open to something new then no one is forcing you to read our novel. “For your mother’s sake,” just re-read Bram’s original. You’ll save yourself much heartache.
To the even smaller contingent of fans that just don’t like Dacre and my writing, I say sincerely, “Sorry. We tried.”
However, to those Bram fans out there who hate Dacre and I because they think we mistreated the character of Bram in our story, I say, “Do your research.” The fact that the chapters with Bram were written almost completely by Dacre in consultation with his family means nothing to them. In the novel, Bram is left the Lyceum Theater in Henry Irving’s Will. In reality, on the day, Irving, his best friend died, Bram found out that the theater was left to a group of businessmen whose first order of business was to fire Bram. So, Bram’s bitter demeanor was even worse in real life than we depicted in the novel. There’s even a famous picture of Bram leaving the theater on this day and although the picture is from far away, you can still see that Bram looks like death warmed over. This is the sad irony of Bram’s existence. All his life he sought fame and competed with his classmate, Oscar Wilde, professionally and in the courtship of his eventual wife, Florence. She was engaged to Wilde and Bram won her hand only because Wilde discovered he was gay. When Bram died, he was nearly penniless and he considered his life a failure. His novel, Dracula, did not become a financial success until long after Bram’s death.
As far as handling the fame and celebrity, I was lucky in my life. I worked for many years with my friend, the late producer J. Boyce Harman, Jr. Through Boyce, I met many film stars and observed how they handled fame and how fame handled them. But the man who helped me the most with this transition from private person to public personae was my best friend, Doctor Dre. In the nineties with Yo! MTV Raps he was one of the biggest international stars in the world and a major celebrity. Dre’s advice and consultation has been invaluable to me and has kept me on an even keel. As with many things in my life, I’ve been very lucky.
Dracula remains a magnetic figure in popular culture and has been for over a hundred years and counting. To what do you credit his appeal?
For one thing, he’s the original pop culture vampire. That gives him a big “fang” up in notoriety on all the competition from Count Yorga, Nick Knight and Spike all the way up to Edward Cullen.
Second, Dracula has in his corner Bram Stoker and his classic novel, a real piece of iconic literature. You’re not going to see many high school English classes and college English literature courses reading the Twilight series in between Tolstoy and Melville.
But I think the biggest reason the character of Dracula sets himself apart from ALL the others is that he’s based upon a real historical figure. Anyone who has the inclination, like I did, can go to Dracula’s Castle in Poenari, Transylvania or his palace in Tirgoviste. You can even visit his “empty” grave on Snagov Island at the Monastery there. With this post-realism attribute, Dracula blurs the line between fact and fiction creating something tangible that you can touch, feel and smell. He is more that just a wisp of fiction. That makes Dracula a formidable character to match.
Do you and Dacre have any plans to revisit The Count or his legacy? It seems like he’s never truly gone…
Both Dacre and I are busy with many other projects. I’m focused right now on editing my new supernatural thriller that I wrote and produced with Bleiberg Entertainment, Episode 50. But with the hundredth anniversary of Bram’s death coming in 2012, I think it would only be right if the old vampire rose from his grave once again to pay his respects.
Dracula The Undead, Ian Holt, interview
http://suvudu.com/2010/12/an-interview-with-ian-holt-co-author-dracula-the-un-dead.html
an addendum to the above:
Ian's life changed forever when he was invited by the world's premiere Bram Stoker and Dracula authority, Prof. Elizabeth Miller to speak at DRACULA'97 in Los Angeles—a celebration of the 100th anniversary of the release of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel, "Dracula." It was at this monster mash that Ian delivered his "legendary" paper among Dracula scholars, HOW DRACULA MAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF AMERICA. It was also at Dracula '97 that Ian dreamed up the idea of doing a screenplay sequel to Bram Stoker's immortal novel.
http://freshfiction.com/author.php?id=22070
(Despite what the writer is stating, not all reviews were favorable of the book. I read a lot of them. I won't read this book because I really didn't like the first. I have paid close attention. I have it in total on a section of my e-zine. [the first book] )
COMMENTS
-