Calmet on eBay: update

On 23 January, I mentioned that a copy of Augustin Calmet's Traité sur les apparitions des esprits, et sur les vampires, ou les revenants de Hongrie, de Moravie, & c. (2 vols., 1751) was available on eBay. At the time, it had 5 bids at £34.33.

It wound up attracting 26 bids and sold for £511.50 (+ £13.65 Royal Mail Airmail) on 27 January.

Click to embiggen

I've got no idea if any of my readers caught the listing - or, better yet, actually bid on it - but if you did, let me know in the comments section. Congrats to the winner, all the same.

Calmet on eBay

Dom Calmet Augustin's Dissertations sur les apparitions, des anges, des démons et des esprits, et sur les revenants et vampires de Hongrie, de Boheme, de Moravie et de Silésie (1746) is one of the all-time most influential works on vampirism. It was a best-seller in its time. A second and third edition were released in 1749 and 1751.

A copy of the latter edition—Traité sur les apparitions des esprits, et sur les vampires, ou les revenants de Hongrie, de Moravie, & c.—is available on eBay. 

Current bid for both volumes? £34.33. There are currently 10 bids on it and five days left to go. Better get cracking!

More on the Duke

My posts on the alleged Duc de Richelieu investigation into vampires, have provoked wonderful responses from Niels and Jane.

The biggest stumbling block with this thing is that I've had to rely on Google Translate, due to my inability to read French. I know it's not the most reliable tool, but helps give the gist of what's being said. It's either that, or staring at the screen and going 'Derrrr?' It's not like I've got translators hanging off my arm. Also, 'Learn French!', while a worthy solution, is not very timely for writing blog entries.

Anyhoo, the wonky translations spurred Jane into giving proper ones, which she's published here. They're in conjunction with quotes featured in my first post on the Duke's investigation. Thanks Jane. You're awesome!

Scientific curiosities

Speaking of that post, it mentioned a 1759 English translation of Augustin Calmet's work which I couldn't find online. Well, it turns out, I had a 'copy' of that book all along: extracts from it feature in Jan L. Perkowski's Vampires of the Slavs (1976). 

Perkowski lists the source as 'Calmet, Dom Augustin. Vampires of Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia. trans. M. Cooper. London, 1759.'¹ However, this is clearly not the book's proper title (left). Also, the book was 'Printed for' M. Cooper; doesn't say he translated it. At least, going by the title page. I could be wrong, of course.

Anyway, here's the relevant portion from Perkowski's book:

Accordingly, I have been assured by a person of the most improved understanding, and of unquestionable veracity, that Lewis [sic] XV, being desirous to know the truth of these reports, gave orders to the duke of Richelieu, his ambassador at the court of Vienna, to examine carefully into the affair, and to send him an account of what he could collect from the original records of these vampire-transactions. The duke executed his commission with the most utmost exactness, and informed the king that nothing appeared to him more indisputable than these accounts. The unbelieving party, however, was not satisfied with this, but desired the king that the ambassador might be ordered to make further enquiries upon the spot. The duke obeyed the order, and his second report was, that he found more of prejudice and whim than of truth in this whole business of redivivi, or vampires. In consequence of this, there are now two parties at the court of Vienna, one of which holds the truth of these apparitions, and the other rejects the whole as mere whim and fancy.²

If this series of events is accurate, it's interesting to see the King lean on the Duke till he got an answer he wanted. Was the Duke pressured into debunking vampires?

But Niels has a different take. He doesn't believe the investigation happened in the first place, and has provided evidence to that effect. After all, the earliest reference to the investigation appeared in the second volume of Calmet's Dissertations sur les apparitions des anges, des démons & des esprits et sur les revenans et vampires de Hongrie, de Boheme, de Moravie & de Silesie (1746). His source, it seems, was Louis Antoine Charles, Marquis de Beauvau (1715–1744). Calmet did not provide a written reference, however, but shared something he was told.

Niels cited Aribert Shroeder and Lenglet Dufresnoy, who both disputed the reality of the investigation. He also provided another reference, which I'll have to translate via the usual:

M. le Duc de Richelieu, cited in D. Dissertation of Vampires Calmet, and in our extract wished that warns the public that the Court never gave orders to inform the Vampires, and that he never wrote anything to the Court on this, that n has done no research in this regard in a word, he gave no occasion to what makes him think, say or write on this topic.

Niels added, 'There's a number of contemporary reviews and critical comments on Calmet's works, as well as various correspondence, so I'm sure de Richelieus own statement can be found there.' The only other reference in Niels' source, appears on page 1979 and simply relates Calmet's mention of the investigation.

The one thing that'd indelibly salvage Calmet's—and the Marquis de Beauvau—claim, would be word from the Duke, himself. As it stands, we don't even have a date for when this investigation occurred. We don't have the original reports. Therefore, we're in the realm of speculation. However, the evidence does weigh in favour of the naysayers: it's pretty telling that Calmet removed references to the investigation in subsequent editions of his book.

---

<sup>1. JL Perkowski, Vampires of the Slavs, Slavica Publishers, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., 1976, p. 292.↩

2. ibid., pp. 129–30.↩</sup>

Duc de Richelieu, debunked?

Magia posthuma

Niels added an interesting comment to my coverage on the Duc de Richelieu's vampire investigations.

We've both found that Augustin Calmet seems to be the earliest source of the claim. The first public reference to the investigation was in the second volume of Calmet's Dissertations sur les apparitions des anges, des démons & des esprits et sur les revenans et vampires de Hongrie, de Boheme, de Moravie & de Silesie (1746). As noted, the reference was removed in the 1751 edition. Why?

To be honest, my suspicions were roused after finding out Calmet said he heard about it from someone. The person in question was not even the Duc, himself, but possibly Louis Antoine Charles, Marquis de Beauvau (1715–1744)¹, going on what I've been able to decipher from Calmet's book via Google Translate.

Niels cited Aribert Schroeder [Vampirismus: seine Entwicklung vom Thema zum Motiv, 1973], who determined that the Duke had left Vienna on 5 May 1728, thus rendering Calmet's recount 'apocryphal'. I have checked out Shroeder's references and here's what he said:

Calmet behauptet dagegen, König Ludwig XV. habe sich so sehr für die Nachrichten über den Vampiraberglauben interessiert, daß er seinen außerordentlichen Botschafter in Wien, den Duc de Richelieu, beauftragt habe, dieser Problematik nachzugehen. Freilich hätte es der obigen Beobachtungen nicht bedurft, um Calmets Behauptung, die häufig in der Literatur über den Vampirismus wiederholt wurde, zu entkräften. Es genügt nämlich, daran zu erinnern, daß der Duc de Richelieu im Juli des Jahres 1725 in Wien eintraf und diese Stadt im Mai des Jahres 1728 bereits wieder verließ.²

Or,

Calmet says, however, King Louis XV. had so much interested in the news about the vampire superstition that he had instructed his ambassador extraordinary to Vienna, the Duc de Richelieu, to investigate this problem. Of course it was not necessary to the above observations to refute Calmet assertion that was repeated frequently in the literature about vampirism. It is sufficient to remember that the Duc de Richelieu, in July 1725 in Vienna and that city arrived in May of 1728 already left again.

Quite. But does that mean Calmet's source is automatically invalidated? Not necessarily.

Even though certain authors have given a rough timeline of the Duke's report (pre-1730), Calmet, himself, did not provide a date. If the investigation was conducted in the wake of the Peter Plogojowitz case, as some authors suggest, that still leaves us ample time. After all, the first public mention of the case was in the Wienerisches Diarium's 25 July 1725 issue. Thus, we're left with a three year gap.

However, Niels further citations, regarding Shroeder's references to Lenglet Dufresnoy, are more convincing. Shroeder went on to say:

Außerdem berichtet der Geistliche Lenglet du Fresnoy, der ein Buch über Calmets Werk verfaßte, daß der Duc de Richelieu Calmets Darstellung öffentlich widersprochen und den Herausgeber getadelt habe. Calmet reagierte offensichtlich auf diese Intervention, denn er ersetzte in seinen Überarbeitungen das "Zeugnis" Richelieus durch das anderer Personen.³

Or,

Also reported the minister Lenglet du Fresnoy, who wrote a book about Calmet plant that the Duc de Richelieu Calmet display publicly contradicted and criticized the publisher did. Calmet apparently responded to this intervention, since he replaced in his revisions to the "testimony" of Richelieu by other people.

Niels linked to Lenglet Dufresnoy's book, from which I 'read' this:

Je me suis contenté de donner un Extrait de M. Huet Evêque d'Avranches, omis par le sçavant Abbé de Senones. Mais si l'on me demandoit ce que j'en pense, je répondrois que je vois rien que de très douteux dans ce qu'en rapporte cet habile Religieux; & lui-même en convient sur la sin de sa Dissertation. Une seule chose m'avoit ebranlé, & en ébranleroit beaucoup d'autres: c'est le temoignage de M. le Maréchal Duc de Richelieu, cité comme certain par le R. P. Calmet. Je suis néanmoins revenu à mon premier sentiment, dès que j'ai sçû que set illustre Seigneur avoit publiquement défavoué ce qu'on lui avoit fait dire à ce sujet. Il a même fait quelques reproches à la personne qui avoit été chargée de publier les Dissertations de ce Pere, & a témoigné qu'il étoit fâché qu'on l'eut cité en pareille matiere, sans en avoir son aveu.⁴

Or,

I simply give an extract of M. Huet, Bishop of Avranches, omitted by the Abbot of Senones learned man. But if I demanded what I think, I anfwer I see nothing but very doubtful that this Religious reports that clever, and he himself agrees on the sin of his dissertation. One thing m'avoit shaken & ébranleroit in many others: it is the testimony of Marshal Duc de Richelieu, cited as some of the R. P. Calmet. However, I am back to my first feeling, when I known how the Lord had set illustrates défavoué publicly what he had been told about it. He even made ​​some blame to the person who had been responsible for publishing the Dissertations of the Father, and testified that he was sorry that the city was in such matters, without his consent.

On the surface, some damning (if slightly illegible) stuff. But is Dufresnoy's evidence, in turn, anecdotal? I'd love to see some firsthand stuff from Duc de Richelieu, himself, denying his involvement in any vampire investigations.

---

^{1. See 'Duc de Richelieu's investigation' and this link and this one.↩}

^{2. A Shroeder, Vampirismus: seine Entwicklung vom Thema zum Motiv, Studienreihe Humanitas, Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main, 1973, p. 61.↩}

^{3. ibid., p. 61–2.↩}

^{4. L Dufresnoy, Traité historique et dogmatique sur les apparitions, les visions & les révélations particulieéres: avec des observations sur les Dissertations du r. p. Dom Calmet, abbé de Sénones, sur les apparitions & les revenans, vol. 1, Chez Jean-Noel Leloup, Avignon, 1751, p. xxvii–xxviii.↩}

Duc de Richelieu's investigation

Not many people take vampires seriously these days. The few who believe are far outnumbered by those who don't. But when vampires first started receiving press coverage in the early 18th century, not everyone was offhandedly dismissive of the unusual phenomena reported in Eastern Europe. Indeed, press coverage was fuelled by seemingly bewildered coroner reports detailing exhumations in Serbian villages.Vampires were the talk of the town and, sometimes, this talk went right to the top.

Wikipédia

According to Jean Marigny, 'The Austrian Emperor Charles VI . . . is reported to have followed closely the affair of Plogojowitz' and 'French King Louis XV . . . asked his advisor and French ambassador to Austria, the Duc de Richelieu, for a detailed report on the official findings of the investigation.'¹

I have seen other references to the Duc de Richelieu's investigation, elsewhere. Gianfranco Manfredi relates, 'En 1792, le Roi Louis XV . . . chargea d’une enquête le Maréchal de France Louis François Armand de Vignerot du Plessis, troisième duc de Richelieu, qui avait été ambassadeur à Vienne de 1725 à 1729,' which Google Translate renders, 'In 1792, King Louis XV . . . ordered an investigation of the [sic] Marshal of France Louis François Armand du Plessis Vignerot, third Duke of Richelieu, who was ambassador in Vienna from 1725 to 1729.'²

Unfortunately, neither Marigny or Manfredi explicitly state their sources for this information. Nor do they relate the Duke of Richelieu's findings. The date Manfredi gives is also obviously misprint, as Armand de Vignerot du Plessis (1696–1788) and Louis XV (1710–1774) were both dead at the time.

However, if Marigny was correct about the intent behind the investigation—an examination of the Peter Plogojowitz (alt. Plogojovitz) case—then reversing 9 and 2 gives us a much more plausible date: 1729. The Plogojowitz case took place four years beforehand and it was the final year of the Duke's role as ambassador to Vienna. The Vienna connection is significant, because Plogojovitz was a resident of Serbia—then under Austrian rule.

Even though I haven't yet been able to track  the Duke of Richelieu's report, I have stumbled across an 18th century reference to it. While seeking references to the report via Google Books, I came across an entry for 'Vampire' in The Penny cyclopædia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (1843). It says, 'during the five years from 1730 to 1735 that vampirism reached its height', 'Louis XV of France comissioned his ambassador at Vienna, the Duc de Richelieu, personally to ascertain, in Hungary and other Austrian dominions, the reality of vampirism.'³ His conclusions are also revealed: 'The French diplomatist denied in his report to the king the existence of the vampires' and 'informed him at the same time that the anecdotes about them were inserted in the contemporary records of the Austrian tribunals.'⁴

Thankfully, the Penny cyclopædia provided a source for its entry: 'Dom Calmet's Dissertation sur les Apparitions des Anges, des Demons, et des Esprits et sur les Vampires d'Hongrie, Paris 1746, 2 vols. 12mo.; translated into English and published 1759.'⁵ Once again, a paper trail saves the day.

Google Books has Augustin Calmet's 1746 work (the second volume dealt with vampires), but not the 1759 translation, unfortunately. The only other English edition I can think of, was published in 1850 as The phantom world: or, the philosophy of spirits, apparitions, & c. (also on Google Books). It's a translation of the 1751 edition of Calmet's work, which appears to have omitted the references to the Duke's investigation. Therefore, I need to rely on the 1746 French original. Not an easy task, considering I don't know French. Apologies if my transcriptions are incorrect.

Sure enough, references to the Duke's investigation were mentioned by Calmet.⁶ He was, indeed, sent by the king to suss out the vampire thing and apparently became rather knowledgeable about the subject. The rest is kinda hard to make out, as 'répondit au Roi que rien ne paroissoit plus certain que ce qu'on publioit des Revenans de Hongrie', translates 'said to the king that nothing seemed more certain than we [sic] publifhed [sic] of ghosts of Hungary.' The reference to Hungary might seem like a different region was being investigated, but as Paul Barber notes, 'Plogojowitz's village is usually identified as Hungarian . . . but this is because of the confused political situation of the time. Actually, Kisilova was in Serbia.'⁷

The other confusing thing about the text, is that it implies (at least, going by this translation), that the Duke actually believed in the phenomena. But then Calmet went on to say, 'Les incrédules ne se rendirent pas, & supplierent le Roy d'ordonner de nouveau à son Ambassadeur de se transporter sur les lieux, & devoir tout par lui-même', or 'Unbelievers do not surrender, and begged the King to order back to his Ambassador to visit the scene, and having all by itself.' Come again?

It appears the Duke went back there and either changed his mind (?) or reported differing conclusions about the phenomena—'Il obéit, & trouva dans rout ce qu'on difoit des Vampires & des Redivives , plus de prévention & d'imagination que de vérité'—'He obeyed, and found what is faid [sic], in rout of the Vampires & Redivives [sic], Prevention & more imagination than truth.' Apparently, these conclusions caused some division in the Courts of Vienna: 'De sorte qu'encore aujourd'hui dans la Cour de Vienne, il y a fur cela deux partis , dont les uns tiennent pour la vérité de ces apparitions, & les autres les tiennent pour chimeriques & illusoires', 'So even today in the Court of Vienna, there are two parties as this [sic], which some take for the truth of these appearances, and the others take for CHIMERIC [sic] & illusory.'

If readers can provide better translations, you're more than welcome to post 'em here. But it's clear from the content we have at hand, that Calmet is making no explicit connection to the Plogojovitz case, unless I'm missing something here, but he certainly hasn't given the year in which this investigation was supposed to have taken place. So, the question is: who/what was Calmet's source? That appears to be answered by Calmet's footnote. At the start of the section, Calmet wrote 'Aussi j'ai appris d'un homme très-éclairé & très-bon esprit', 'So I learned [from?] a very enlightened man, and very good spirit', which links to a footnote reading 'M. le Marquis de | d'Ypresen 1744', 'Beauvau mort au Siege', that is, 'The Marquis de | Ypresen to death in 1744', 'Beavau Siege'. Hmm, ok.

I might have figured it out. 'Ypresen' looks suspiciously like Ypres to me and we've got other key words to work with: 'Marquis', '1744', 'Beauvau', 'siege'. Off to Google Books again!

And there, I scored a probable hit. J. Lemprière's Universal biography (1810) features a listing for one 'Beauvau, Lewis Charles marquis de, a French general who distinguished himself at the siege of Philipsburg, 1734, at Clausen, Prague' and, most importantly, 'Flanders at the siege of Ypres'. During that battle, 'he received a mortal wound, 24th June 1744, aged 34.'⁸ Was he Calmet's source?

---

^{1. J Marigny, Vampires: the world of the undead, trans. L Frankel, New horizons, Thames and Hudson, London, pp. 47–8.↩}

^{2. Translation via Google Translate. Subsequent translations via this website.↩}

^{3. The Penny cyclopædia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, vol. 26, Charles Knight and Co., London, 1843, p. 105.↩}

^{4. ibid.↩}

^{5. ibid., p. 106.↩}

^{6. A Calmet, Dissertations sur les apparitions des anges, des démons & des esprits et sur les revenans et vampires de Hongrie, de Boheme, de Moravie & de Silesie, vol. 2, Chez De Bure l'aîné, Paris, 1746, pp. 453–4.↩}

^{7. P Barber, Vampires, burial, and death: folklore and reality, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1988, p. 7.↩}

^{8. J. Lemprière, Universal biography; containing a copious account, critical and historical, of the life and character, labors and actions of eminent persons, in all ages and countries, conditions and professions, vol. 1, E. Sargeant, New York, 1810, p. 153.↩}