The original Dracula cover

While browsing through my live feed, I noticed someone from Wiesbaden, Hessen had stumbled upon my blog by searching 'original book cover dracula'.

So, I figure, why not help them out? Here's what the original cover of Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) looked like:

Fine Books & Collections

It was published by Archibald Constable and Company, though there's some dispute about the precise date of publication (day and month, not year; though 26 May is the standard)–and a Colonial edition may have preceded it. Id be surprised if that was the case, though. As it stands, this is the official one. 

On 5 April 2012, Constable released a facsimile edition of the 1897 original, amended with an introduction by Colm Tóibín. What's not so well-known, is that the company produced an abridged version of the book in 1901. However, according to BramStoker.org, 'It is unknown whether the changes were made by Stoker or by an editor at Constable.'

Hope that helps, anonymous from Wiesbaden, Hessen!

Undead, but not as we know it

According to Wikipedia, undead, 'is a collective name for beings that are deceased and yet behave as if alive. It could also describe a dead body animated by supernatural forces (or some other life force) or by either its own soul or the soul of a malevolent creature (such as a demon). Undead may be incorporeal, such as ghosts, or corporeal, such as vampires and zombies.' 

Its modern usage is likely derived from Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897). Van Helsing introduces it, thusly:

Before we do anything, let me tell you this. It is out of the lore and experience of the ancients and of all those who have studied the powers of the Un-Dead. When they become such, there comes with the change the curse of immortality. They cannot die, but must go on age after age adding new victims and multiplying the evils of the world.

The word resonated with Stoker. Before Dracula went to print, its original title was The Un-Dead; it even appears in the novel's contract. When Stoker adapted his novel into a play—actually a dramatic reading to ensure copyright—it was titled, Dracula, or the Un-Dead.

The word is associated with Dracula to such a degree, I've long agreed with Elizabeth Miller's assumption that 'Stoker apparently coined the word "un-dead" as a synonym for "vampire."'¹ And not just as a synonym, but the originator of the word, itself. She elaborates:

The word "undead" does appear in the Oxford English Dictionary as a synonym for "not dead" or "alive." The 1989 edition adds "In vampirism, clinically dead but not yet at rest," adding citations from Dracula.²

While it's probable Stoker was the first to use 'undead' as a synonym for vampire, I now know he didn't invent the word. Not only that, but current usage effectively acts as a mockery of the word's original intent.

On Tuesday, I typed in the 'undead' and its variant, 'un-dead' into Google Books. Just for the hell of it, but with Miller's assumption in the back of my mind. The results surprised me. I found a dictionary definition of the world, alright. But it was much older than I was expecting: 

Google Books

'Not decayed, wasted, destroyed, killed; not mortal,' it reads. Easy to see how it's been associated with vampires, but not in the original context. The entry appears in the second volume of Charles Richardson's A new dictionary of the English language. It was published in 1856—beating Stoker's use by 41 years. 

However, this was a new edition. Was an older edition available? Yep: the word also appears in the second volume of the dictionary's 1839 edition. Same definition. 

Thankfully, the definitions were accompanied by examples of its usage. After Googling about, I figured out the first example—'Wiclif. 1 Tymo. c. 1.'—was actually a reference to a John Wycliffe Bible translation. In this case, 1 Timothy 1:17:

And to the king of worldis, vndeedli and vnvysible God aloone, be onour and glorie in to worldis of worldis. Amen.

At this point, I should mention the rendering of undead ('vndeedli'), here, dates 1395. That makes the prior 41 year gap look like a drop in the ocean. 

Using the Blue Letter Bible, I juxtaposed the verse with other English translations. For instance, the King James Version:

Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, [be] honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

'Immortal' in lieu of 'vndeedli' (undeadly) appears time and time again. Therefore, that is the word's proper meaning. The word appears a second time in the 1856 edition:

Google Books

'For God made man vndeadli [undeadly],' it reads. 'L.V. unable to be distried [destroyed]'. Basically, something indestructible. With Dracula's religious overtones, I can't help wondering whether Stoker was aware of these Biblical usages. If so, another layer's added to his text.

Update (25 May 2012)

During the 19th century, the term's religious overtones were overt. In 1852, Thomas J. Vaiden wrote: 'They read the scriptures of an immortal God, undead and undying, written on the universe.'³

---

^{1. E Miller, Dracula: sense & nonsense, Desert Island Books Limited, Westcliff-on-Sea, UK, 2000, p. 52↩} 

^{2. ibid, p. 55, n 43.↩}  

^{3. TJ Vaiden, Rational religion and morals: presenting an analysis of the functions of mind, under the operations and directions of reason; the first, eliciting the necessary, rational, and only religion, monotheism, or the religion of principles; the second, the obvious duties and precautions of society, Thomas J. Vaiden, New York, 1852, p. 143.↩}

The book that must be

Bram Stoker

The 100th anniversary of Bram Stoker's death is being commemorated by a series of conferences and publications across the globe. Not only is the subsequent output a boon for Dracula scholars, but vampire enthusiasts will reap the benefits, too! With all due respect to Mr. Stoker. Ahem.

One standout, in my opinion, is a conference that'll be conducted by the Trinity College Dublin's School of Languages, Literatures and Cultural Studies on April 20th—the date of Stoker's passing. It's called, 'Vampire (&) science: a trans-disciplinary conference'. While I'm only familiar with a few of the participants—Clemens Ruthner, Christian Reiter and David J. Skal—it's the essay topics that've really got me hooked. Take a look at the list!

I'd name a few of particular interest, but they all sound fantastic! I'd end up reproducing the whole thing. If you happen to be in the area, note attendance is free. Yes, free.

My first thought on viewing the line-up—well, after my initial excitement—was: are they going to be published? I contacted the event's organiser, Clemens Ruthner, and asked, 'This may be premature, but could you tell me whether a book will result from the papers, a la Vampirismus und magia posthuma (2011). The papers sound fascinating. It'd be such a shame if they weren't published.'¹

Ruthner replied, mentioning that he'd 'try to get the papers published at a good academic press.'² Hell yes! I then offered my assistance, should he require it.³ I wasn't talking out of my ass, either.

A while ago, John W. Morehead—of TheoFantastique fame—forwarded me a link to his Kickstarter project, The undead and theology. Once I'd familiarised myself with its intended contents, etc, I promised to provide the remaining 'assistance' necessary by the required due date. And I did. As a result, the book will see publication. That's how much I care about this stuff, folks. Mind you, it was making pretty good headway without my help. So clearly, there's still a market for this stuff.

Now scroll through the Trinity College Dublin papers again. Who wouldn't want to read those? What publisher wouldn't want a piece o' that! Seriously. Bring it on. I wouldn't care if they were handwritten on foolscap, I'd still buy it. Publishers, if you're looking for something to print, keep your eyes on the Trinity College Dublin conference!

If you can't, somehow, bring yourself to publish that delectable selection, I'm sure we could raise a few pennies passing the hat around Kickstarter...

---

^{1. A Hogg, email, Thursday, 5 April 2012 8:17:07 PM↩}

^{2. C Ruthner, email, Thursday, 5 April 2012 11:38:37 PM.↩}

^{3. A Hogg, email, Friday, 6 April 2012 1:35:07 PM.↩}

Dracula fan's Facebook page swiped

Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the internets, seems like the ghost of SOPA's still lingering about. Bertena Varney published a highly disturbing article today: 'Universal Studios claim Dracula fan's Facebook page'. What. The. Hell?!

The owner of the page is—full disclosure—a friend of mine, Charles E. Butler. He wrote The romance of Dracula: a personal journey of the Count on celluloid (2011). The article reveals that on January 20th, Facebook sent him the following message:

Hello,      

You may have noticed that you're no longer an admin of one of the Facebook Pages you used to manage. The Page was claimed by someone who proved that they're authorized to represent it.       

The Facebook Team

Wikipedia

Short, sweet and sucky. Varney adds, 'He then went to visit the website and it was under another admin that he found later was Univerisal Studios, the owner of the orginal Dracula movies.' Now, I don't know what 'proof' they offered—and neither does Butler, because five emails to 'The Facebook Team' have gone unanswered.

Proof is the key here, because even though Universal made the first (official)¹ Dracula movies after negotiations with Bram Stoker's widow, Florence Balcombe Stoker, they do not own Stoker's work or derivatives from it—unless, of course, it exploits their Dracula franchise, namely Dracula (1931), Dracula's daughter (1936), Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein (1948), etc. 

As respected Dracula scholar, David J. Skal notes, 'due to a loophole in copyright law, Dracula was – and always had been – in the public domain in the United States. Although Stoker had been issued a copyright certificate in 1897, and his widow a renewed certificate in the 1920s, Stoker had never complied with the requirement that two copies of the work be deposited with the American copyright office.'² Therefore, Universal simply has no right to claim 'Dracula' from someone else.

Add your signature to a petition asking Universal to give Butler's page back. I've signed it; hope you do, too. Stand up for the 'little guy'!

---

^{1. F.W. Murnau's well-known Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922) was an unauthorised rip-off.↩}

^{2. DJ Skal, Hollywood gothic: the tangled web of Dracula from novel to stage to screen, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1990, p. 180.↩}

On the feast front

I recently mentioned an upcoming book called Bram Stoker’s Dracula: the critical feast, an annotated reference of reviews and reactions, 1897-1920, which is compiled and edited by John Edgar Browning. John saw my post and shared further information, 'hot off the press', on the 18th via Facebook:

BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA: THE CRITICAL FEAST
An Annotated Reference of Early Reviews and Reactions, 1897-1913


Compiled and Annotated, with an Introduction, by
John Edgar Browning

Bibliographical Afterword by
J. Gordon Melton

PRAISE
“Both scholars and devoted fans will rejoice in Bram Stoker’s Dracula: The Critical Feast. This exhaustive compilation fulfills a long-standing need in the realm of Dracula studies and provides a valuable fresh perspective on the early popular and critical reception of Stoker’s masterpiece.”
—Dr. Margaret L. Carter, The Vampire in Literature: A Critical Bibliography and Different Blood: The Vampire as Alien

“This meticulously researched book puts to rest misconceptions long held by many Dracula scholars (myself included) about the reception of Stoker's novel. A superb achievement and a scholar’s delight!”
—Dr. Elizabeth Miller, Bram Stoker’s Dracula: A Documentary Journey into Vampire Country and the Dracula Phenomenon and Bram Stoker’s Notes for Dracula: A Facsimile Edition

“Dryden said of The Canterbury Tales that “here is God’s plenty,” and one might say the same thing about Bram Stoker’s Dracula: The Critical Feast. Browning has assembled an exhaustive collection of contemporary reviews of Dracula, reviews that put Stoker’s novel into context and demonstrate its almost instantaneous popularity. In addition, The Critical Feast includes copies of early covers and photographs of Stoker. This is a book that every student of Dracula will be proud to own…and pore over, a feast for the eyes and for the mind.”
—Dr. Carol A. Senf, Bram Stoker (Gothic Authors: Critical Revisions) and The Critical Response to Bram Stoker

SYNOPSIS
There is a common misconception that the early critical reception of Bram Stoker’s famed vampire novel, Dracula (1897), was “mixed.” This reference book sets out to dispel this myth en force by offering the most exhaustive collection of early critical responses to Stoker’s novel ever assembled, including some 91 reviews and reactions as well as 36 different press notices, many of which have not been seen in print since they appeared over 100 years ago. What these early critical responses reveal about Dracula’s writing is that it was predominantly seen by early reviewers and responders to parallel, even supersede the Gothic horror works of such canonical writers as Mary Shelley, Ann Radcliffe, and Edgar Allan Poe.

Accompanying the critical responses are annotations and an introduction by the editor, a bibliographical afterword by J. Gordon Melton, 32 illustrations, and a bibliography.

Sounds good! Personally speaking, I find it interesting to read contemporary views on the novel, long before it morphed into the Gothic legend it's become. Back when it was more 'grounded'. Anyhoo, John also kindly sent me the book's cover, today. Here tis:

Nifty, ain't it? He also let me know that 'with any luck, I'll be contracting my 9th and 10th book in the next 30 days'! Considering the first book he edited appeared in 2009—Draculas, vampires, and other undead forms: essays on gender, race, and culture—that's a hell of an achievement. Let's not forget his 'critical edition' to Montague Summers' The vampire in Europe (1929) is also due sometime this year.

In this capacity, John reminds me of Peter Haining (1940–2007), another prolific guy with a knack for turning up obscure goodies.

Dracunews

Wikipedia

As Niels points out, 2012 marks the 100th anniversary of Bram Stoker's passing. His death was largely overlooked at the time, due to the aftermath of a certain event. Bad timing, Bram!

Niels' post also reveals that Constable & Robinson—the modern incarnation of Dracula's original publisher, Archibald Constable and Company—will be releasing a facsimile edition of the 1897 novel. The pre-release prices for the hardback edition are, how should I put this—exorbitant. However, paperback copies will be far cheaper.

I'm sure the book will be invaluable to Dracula scholars, as an original text, rather than various abridged versions published over the years. But did you know Stoker's work was republished with edits made by the author, himself? That's the 1901 edition. Transylvania Press reprinted it in 1994. Unfortunately, it was a limited to a press run of 500 copies—all sold out.

Barring the original works, themselves—which sell for thousands—the upcoming facsimile and the 1901 abridged edition reprint would be perfect companions to Bram Stoker's notes for Dracula: a facsimile edition (2008).

Speaking of companions, John Edgar Browning has complied and annotated Bram Stoker’s Dracula: the critical feast, an annotated reference of reviews and reactions, 1897-1920 which will be published by The Apocryphile Press. So, stay tuned for that.

He's previously co-edited Draculas, vampires, and other undead forms: essays on gender, race, and culture (2009), edited The vampire, his kith and kin: a critical edition (2011) and co-wrote Dracula in visual media: film, television, comic book and electronic game appearances, 1921-2010 (2010). He even made contributions to S.T. Joshi's Encyclopedia of the vampire: the living dead in myth, legend, and popular culture (2010).

The guy's a machine. He's been involved in consistently good works, too, so if you see his name attached to something, chances are, it'll be a recommended purchase.

All up, 2012 looks like it'll be a great year for Dracula scholars. Let's not forget upcoming conferences like the University of Hull's Bram Stoker and Gothic Transformations on 12-14 April and Bram Stoker: life and writing, which will be held on 5-6 July at Stoker's old stomping ground, Trinity College, Dublin. You can read about other commemorative events via Stoker's estate website.

Nosferatu!

Man, I love the Internet archive. Yesterday, I found The Nineteenth Century's 18th volume, which contains the July 1885 issue. What's the big deal about that? It features Emily de Laszowska Gerard's  'Transylvanian superstitions' (pp. 130–50); a known source for Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897).¹

Internet archive

'More decidedly evil, however, is the vampire, or nosferatu, in whom every Roumenian [Romanian] peasant believes as firmly as he does in heaven or hell.'² Until recently, it was generally assumed Gerard 'invented' nosferatu, as attempts to antedate the word went nowhere. However, I uncovered a source preceding her usage—by twenty years. Thanks to Google books.

Gerard's nosferatu appears several times in Stoker's novel. 'Friend Arthur,' says Van Helsing, 'if you had met that kiss which you know of before poor Lucy die, or again, last night when you open your arms to her, you would in time, when you had died, have become nosferatu, as they call it in Eastern europe, and would for all time make more of those Un-Deads that so have filled us with horror.'

His blunt comments on what he intends to do once the vampirised Lucy Westenra is located—"I shall cut off her head and fill her mouth with garlic, and I shall drive a stake through her body"—clearly echo Gerard's prescription for 'very obstinate cases' of nosferatu visitations.

John Seward and Van Helsing even follow through with the gruesome deed: 'The Professor and I sawed the top off the stake, leaving the point of it in the body. Then we cut off the head and filled the mouth with garlic. We soldered up the leaden coffin, screwed on the coffin lid, and gathering up our belongings, came away.'

Later, he speaks of the vampire's pestilential nature—as does Gerard—and the great fight ahead: 'The nosferatu do not die like the bee when he sting once. He is only stronger, and being stronger, have yet more power to work evil.'

The word has resonated with us ever since. It is commonly recognised as a synonym for vampire. When F. W. Murnau wanted to distance his 1922 film from its obvious source—futilely, as it turned out—he used the word as its title.

---

^{1. B Stoker, Bram Stoker's notes for Dracula: a facsimile edition, annotated & transcribed by R Eighteen-Bisang & E Miller, McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Jeffereson, N.C., 2008, p. 304. Appendix IV. The article's pagination is listed as '128–144'. A different edition of the magazine may've been used, or a standalone issue. Internet archive hosts a bound volume.↩}

^{2. E de Laszowska Gerard,  'Transylvanian superstitions', The Nineteenth Century, July 1885, p. 142.↩}

What the f—?

JackCentral

At first, I thought it was a misprint, but no, Amazon is actually selling a reprint of Bram Stoker's Dracula—with a bad case of Tourette's: 'The publishers, with the help of self styled authors have added the "F" word throughout the text, for a more enjoyable and modern read. Although altered, this book is suitable for book reports and other research.'

Something tells me that Stoker, who also wrote in favour of 'The censorship of fiction' (1908), wouldn't be too pleased with Matt R. Allen's revision of his work.

Nonetheless, the book's reviewers feel the repeated F-bombs help make the novel less 'dense',  with one noting, 'I had to read this for my lit class. I didn't want to, but it was for school, and I needed to. When I found this, it gave me a chuckle, but actually really helped me get through this book.'