A weblog approach

LIT Verlag

I finally received a copy of Vampirismus und magia posthuma im Diskurs der Habsburgermonarchie on Monday. It was air mailed to me after the previous copy LIT Verlang sent went AWOL in the post.

As you might suspect from the title, the book's written in German, but there is one English contribution: Niels K. Petersen's 'A weblog approach to the history of Central and Eastern European vampire cases of the 18th century'.

It's much more in-depth than you'd think—for an essay about starting a blog. Not only does he discuss his research, quest to find a copy of the supposedly 'lost' Magia posthuma, but also relates the impact his blog's had. 'It has also been an inspiration for other bloggers, including the so-called Amateur Vampirologist from Australia who mentioned "Niels K. Petersen's brilliant Magia Posthuma" as one of the sources of inspiration in his initial post to the blog Diary of an Amateur Vampirologist.'¹ True story.

His essay also highlights our different 'takes' on vampires. My approach is somewhat 'genealogical'; when did that first appear? Who said that first? Who was the first vampire? To that extent, I keep a file of sources in chronological order. They're good for spotting deviations in the 'script'. Like this. Niels, on the other hand, is interested in sociological angles: 'Understanding the vampire as part of history is, as all history, an attempt at understanding the development of human concepts and ideas.'²

It goes without saying—but I'll say it anyway—that context is just as an important angle in vampire research as establishing the development of the vampire mythos through various sources, so I certainly respect Niels' approach. Other vampirologists share his approach, too. Theresa Bane writes, 'Knowing the "who, what and where" is one thing, but knowing and and more importantly understanding the "why" is another'³, which is indirectly echoed by Joe Nickell: 'There is a serious field of study—embracing folklore, psychology, cultural anthropology, literature, history, and so on—that attempts to research and make sense of the various aspects of the vampire myth. To that study the term vampirology may well be applied.'⁴

So why is my approach so different? Well, apart from not being well-versed in these fields, I also believe that delving into sociological context too much, can stray the author off into their own impositions and tangents (not to say that the folk I've covered already do that). Susan Lynne Beckwith alludes to this in a book review: 'However, it is worth wading through this section to get to his final, and perhaps most rewarding, premise—that our scholarship on vampirism reveals more about our own anxieties than it provides evidence of Victorian sexual repression.'⁵

We do that all the time, of course, i.e. inflicting our biases, interests and whatnot, on the subjects we study. Christopher Rondina, for instance, admitted to adding a word to a newspaper article he reproduced because he was 'disappointed to see the absence of bats in the original folklore'.

I generally take a 'safer' route, as a result. It's the one I know. 'Just the facts, ma'am.' I'm interested in direct correlations, which is one reason why I don't subscribe to the Global Vampire theory. The vampire—as G. David Keyworth establishes⁶—is a (spoiler alert!) comparatively 'unique' entity. That, of course, steers us into the murky territory of defining what a vampire 'is'. That's where things start unravelling. Is sharing certain characteristics enough to earn the label? Should we only use the term in accordance with local usage? And so on. In terms of scholarly approaches, too 'wide' and too 'narrow' have their drawbacks. It's our job to steer the course between.

---

^{1. NK Petersen, 'A weblog approach to the history of Central and Eastern European vampire cases of the 18th century', in C Augustynowicz & U Reber P Day (eds), Vampirglaube und magia posthuma im Diskurs der Habsburgermonarchie, Austria: Forschung und Wissenschaft, Geschichte vol. 6, LIT, Vienna, 2011, pp. 264–5.↩}

^{2. ibid., p. 259. ↩}

^{3. T Bane, Encyclopedia of vampire mythology, McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Jefferson, N.C., 2010, p. 1.↩}

^{4. J Nickell, Tracking the man-beasts: sasquatch, vampires, zombies, and more, Prometheus Books, Amherst, N.Y., 2011, p. 125.↩}

^{5. SL, Beckwith, review of A geography of Victorian gothic fiction: mapping history’s nightmares by Robert Mighall, Criticism, vol. 43, no. 3, 2001, p. 364.↩}

^{6. GD Keyworth, ‘Was the vampire of the eighteenth century a unique type of undead-corpse?’, Folklore, vol. 117, no. 3, 2006, pp. 241–60.↩}

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.

See you next year!

Wikipedia

Rather than a customary reminisce of the year gone by, I thought I'd do something different for New Years' Eve—and give you a treat, instead.

You'll recall one of my recent discoveries involved a pre-White Wolf reference to vampires descending from the Biblical Cain, the first murderer. What I didn't tell you, is that there's more to the story.

The remainder of J. Theodore Bent's article discusses the behaviours and attributes of these 'Cains' in Greek lore:

They come down the chimney at night; so a careful housewife is bound, during this time, to keep embers smouldering on the hearth. When crickets come to a house, they say that it is a sure sign that "Cains" will come and play all sorts of horrible antics with the food and household utensils. Cain was a huge man, they told me, taller than the tallest chimney, with the feet of goats, and wooden shoes; in short, the satyr of ancient days. In like manner they imagine Lazarus to have risen from the grave an abnormally tall, thin man, with a round, flat head; for this reason they call the pole with an oval board at the end of it, which they use for putting their bread into the ovens, a Lazarus.¹

Bent also wrote The Cyclades: or Life among the insular Greeks (1885). That book also discusses Greek 'vampires'. Thanks to the magic of the internoodle, you can download it from here. You're welcome!

In the meantime, I wish everyone a safe and Happy New Year! Oh, and don't forget to check out Niels' latest post. It's a run-through of essential vampire books published during the year. More stuff for the Amazon wishlist. Better start saving the pennies. Peace out.

---

^{1. JT Bent, ‘Personification of the mysterious amongst the modern Greeks’, The National Review, April, 1887, p. 233, 26 December 2011, retrieved from British Periodicals.↩}

Conference papers published

Magia posthuma

While I'm eagerly awaiting my copy of Vampirismus und magia posthuma im Diskurs der Habsburgermonarchie to arrive, Niels received his on Monday (left).

His paper, 'Magia posthuma. a weblog approach to the history of central and Eastern European vampire cases of the 18th century', was published in the book. It mentions my previous blog. What an honour!

He's also helpfully printed the book's contents. For an idea on what the papers discuss, consult his invaluable notes on the conference.

Karin Barton's paper, 'The Habsburg flea: notes on the cultural and literary history of an insect vampire', didn't make the cut; a real shame, considering it 'presented a source from 1866 that mentions the word 'nosferatu', a term otherwise usually perceived as constructed by Emily Gerard in her Transsylvanian [sic] Superstitions from 1885!' But that's ok. I found an earlier source.

That said, if it wasn't for Niels' coverage of Barton's paper, I wouldn't've sought it out in the first place. So, kudos to 'em both.

Sigrid Janisch's paper on 'various definitions of vampires from 18th and 19th century encyclopedias' got the chop, as did Bernhard Unterholzner's discussion on 'vampire debates from 1732 and onwards.'

There's no sign of Thede Kahl's 'field work in Albania and Northern Greece, where he got about 200 tales about vampires, revenants and other entities.' However, Niels does mention his findings 'will be published later this year [2009]', so his work may simply have appeared in another source, like a journal. Might have to chase that up. 

And the others, too, for that matter.

Für deutsche Leser

LIT Verlag

As Niels revealed, the Vampirismus und magia posthuma im Diskurs der Habsburgermonarchie will be out soon. The book features proceedings from the 2009 Vienna conference.

For a taste of what this book'll contain, read his notes on the conference. I'm particularly interested in Christian Reiter's assertion that 'the epidemic in Medvedja in 1731-32 was caused by anthrax. Furthermore [concluding] that Flückinger and co. had falsified their report concerning the corpses not in a "vampire state" with the intent of obtaining remuneration for their examination of the corpses.' I'd love to see how he proves that.

The 'epidemic in Medvedja' refers to the Arnold Paole case. The importance of that case in vampire history can not be underestimated: it gave us the word, 'vampire'. It's because of that case that we know vampires are undead, bloodsucking corpses which you gotta stake through the heart. 

It's because of that case, that the symbolism inherent in the vampire's 'existence' found broader application, giving way to vampire literature—indeed, John Polidori's 'The vampyre; a tale' (1819) was partially inspired by the first English press coverage of the case: 'In the London Journal, of March, 1732, is a curious, and, of course credible account of a particular case of vampyrism, which is stated to have occurred at Madreyga, in Hungary.'

Therefore, imagine if the popularity of the vampire in Western culture started with a guy—who faked a report. Brilliant.

Critiquing the critical

Amazon

I thought Niels' review of Montague Summers' The vampire: his kith and kin—a critical edition (2011) was 'brutal'. It prompted me to share my thoughts on criticism, which, in its own way, was probably to dull the impact of his blunt—and clearly frustrated—approach. But, at the time, I hadn't read the book.

Perhaps I was grateful to see an edition of Summers' work accompanied by 'rare contextual and source materials, correspondence, illustrations, as well as Greek and Latin translations.'

I was also 'starstruck' by its contributors, John Edgar Browning (editor), J. Gordon Melton (foreword), Rosemary Ellen Guiley (introduction) and Carol A. Senf (afterword). All are prominent authors of—and contributors to—vampire studies. But I confess I wasn't familiar with Gerard P. O'Sullivan (prologue) or Grace de Majewski (translations). Nonetheless, all that extra material and at a bargain price, too. My copy arrived on September 14th.

When I finally got round to reading through the book's additional material, I realised—Niels was right. After all, what is criticism but 'the judgement of the merits and faults of the work or actions of an individual or group by another'. Now, you would think that 'a critical edition' of a book would examine its text in-depth. This book doesn't. What we have instead, is a book amended with largely supplementary material about Summers, contributors' exposure to his work, biographical material and a few extracts from his sources.

Case-in-point. Browning, noted Summers' 'occasional documentation errors and omissions'¹ and Guiley said 'This work is not perfect, to be certain, and scholars have pointed out its flaws and errors of commission and omission'.² That may be, but where are the corrections? Which scholars noted them? A 'critical edition' is the perfect chance to amend these errors—but neither of them did.

Two notable examples have been discussed by Niels. W. S. G. E.'s Curieuse und sehr wunderbare Relation, von denen sich neuer Dingen in Servien erzeigenden Blut-Saugern oder Vampyrs (1732) is featured in Summers' bibliography, despite there being no proof 'that he actually read it.' It also cited Johann Heinrich Zopf's Dissertatio de Vampyris Serviensibus (1733), even though the passage Summers quoted is taken from a later work.

Material relating to the book's publication and contemporary coverage is comparatively thin. For example, only two reviews of the book were reproduced³ and one of them 'primarily' concerns Summers' companion tome, The vampire in Europe (1929). Two tiny ads for the book are also featured.⁴ Surely there's more than that out there. In fact, I know there is: Timothy d'Arch Smith cited a letter Summers wrote to Time and Tide's 18 January 1929 issue, 'Correcting the reviewer of his book.'⁵ That correspondence would've been much more relevant than correspondences and criticisms reproduced in the critical edition's appendix.⁶

At this point, I may well be guilty of being too 'brutal' on the book, myself. It might seem that readers have been 'ripped off', but that's far from the case. This book—without question—is an invaluable companion to Summers' work. While it doesn't delve too deeply into Kith, it certainly provides fascinating insights into Summers, himself. O'Sullivan's prologue⁷ is a brilliant overview of the darker aspects of Summers' shadowy life—molestation allegations, black mass participation, homosexual leanings, acquaintances, questionable ordination—leading to the recovery of various manuscripts that went missing after death. However, I am wary of Guiley's assertion that Summers would 'most likely be a secret player in the underground of the living vampire subculture' if he was still around⁸ due to his traditionalist Catholicism.

What we have here, is the bare bones of a Summers biography; an update on previous attempts like Joseph Jerome's (Brocard Sewell) Montague Summers: a memoir (1965), Frederick S. Frank's anthology, Montague Summers: a bibliographical portrait (1988) or even Summers' posthumously-published autobiography, The Galanty show (1980). Indeed, O'Sullivan mentioned that 'The full text of Redwood-Anderson's memoir [Recollections of Montage Summers: the early years] will be reproduced as part of prefatory materials to be included with a forthcoming edition of Summers's uncompleted novel, The Brides of Christ.'⁹

To that extent, the book could've been more vampire-centric. I would've loved to have known more about Summers' holograph manuscript, 'The vampires of the Carpathians'¹⁰ and surely they could've mentioned Peter Underwood's account of the anti-vampire medallion Summers (allegedly) gave him.¹¹ It would've also been pertinent to focus on the major sources of inspiration for Summers' book: John Cuthbert Lawson's Modern Greek folklore and ancient Greek religion: a study in survivals (1910)¹² and Bernhard Schmidt's Das Volksleben der Neugriechen und das hellenische Alterthum (1871).¹³

For all the book's flaws, it's definitely a worthy addition to your collection—and I can't get over how cheap it is. Forget the other reprints; this is the one you want. In the meantime, it'll be very interesting to see what Browning does with the forthcoming critical edition of Summers' The vampire in Europe (1929). If I was him, I'd recruit Niels to provide something. As far as I'm concerned, his brilliant blog entry, 'A delayed demonologist', is a taste of what could be.

---

^{1. M Summers, The vampire: his kith and kin—a critical edition, ed. JE Browning, The Apocryphile Press, Berkeley, Calif., 2011, p. xiv. Preface by John Edgar Browning.↩}

^{2. ibid., p. xxv. Introduction by Rosemary Ellen Guiley.↩}

^{3. ibid., pp. 373–7. Appendix B.↩}

^{4. ibid., pp. 379–80. Appendix C.↩}

^{5. T d'Arch Smith, Montague Summers: a bibliography, 2nd rev. edn, The Aquarian Press, Wellingborough, U.K., 1983, p. 113.↩}

^{6. Summers, pp. 382–94, 397–8. Appendix C.↩}

^{7. ibid., pp. xxviii–lxxii. Prologue by Gerard P. O'Sullivan.↩}

^{8. ibid., p. xix. Introduction by Rosemary Ellen Guiley.↩}

^{9. ibid., p. lxvii, n. 9. Prologue by Gerard P. O'Sullivan.↩}

^{10. ibid., pp. 406, 425.↩}

^{11. P Underwood (ed.), The vampire's bedside companion: the amazing world of vampires in fact and fiction, Leslie Frewin, London, 1975, pp. 69–74.↩}

^{12. A few pages from the book were reproduced in the appendix. Summers, ibid., pp. 412–15. Appendix E.↩}

^{13. Strangely, Summers did not cite the book in his bibliography, instead citing Schmidt's Griechische Märchen, Sagen und Volkslieder (1877).↩}

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.↩}

My reading list

Current reading list

I've started collating a blog roll of recommended resources. They're all carry-overs from the old blog, but this time 'round, they'll be vampire-centric. Theresa Bane's blog made the cut, as did Andrew M. Boylan's Taliesin meets the vampires. Bertena Varney's The search for the lure of the vampire's in, and Niels K. Petersen's Magia postuma's a given.

As to the ones that didn't make the cut, it's not that my view's changed on their quality, it's that I'm not sure they'll be relevant to the direction I want to take this thing in. We'll see. Still, bshistorian's The bs historian's good value and I enjoy Curt Purcell's musings on The groovy age of horror and Brian Solomon's peeks inside The vault of horror. The others are good, too.

Ultimately, I want the list to serve as a 'library' of blogs devoted to vampire studies and/or to highlight the works of vampirologists, or, at least, authors prominent in the field. Therefore, I might create a separate list for 'entertainment' purposes.

The question is, am I being too restrictive? Would a broader representation of various disciplines be more suitable? That's why I struggle with omitting a blog like The bs historian, as their writings on 'nonsense' history—and occasional forays into vampire lore—are incredibly insightful and may enhance the study of the undead. We'll see.