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.↩}

Season's greetings

BuzzFeed

I trust everyone had a merry Christmas? Hope so. I've been digging up some vampy stuff to mark the occasion.

The connection between vampires and the season is established through Greek folklore. 'Any child who had the misfortune of being born between Christmas Day (December 25) and the Feast of the Twelfth Night (January 5),' writes Theresa Bane, 'will rise from its grave as a callicantzaro when it eventually dies.'¹

What does this unfortunate creature look like? 'Half human and half animal, it has a black face, red eyes, very long ears, clawed hands, and sharp teeth.'² What makes it vampiric? 'The first time that it returns it will seek out its surviving family members, ripping them apart, limb from limb, with its clawed hands.'³ Yikes. But what about the bloodsucking component usually associated with vampires? 'Although blood drinking is not a requirement for its survival, that is something the callicantzaro most certainly revels in.'⁴

From further readings—and barring regional variants—it seems the account's been filtered down to us from a much older source. 'It would seem, however, from the account of them given by Allatius,' says Thomas Wright, 'that these were but different names for the same thing, callicantzara being the more modern.'⁵ 'Allatius' is a reference to Leo Allatius (1586–1669): 'In 1645 he included the first methodical discussion of vampires, in De Graecorum hodie quorundam opinationibus'.⁶

Wright also notes that the power of these beings 'was greatest during the eight days of Christmas; and it was believed that any one who chanced to be born during that period was so affected, that "he seemed to be born only to be the plague of himself and of every one else."'⁷ What happened next?

As soon as the eight days came, he would rush from his own house, in a state of madness, and wander about during the night . . . He never rested, but with his hair rough and dishevelled, and his face wild, he fell on every one he met, and tore their faces with his long sharp nails; then, jumping heavily upon their shoulders, and grasping them by the throat, when he had nearly choked then, he asked, . . . "Tow or lead?" If the sufferer answered "Tow," his tormentor instantly left him, and hastened in search of somebody else whom he might torment; if the answer was "Lead," then he fell upon him with all his might, tore him miserably with his nails, and left him half dead.⁸

Interestingly, Wright doesn't describe the calllicantzaro as a vampire type, as many modern authors do, but links it with another folkloric being: 'These callicantzari seem to have resembled, in some respects, the changelings of our [English] popular creed; except that, while with us they generally pine away, amongst the Greeks their diabolical natures were only exhibited after they were grown up.'⁹

It's clear he saw a distinction between them, as he goes on to note: 'The Greek burculaca, bulcolacca, or buthrolaca, for the name is differently spelt, was the Teutonic vampyre.'¹⁰ In this case, he clearly outlines the being's undead state, but rather than suck the blood of innocent victims, it 'walked about the streets, and knocked at people's doors, and always called by name some person in the house. If the persona who was named answered, he was sure to die on the following day.'¹¹

---

^{1. T Bane, Encyclopedia of vampire mythology, McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Jefferson, N.C., 2010, p. 41.↩}

^{2. ibid.↩}

^{3. ibid.↩}

^{4. ibid., pp. 41–2.↩}

^{5. T Wright, 'On the popular superstitions of modern Greece', Essays on subjects connected with the literature, popular superstitions, and history of England in the Middle Ages, vol. 1, John Russell Smith, London, 1846, p. 296.↩}

^{6. I disagree with that claim. See: 'The Church vs. the undead, pt. 2'.↩}

^{7. Wright, pp. 296–7.↩}

^{8. ibid., pp. 297.↩}

^{9. ibid., pp. 298.↩}

^{10. ibid., pp. 299.↩}

^{11. ibid.↩}

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.