From Demons to Dracula

One of the problems with a lot of literature on vampires is the frequently diffuse definitions of a vampire. In From Demons to Dracula, Matthew Beresford uses the term in various ways, and says at the end of his book:

‘There is no typical vampire. Perhaps a ‘true’ vampire would be an amalgamation of all the forms we have seen worldwide as well as reflecting attributes of all the historical examples. In essence, the vampire reflects an ever-changing being that bears relevance to the culture it exits in. The modern vampire is a being born of demons, burned as a heretic and reviled as a fiend; the Devil’s own creation. What the future may hold for him is uncertain, yet it is undeniable that the image immortalized by Dracula, encapsulating over six thousand years of history, can never be undone.’ (p. 200-1)

So without really defining a vampire, Beresford traces various concepts and beliefs that have at some time (i.e. more or less within the last 300 years, because very few knew the East European vampire before that time) been linked with vampires - from burial sites in prehistory to the Goth scene of the 21st century. He doesn’t attempt to provide an all encompassing history of vampires, but looks at a number of cases to describe and analyze ‘the creation of the modern vampire myth’ to quote the book’s subtitle.


Unfortunately, he often relies on some less than reliable sources: Dudley Wright, Montague Summers, and - believe it or not - even Sean Manchester, and frequently he just refers to them without any critical discussion. This also goes for the porphyria theory, notions on ‘psychic vampirism’ based on LaVey’s Satanic Bible, and various other speculations that, ahem, seem less than convincing.

This becomes a particular problem when he describes the Medvedja vampire case and mixes the fictional version with the original documents, although he seems to have had Hamberger’s collection of source texts at hand. Furthermore, his description of the 17th-18th century vampire cases and debate is very short, whereas he spends a lot of space on speculations on e.g. Judas Escariot in a discussion of the Church’s role in connection with revenant belief that seems ahistorical.

So from the point of view of someone who is interested in putting the vampire cases, the magia posthuma and revenant beliefs and customs into a historical context, From Demons to Dracula is quite problematic. On the other hand, read as an introductory analysis of the modern concept of ‘vampire’, the book does present some interesting thoughts and ideas, and it is easily read. I particularly enjoyed reading the chapter on the so-called ‘Historical Dracula’, because it digs deeper than the usual rehash of Florescu and McNally.

It’s just a shame that he didn’t do more of the same with regards to the early modern vampire cases. Also, I had hoped that as an archaeologist he might have considered some of the skeletons found in e.g. the Czech republic that may have been treated in ways to prevent the dead from returning.

The appendix contains excerpts from William of Newburgh's Historia Rerum Anglicarum.

Arrived!

From Demons to Dracula finally arrived, so I'll take a closer look at it and let you know what I think within a couple of days.

Addendum: Amazon has a 'Look inside' sample from the book.

News on From Demons to Dracula

Matthew Beresford, author of From Demons to Dracula that I have posted about here and here, informs me that the book is slightly delayed, but should be out within a week or so. In the meantime he has set up a web site with information on the book and his other activities.

More on From Demons to Dracula

I asked the author of From Demons to Dracula, Matthew Beresford, a bit more about his book, and he responds:

I suppose the way I hope my book is different in some ways as others of its kind is because i wrote it from an archaeologist's point of view rather than perhaps a historian's. So, whilst obviously looking at histroical records and sources I also used archaeological findings, for example with Iron Age bog bodies where they had been ritually killed or staked and pinned to the ground. With the early demons and Prehistory, I examined how fascination and fear with death and the afterlife affected the 'vampire' idea and allowed for evil spirits or creatures to return from the dead.

I argue for an 'evolution' for the vampire as whilst many works / books on the subject tend to discuss the beings from folklore and literature they tend to briefly acknowledge the earlier Medieval revenants but not link them too strongly. My belief is that the early demons and spirits (such as Lamia, Lilith and other demon forms) are linked to later forms by the concept of death and burial rites, and that the Iron Age bog bodies, Anglo-Saxon myths and Icelandic Sagas and early revenants (such as those discussed by William of Newburgh in Historia Rerum Anglicarum) bear direct relevance on much later vampire forms.

So, I would argue that there has been a continuous 'evolution' with the vampire, or vampiric beings, from early civilisations up to the modern vampire myth (ie. the caped and fanged aristocratic male, Christopher Lee / Bela Lugosi, etc).

Undoubtedly, I have discussed material that is already available in other books on the subject, but I felt it necessary to comment on this at various points of my own work, but I also hope that I am providing a 'fresh take' on the subject by arguing for the 'evolution'.