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.
I am not botanically inclined, but botanical gardens can be pleasant to visit. In Vienna I had even more reason to go to the Botanical Garden of the Vienna University, as it was Gerard van Swieten who as Direktor of the Medical Faculty suggested to Empress Maria Theresa to found a 'Hortus Medicus', a medical garden. This was in 1754, i.e. the year before both the Empress and van Swieten became involved in the matter of Magia Posthuma and vampirism.
To be honest, I wasn't impressed with the Botanische Garten, but that is probably because of my lack of personal interest in botanics, and because I had spent hours at the Heeresgeschichtliches Museum and at the Upper and Lower Belvedere before I went to visit it.
The first two photos above are from Vienna, whereas the photos just above and below are from Halle.
