Public Service Announcement

I know I've been neglecting this blog for a little bit (well, ok, not that long), but you'll see why very shortly!

I generally don't like referring to my writings on the Highgate Vampire Case (and its participants) as they tend to attract unwanted attention.

Even Niels has encountered the shady types associated with the Case and his blog is about as innocent as you can get.

I'm guessing other readers have, too.

But this time 'round, I think I need to make a sort of public service announcement on it, especially due to the topics I've covered in the last few days.

This is also to give readers an idea of just how deceptive its primary protagonists can be.

Oh, by the way, if you're not familiar with the Highgate Vampire Case, then here's its Wikipedia page.

Read it?

Ok, good. Let's start with David Farrant.

Despite his insistence that the "feud" between himself and his arch-nemesis, Bishop Sean Manchester, is a "one-sided" affair, it very clearly isn't.

Despite pathologically trying to avail himself of the "vampire hunter" tag and promote his lack of belief in "Hammer-style" undead, he's also the same guy insisting that the "vampire" is "still active" (at rather timely circumstances) and still gives talks on the Case, despite declaring his interest in it "dead".

Query him further about certain quotes and actions, and you come up against a slippery slide of wanton deceit and sidestepping.

And now, onto Manchester.

Hoo boy.

In the last few days, I've focused on the fact that he's a blatant plagiarist.

Now, you'd think that a Bishop would (at the very least) admit to such misdeeds, and apologise for the error of his ways, wouldn't you?

Not this one.

It all began when I noticed that a blog post he "wrote" commenting on Barack Obama, seemed slightly, mmm, off-kilter. On a hunch, I decided to google portions of it.

Here's what I uncovered.

Most interestingly, large chunks of the post were cribbed from the blog of a right-wing British political party, the BNP.

I confronted Manchester on this matter by commenting on his blog.

Rather than confess, he instead deleted my comments and presented heavily-truncated versions of them as part of answers to unsuspecting readers.

The saga of this back-and-forth lunacy is compiled here.

In the meantime, I decided to have a peek into the Bishop's ecclesiastic "credentials". You might be surprised to see what I found.

As a side note, it might be amusing to know that he also wound up excommunicating one of the men who ordained him.

But the saga doesn't quite end there, ladies and gents! Oh no!

For the "crime" of trying to get the Bishop to admit to his "sins of omission", I was banned from commenting on his blog and also publicly labeled an anti-Catholic homosexual! (note: I'm neither anti-Catholic, or homosexual.)

So, if you wish to traipse into the minefield of dung that is the Highgate Vampire Case, I advise that you wear very sturdy boots!

Other than that, if you encounter either of these shady characters, or their affiliates, be it in person or on your blog/forum, I'd recommend extreme caution (lest you be publicly maligned or harassed by e-mail or some other means) and a hefty dose of skepticism.

Oh, and be very cautious of giving access to personal info.

Thanks for listening!

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program...

Manchester Vs. Miller

I was originally going to post this on my other blog, but decided it'd be more fitting here.

An anonymous poster I affectionately refer to as "TFO" (also given coverage here), left a comment on "The Mystery of Luisa, Pt. 3". It criticised Elizabeth Miller's coverage of Sean Manchester's theory on the historical identity of Bram Stoker's Count Dracula, in her book, Dracula: Sense & Nonsense (Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex: Desert Island Books Limited, 2000):

The Vampire Research Society has had several confrontational run-ins with Elizabeth Miller who has her own personal agenda and allegiances in the subculture. She has been found wanting on a number of occasions.

For example, Elizabeth Miller’s treatise on the novel Dracula in the year 2000 refers to what readers are told is an argument put forward by Seán Manchester, but, in fact, is a quote from established error in Carol Page’s "Blood Lust" published nine years earlier.

Let's take a look at what Miller actually wrote (p. 111):

In fact, this line of debate has resulted in outrageous conclusions, most notably by Sean Manchester who argues that the fifteenth-century Hungarian leader Janos Hunyadi "fits the bill [as the model for Dracula] much better [than Vlad], since he was a count, and Vlad wasn't.

Miller is referring to the occasional habit of some writers to "correct" Count Dracula's title, as the real Dracula was a voivode.

She points out that to do so is nonsensical, as Stoker's Dracula was a fictional creation, not an accurate rendering of a fifteenth century Wallachian warlord.

Now, let's take a look at what Sean Manchester's theory actually consisted of.

If we turn to pages 82-83 n1 of his book, The Highgate Vampire: The Infernal World of the Undead Unearthed at London's Famous Highgate Cemetery and Environs (London: British Occult Society, 1985), we find this:

Philologists at the Sixth Congress of Onomastic Sciences in Munich in 1958 designated Vlad Tepes, who ruled Wallachia from 1456-62 and again briefly in 1476, as Bram Stoker's Dracula. Since then virtually every writer on the subject unquestioningly endorsed this theory. This author, however, does not and identifies Janos Hunyadi (1407-56) as the historical Dracula.

Under what justification?

Stoker describes Dracula as having the title Count of Beszterce which was historically one of the titles of Hunyadi, as was Voivode (govenor) of Transylvania and Count of Temes (now Timis, Romania).

"Beszterce", it should be noted, is the Hungarian name for Bistriţa, referred to by its German name, in Stoker's novel, as "Bistritz". To my knowledge, the Count doesn't explicitly refer to himself as the Count of either of these places. Although, I'm happy to be corrected.

Also, as you can see, even though Miller quotes secondhand and paraphrases, Manchester's references to Hunyadi's titles of "Count" as opposed to Vlad's, are clear indications that Manchester considers these "discreprencies" to be valid enough for inclusions in his argument.

On with the theory:

Hunyadi was the most successful military leader against the Turks in the fifteenth century, which again fits Stoker's description.

Then why is Vlad considered to be a national hero by many Romanians? Oh, that's right - for leading attacks against the Turks.

Here's more on the theory:

Vlad the Impaler, on the other hand, was in the wrong geographical location and spent a great deal of time in prison.

As it happens, Vlad was actually born in Transylvania. Maybe he came home?

Second, considering that Castle Dracula (as Stoker describes it, at least) does not actually exist, then how can the geographic description be wrong?

Again, we're talking about a vampire Count, here. Not a real guy.

And here's the conclusion of the theory:

When Hunyadi died on 11th August, 1456, it was from an epidemic of plague at a time when plague was strongly associated with vampirism.

That would hinge largely on one's interpretation of "vampirism". I challenge anyone to find examples of supposed bloodsucking corpses, in association with the plague, roaming about at this time. I can almost guarantee you'll come up lacking.

While Hunyadi did die of the plague, you certainly won't find any references to him returning from the grave as a vampire, either.

He's regarded by Romanians and Hungarians, as a national hero, himself.

So, in conclusion, did Miller jump the gun on Manchester?

Yes and no.

Her secondhand overview of his theory is a tad too simplistic and dismissive, but, on the other hand, Manchester's theory doesn't hold up well under even the most basic scrutiny, either.

A Note on Amateurs

I've been made the subject of a thread on TFO's MSN Group, DAWWIH.

Message 1 in the thread is covered elsewhere, so I'll respond to Message 2 in this post.

First we begin with TFO's comments about labeling myself an amateur vampirologist:

Anthony Hogg describes himself as an "amateur vampirologist" with the nickname "tnuocalucard" which, of course, spells Count Dracula backwards. I am beginning to understand why he terms himself "amateur" in the vampirological stakes!

Allow me to explain why I refer to myself as an amateur vampirologist.

Firstly, a vampirologist is someone who studies vampires. This doesn't mean they go about prying open coffin lids and such, it means they take a scholarly, academic bent to the subject in question.

I consider myself to be an amateur because even though I've been studying the topic for some years, I've never had anything formally published on it.

The use of "tnuocalucard" (yes, Count Dracula backwards) in one of my Amazon accounts wasn't a reference to being an amateur, but a bit of an in-joke. It was the name of a character featured in a small play I wrote as an assignment for one of my high school subjects. I hope that clarifies things for TFO.

That said, I'm rather amused by TFO's gloating over my use of the term "amateur", considering that I've exposed him as a blatant plagiarist. Not bad for an "amateur", eh?

Niels K. Petersen, a Danish vampirologist, has also revealed the same thing.

So, going by the dictionary definition, not only can we dismiss TFO as an amateur ("1. a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons") but also as a vampirologist, in one fell swoop.

Next, TFO decides to discuss links to me on Amazon, as well as an criticism of my list, "The Complete Vampirologist's Library":

Anthony Hogg's list of vampire books (including his reviews of same) omit any mention of The Highgate Vampire, The Vampire Hunter's Handbook and Carmel. I wonder why? Perhaps they are not suitable material for "amateur vampirologists"?

I find this is a rather daft criticism - especially considering the vast amount of books available on the subject - but I'll respond to it, nonetheless.

At the time of composing that list a few years ago, I hadn't read any of those books. I gave mention to the ones I had read.

Admittedly, it was a bit premature calling the list "Complete", but I think it still holds up well. I might even write a follow-up some day.

That said, I have since read the first edition of The Highgate Vampire (1985).

And I still wouldn't add it to the list.

I've yet to read The Vampire Hunter's Handbook (1997), but I'd be surprised if the 96 page tome would have anything of much use, considering the reviews it's received. Like this one from Amazon member, Cupcakedoll:

This is a very thin book.

A short section is about hunting vampires.

The rest is the author arguing against the ideas of another group at the time. It wasn't much interest or use to me so I was glad I got it by interlibrary loan before I spent any money.

As to Carmel (2000), dubbed a "sequel" to Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897), I don't quite see the correlation in it being valuable for vampire research. Especially considering that it's a work of fiction.

You should also know that it's not wise to purely rely on books written by a single author. However, it's nice and "convenient" that each of the Sean Manchester book covers you reproduced, all lead to sites affiliated to the Vampire Research Society's website...where they're offered for sale.

Are there any other books in the field that you'd recommend? Ones that aren't written by Manchester?