Heeding Summers

I've been discussing the strong possibility that Valentine Dyall 'invented' the Cranswells of Croglin Vampire fame. Seems he did a little pinching from one of his sources, too.

As previously noted, there's no indication Dyall did any field work for 'Vampire of Croglin Hall' (1954). He said, 'The strange tale must be pieced together from the works of independent writers–notably Augustus Hare, in "Story of My Life"; Charles G. Harper in "Haunted Houses," and the Rev. Montague Summers in "The Vampire in Europe." (p. 99). These are the only sources he listed and none of them as as rife with 'detail' as he provided.

Hare's The story of my life, vol. 4 (1900) is the earliest known source of the tale, as told to him by Edward Fisher (1832-1909). Dyall doesn't cite a specific edition of Harper's book, but the first edition, Haunted houses: tales of the supernatural, with some account of hereditary curses and family legends (1907) starts off with a reproduction of Fisher's account from Hare (pp. 67–73) before concluding with Harper's observations:

It is to be added, from personal observation, that there is no place styled Croglin Grange. There are Croglin High Hall and Low Hall. Both are farm-houses, very like one another, and not in any particulars resembling the description given. Croglin Law Hall is probably the house indicated, but it is at least a mile distant from the church, which has been rebuilt. The churchyard contains no tomb which by any stretch of the imagination could be identified with that described by Mr. Hare (pp. 73–4).

Harper's sketch of Croglin Low Hall is sandwiched between pp. 72–3. Summers reproduced the sketch in his 1929 book, The vampire in Europe, which also serves as Dyall's final source. Once again, Fisher's account via Hare is reproduced (pp. 111–15). No Cranswells there. Of the case itself, Summers had this to say:

That a large number of cases of vampirism must be accounted certain only the most prejudiced will deny.

Even in many other relations which cannot be pressed in detail it seems beyond a doubt that the main facts are true whilst the accessories have been embellished for the sake of the narrative. Such a history is that of the vampire of Croglin Grange. Mr Charles G. Harper, who investigated the exact locality, assures me that Mr Augustus Hare was undoubtedly lavish in his colouring. Actually there is no place styled Croglin Grange. There are Croglin High Hall and Low Hall, the latter of which is probably the house indicated. Mr Harper adds: "But it is at least a mile distant from the church, which has been rebuilt. The churchyard contains no tomb which by any stretch of the imagination could be identified with that described by Mr. Hare." (p. xviii)

Despite these reservations, Summers believed the events described by Fisher actually took place: 'These discrepancies do not, of course, militate against the essential truth of the tale' (ibid). Interestingly, Dyall implies his own belief in the tale, but did so by ripping off Summers' comments: 'There are discrepancies in these three versions, but they do not necessarily militate against the essential truth' (my emphasis, 1954, p. 99). Aping Summers' comments about 'discrepancies' in the story took Summers' mention out of context: the discrepancies he was referring to, were the name and location of the house.

Dyall further injured his case by adding 'dates and names are uncertain, and beyond doubt details have been embellished for the sake of shudder and thrill, but to the fair-minded researcher the main facts are clear' (ibid). Not only did Dyall provide dates, anyway (which are inaccurate*), of the four sources–Hare, Harper, Summers and himself–he was the only one to name the tenants.** One must ask exactly which 'main facts' are left after such 'embellishments'!

But who was responsible for them? Which ones was Dyall alluding to? Harper and Summers followed Fisher-via-Hare's account quite closely. Their versions contain no embellishments. If their source, Hare, was indeed, 'lavish in his colouring', we have no earlier source to defer to. At least, none that Harper, Summers or Dyall mentioned. As it stands, Hare's recount of Fisher's tale is the original version. Meanwhile, Dyall's account opens with this:

March winds were howling dismally through the Cumberland hills and the dawn light was a feeble glow behind heavy cloud as Edward Cranswell, master of Croglin Hall***, and his younger brother Michael led their small party of farmers and landworkers into the cemetery.

Silently, that morning in 1876, they filed past the rows of tombstones–vague, shadowy figures in the eerie greyness, muffled in heavy topcoats, carrying flickering lanterns (p. 96).

Compare that with Hare, Harper and Summers' versions. In stealing Summers' 'militate against the essential truth of the tale' bit, Dyall should've paid closer attention to what Summers followed it up with:

but it should be borne in mind that a narrator who thus mingles imagination for effect's sake with fact incurs a serious responsibility. He gives a fine opening to the sceptic and of this every advantage fair and unfair will be taken (p. xviii).

Damn straight. It also turns out that Dyall's 'shudder and thrill' line was also taken from Summers, who continued: 'If a yarn is to be told for the shudder and thrill, well and good; let the ruddle be thick and slab. But write the rubric without ambiguity that this is a high romance to follow' (ibid). Loosely translated: if you're gonna make shit up, say so. But save it for a novel: don't mix it in with details of an existing case, otherwise, how are readers supposed to know which details are right and which ones are wrong? It leaves the door wide open for sceptics (like me) to wade in and slash away at the case's credibility.

Dyall really should've taken Summers' advice. In the meantime, it's possible that after all this, Dyall's 'Cranswells' could be vindicated, thanks to F. Clive-Ross' discussions with locals (*shakes fist at him!*). It's just that Dyall didn't bother mentioning where he got the name from, nor explicitly saying 'Hey guiz! I made it up! Lol!'

I'm lookin' into it.

As a side note, it's interesting that Summers didn't draw obvious parallels between the attack on 'Amelia Cranswell' (as Dyall dubbed her) and Flora Bannerworth in the 1847 penny dreadful, Varney the vampire. After all, both narratives feature an attack on a young lady in a bedroom; the vampire creeping in by picking away at the mortar in a window pane; the vampire entwining its victim's hair in its gnarled hand to expose the victim's neck for a bite...a victim who is also saved by her screams rousing the gentlemen of the house...

Summers was certainly familiar with Varney: he quoted the bloody scene (pp. 105–11) right before launching into the Croglin account. Oh, Monty!

* Dyall said the vampire was hunted down in 1876 (p. 96), adding 'the Cumberland phenomenon can be definitely placed in the years 1875-76' (p. 99), even though Hare's recount of Fisher's tale was included in a journal entry dated 24 June 1874.

** In fairness to Dyall, F. Clive-Ross' investigation, which was detailed in 'The Croglin vampire', Tomorrow, vol. 11, no. 2, 1963 (pp. 103–9) found that the tenants' surname, Cranswell, was known locally (p. 108). However, there's the distinct possibility that the name was known due to Dyall's version of events. See: 'Good timing!'

*** What happened to 'Croglin Grange'?

On criticism

I'm still waiting for my copy of the critical edition to Montague Summers' The vampire: his kith and kin to arrive. In the meantime, I noticed Niels has already had a chance to review it.

He's been waiting for critical overviews of Summers' work for some time, so I can only imagine his heart skipped a beat when I forwarded him a link to the book, which was published in May this year with little-to-no fanfare. Hell, not even I knew about it: I stumbled across it on Amazon.

Long-time readers of Niels' blog, Magia Posthuma, will know he's a man with (deservedly) high expectations. If those aren't met, he's not afraid to say it. Therefore, my heart started sinking when I began reading the opening paragraph of his review:

’A Critical Edition’ to me is an edition of a book that sets the work into its context, enabling the reader to better understand the work's genesis and sources, to get a grasp of how the book was received, and to assess its influence and importance then as well as now. At the same time, the word ‘critical’ in my opinion implies a re-evaluation of the work in terms of contemporary knowledge and understanding. In the case of a work of non-fiction this would include correcting errors.

The rest of the review is, well, brutal. But in light of Niels' expectations, and the examples he gives, this approach is understandable. Personally-speaking, I'm happy with the fact that the book's a facsimile and its supplementary material, alone, makes it a bargain at $22.95.

That said, I shouldn't downplay the critical element of the book's title. By emphasising that aspect, it's automatically endowed itself with certain 'responsibilities' and its value as a critical work, hinges on its ability to uphold them. Until my copy arrives, I can only defer to Niels' commentary...which has not gone 'unseen'.

The book's editor, John Edgar Browning, has read Niels' book review. His response is a testament to his professionalism and integrity:

Thank you, Mr. Petersen, for your very thorough elucidation of the contents of this edition. Of course, the "argument" here--that is, the matter at hand--has less to do with the particular contents chosen for inclusion and more to do with how one arrives at the definition of a "critical edition," a subject which continues to spawn fairly lengthy debates among textual criticism scholars. The description you gave, while good, is but one of several approaches to producing a "critical edition," another being concerned primarily with cross-examining and cross-referencing all the major editions of a particular text (though this is generally typical of hand-written texts). The third and most prominent approach is the one we have chosen, similar in design to the quite popular "Norton Critical Editions" series--the major difference here being that we chose contextual documents which provided insight not only into the work itself but the author as well, since in this case the work in question, its writing, and the author himself are so closely intertwined, in our opinion.

The contributors and I made every attempt to give no false impression of what was contained in this critical edition, particularly since the contents were clearly stated on the back cover and in the description given for the book at various websites; if you didn’t have access to this information, then I am very sorry. I, for one, am reluctant to purchase any book whose front and back cover I have not studied thoroughly. In short, we did not promise anything which we did not deliver--nothing more, nothing less.

I appreciate your review. And, what is more, I encourage you to edit such an edition as the one you describe here.

Niels thanked him for his response, and said he intended to write more on the book. Now these are the kinds of 'reactions', I love: intelligence discourse born from criticism. Intellectual bickering, if you will. Heh heh. But, more importantly, it provides an insight into the respective writers' intent.

Criticism–good criticism, that is–is not purely born of malice, but genuine desire for quality in the respective field. If this is not met, then it's 'called out' to keep an author on their toes and to make clear that no substitutions for quality will be accepted. A good writer–aware of their flaws–will take it on the chin and 'fix it', next time 'round. Naturally, every writer and critic has an inherent criteria and intent for their respective writings, so it's important, for the sake of context, to make that clear in the subject they're dealing with or the work they're criticising.


The fact remains that as influential as Summers' works have been, they're not gospel. They're not the Unerring Final Say on Vampires. They deserve criticism. He made mistakes. He was a product of his beliefs and times; or, at least, a deliberate throwback to an earlier time. Summers certainly wasn't above having a go at his contemporaries, either. Here's what he had to say in The vampire: his kith and kin, about Dudley Wright's writings on the subject:

In English there is a little book entitled Vampires and Vampirism by Mr. Dudley Wright, which was first published in 1914; second edition (with additional matter), 1924. It may, of course, be said that this is not intended to be more than a popular and trifling collection and that one must not look for accuracy and research from the author of Roman Catholicism and Freemasonry. However that may be, it were not an easy task to find a more insipid olio than Vampires and Vampirism, of which the ingredients, so far as I am able to judge, are most palpably derived at second, and even at third hand.

But in deeming his own work 'the first serious study in English of the Vampire, and kindred traditions from a general, as well as from a theological and philosophical point of view', he set himself up with certain expectations, too. And by those, he should be held accountable.

Facsimile or web version?

I've been wondering whether the critical edition of Summers' The vampire: his kith and kin used web material as its source or referred to the original text. So, I went straight to the source: the book's editor, John Edgar Browning.

I contacted John on September 1, asking 'Did you use Summers' original book or did you use the online version of kith?' He responded the same day, 'Which would be better: That I used the online version; or, a facsimile of the first ed.?'

That sounded ominous, until I read his comments on my Facebook status update about the book (August 29 at 9:20am). One of my Facebook friends, Kyle, complained about the book being expensive (September 1 at 1:44pm), to which John added:

The new edition offers a complete, identical facsimile of the 1928 ed., front and back mater by renown vampire and Summers scholars, every known pic of Summers and then some, dozens of other contextual images, Greek and Latin translations for all those pesky passages, facsimiles of important correspondence between Summers, Wheatley, Censors Board, etc., and MORE. You can find other, cheaper editions, but they're usually OCRs cum errors, or facsimiles that offer no additional materials $22.95 is a steal, I think (Friday at 1:07am).

What a relief! Also, dayum! Couldn't agree more. All that for US$22.95. Bargain. My copy of the book's yet to arrive, but John did send me a brief pdf preview of the book's contents on Friday. While only a few pages long, I was very impressed with what I saw. For starters, it contained an image of Summers which I'd never seen before:


It also features contemporary reviews of the book, as well as Summers' correspondence...with Dennis Wheatley, no less. We're also treated to a chronology of events in the mysterious Summers' life. As John noted (September 1 at 7:49am), I'm not the only person who's blogged about the book.

I had a feeling I knew who he was referring to, and it was confirmed when I saw his link to the FoBSM blog. I noticed they'd pilfered some content from my blog entry (the parts showing which contributor wrote what). On the plus side, it's good to see the Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester take time out from their usual practice—cyber-bullying Manchester's critics—in order to plug the book.

It's also refreshing to see something not written by Manchester or Peter Underwood (Life Member of Manchester's Vampire Research Society) appear on their blog. Such is the esteem with which Summers is held by the Bishop and his friends. Of course, considering that Manchester views himself as something akin to a reincarnation of the late cleric, it's not all that surprising.

Anyway, I also took the opportunity to ask John whether there'd be a critical edition of Summers' follow-up vampire book, The vampire in Europe (1929). On Friday, he told me the book had 'been contracted and is expected out late this year/early next year'. Hell yeah.

Can't wait to get my copy. If you're interested in scoring your own, it's available through Amazon.

Discussion of dates and an interesting find

Props to funkyjane, for tipping me off on lower prices for Thomas J. Garza's The vampire in Slavic cultures. After discussing her comment, I'll also reveal an interesting find I unearthed on Amazon.

Ms. Jane informed me of a 2010 edition of his book, which is for sale via the publisher's website. At the moment, the going rate for this book, on Amazon, is $162.95, which means it's actually increased in price since it was published in 2009. As it that wasn't exorbitant enough, check out the book's used prices.


The book available from the publisher's webiste, however, is not a new edition, but I can see why Ms. Jane thought it was.

As noted, the book was published on 20 July 2009, going by Amazon's 'Publisher' info. However, the book's copyright date, is 2010 (that is viewable in the pdf free preview I downloaded in 2009, as well as the [same] version available now). If you didn't know the book was published in 2009, you'd take the copyright date as the date of publication.

And here's where it gets murky.

The copyright date that appears in books is not necessarily the year the book was published. For example, the third edition of J. Gordon Melton's The vampire book: the encyclopedia of the undead is listed as being published on 1 September 2010 and it was certainly available for purchase last year. However, if you check its copyright date, it'll say '2011'.

Same principle applies to Brad Steiger's Real vampires, night stalkers, and other creatures from the darkside. Its publication date is listed as 1 September 2009, yet it features a 2010 copyright date. I wound up contacting the book's publisher about this 'discrepancy' and was told 'in publishing, the copyright year generally starts in September, which is when Real Vampire [sic] was published'. Note 'generally'. That also probably variates from country to country.

That, of course, leaves us with a frustrating riddle: which year is the 'right' one? The copyright year of the year of publication? That depends on the style guide you consult.

In terms of citation, this research guide, which breaks down the Modern Language Association style, mentions 'For a book, use the copyright year as the date of publication, e.g.: 2005, not ©2005 or Copyright 2005, i.e. do not draw the symbol © for copyright, or add the word Copyright in front of the year.' Other style guides may have a different take, or none at all. Always make sure you use the most current version.

It also depends on the context you're using the year. For example, a book could (I would think) have its publication date mentioned in-text, while a citation for it using the copyright date, would (hypothetically) be ok.

What matters is consistency, which, unfortunately, I haven't totally engaged in on here, as I occasionally alternate between a book's copyright date and publication date, when discussing it. Plus, the matter is further hindered by how much insight the researcher has into the book's publication date.

After all, if we're relying on the book, itself, how do we know what its exact publication date was, if the only info we have on hand is the copyright date? Should we start checking the publication dates of all the books we consult? Tricky stuff. I might delve into this issue at a later time.

******************************

In other news, how the hell did I miss this? While trawling through Amazon to write this entry, I stumbled across a critical edition of Montague Summers' The vampire: his kith and kin. 'Included in this critical edition are the authoritative text, rare contextual and source materials, correspondence, illustrations, as well as Greek and Latin translations. A biographical note and chronology are also included.'

Oh, hell yes! Into my shopping cart you go!

Check out the list of people involved in its creation: edited by John Edgar Browning (Draculas, vampires, and other undead forms: essays on gender, race, and culture, 2009), an introduction by Rosemary Ellen Guiley (Vampires among us, 1991; The complete vampire companion, 1994; The encyclopedia of vampires, werewolves, and other monsters, 2004/2011; Vampires, 2008), an afterword by Carol A. Senf (The vampire in nineteenth century English literature, 1988) and a foreword by J. Gordon Melton (The vampire book: the encyclopedia of the undead, 1994/1999/2011). What a line-up!

Fingers crossed they take on Summers' companion tome, The vampire in Europe (1929) next.

Also, I hope they haven't relied on the online version of The vampire: his kith and kin. There have been many reprints of that book, which stem from Bruno J. Hare's Internet Sacred Text Archive (ISTA) version.

The problem is, some of the text has been deliberately altered. You can tell which publishers have copy-n-pasted their reprints from ISTA (or other sites, which, in turn, have relied on the ISTA version), by seeing if they've included the following entry in Summers' bibliography: 'ERAH, J. Onurb. Key to Vampyrology, Witchcrafte & Dæmonologie for Guidance of ye Slayers. The Watchers' Society, Cambridge, 1751.'

The entry is not featured in the original Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd. edition (1928), because Key to vampyrology doesn't exist. The entry was fabricated by transcriber, Bruno J. Hare (Erah, J. Onurb), to undermine copyists.

Bite-Size Halloween Bits

Happy Halloween, everyone! What perfect timing for a neglected round-up edition! What've I bought? What've I joined? What's coming up on the blog? Read on.

Ok, first up: a few eBay purchases came in the mail recently. Rosemary Ellen Guiley's Mysteries, Legends, and Unexplained Phenomena: Vampires (New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 2008) arrived on the 8th. I scored it for US $5.45 (not including shipping, of course).


It's tailored for a Young Adult readership, but still fairly informative. And better still, it's got sweet, sweet endnotes (115) and a bibliography (116-117). What's the big deal about that? Read this and you'll see. It's not often you see 'em in books for that audience, so bonus points for that. In my view, kids should be encouraged to develop this academic habit so they'll appreciate the importance of paper trails for themselves and for others.

Also, as you might know, I'm big into first editions. So, if you relish 'em as much as I do, avoid the the Checkmark Books 2009 copy. That is a paperback reprint. Or paperback edition, if you will. Stick with the Chelsea House Publishers version.


On the 13th, Charlotte Montague's From Dracula to Twilight: Vampires: The Complete Guide to Vampire Mythology (New York: Chartwell Books, Inc., 2010) arrived. Apart from its cumbersome title, it served as a marked contrast to Guiley's book on several counts. Firstly, it wasn't a first edition, as I found out the hard way. However, it wasn't falsely listed as a first edition, at least, so I really should have double-checked before I placed my bid. That said, I won it for the princely sum of US $1.77, so let's say my vision was somewhat obscured in this regard.

For the record, the original was published by Omnipress, a London-based publishing company. Or, so you'd think going on the book's copyright info. So, I'm wondering what's the go with this Sphere version. Might look into that.

Apart from a few rare photographs, there's nothing overly remarkable about the book. Its simplistic text and voluminous illustrations indicate it's for the young'uns, too. However, it not only lacks endnotes but has no bibliography, either. That's especially troubling when we're fed practically unverifiable info. See Andrew's review for Montague's coverage of the vampire's reaction to sunlight. I expected a lot more from an author with an MA degree in history.


The last eBay book to arrive was Timothy d'Arch Smith's Montague Summers: A Bibliography (Wellingborough: The Aquarian Press, 1983). Bought it for a fairly reasonable GBP 11.66. It's actually a 2nd rev. ed. of Smith's A Bibliography of the Works of Montague Summers (Nicholas Vane, 1964).

Incidentally, I like collecting further editions, too (as opposed to reprints), but I saw little in the way of revision from my recollections of the 1964 edition. Hell, Sewell's foreward and Smith's introduction from the first edition have been retained. Of course, at that time, Summers' autobiography, The Gallanty Show (1980), had yet to see published, so I can see why the book was revised (ever so slightly). But, come on! Give us a little more material, please. Something a bit more substantial than a coupla pages here and there.

That's not to say the book isn't handy, of course. Summers was a wildly prolific writer and Smith thoroughly and meticulously documents his writings wherever they've appeared. It must've been a nightmarish task. That said, in light of Summers contributions to modern vampire studies, it's a shame to find out that his writings on the subject were seemingly confined to two books and a letter to Time and Tide (January 18, 1929), pp. 60-61, correcting a reviewer's comments on his book, The Vampire: His Kith and Kin (1928). That's not Smith's fault, of course, but still...

*****************************

Speaking of Guiley and further editions, The Encyclopedia of Vampires, Werewolves and Other Monsters (2004) has a second edition on the way. It's scheduled publication date is June 30, 2011.

It's title's been shortened to The Encyclopedia of Vampires & Werewolves, which is probably for the best, as the "other monsters" bit was largely drowned out by the vampire and werewolf entries in the first edition. It's also got a beaut new cover.

*****************************

On Tuesday (26th), I received an important letter from Elizabeth Miller, along with the Spring and Summer issues of The Borgo Post. What was so important about this letter, praytell? It confirmed my registration with the Transylvanian Society of Dracula. Yep, I'm now a member of the TSD!

It's the first time I've ever been part of a vampire "fan club", if you will. Concurrent to signing with them, I was thinking of joining The Vampire Empire, only to find out that it "now serves as a Research facility only." D'oh!

*****************************

I get a kick out of seeing what brings you guys to my blog. And what tops the list? Of all things, looks like you can't get enough of my posts on "antique" vampire killing kits (see here, here and here). They've scored mentions on the Daily Kos and The BS Historian. The latter was even inspired to continue their coverage of the kits, emphasising the silver bullet angle. Be sure to check it out.

Oh, and I can't help but be amused by those "Twilight porn" searches. Hahaha! Naughty, naughty! I'll say this, though: the infamous Rule 34 works in your favour.

Incidentally, I do see a few research ones, like "what kind of degree does a vampirologist need" from Albuquerque, New Mexico. So, if any of you have any queries, I'm happy to help. My e-mail's on my profile.

*****************************

Dr. Peter Mario Kreuter's kindly agreed to participate in an instalment of the "Q & A" sessions. So, in the next few days, I've gotta drum up some q's. I've previously interviewed Niels K. Petersen, Martin V. Riccardo and Bruce A. McClelland. Check 'em out here.

*****************************

It's taken a while for Halloween to catch on here in Australia, but it's getting there. Seamus O'Tooles Irish Pub in Wantirna South is even transforming into "Club Fangtastica" tonight.


It invites punters to "Take a trip into the depths of Louisiana’s historic vampire culture", which, in this case, also serves as a testament True Blood's popularity, even on this far-flung corner of the globe.

This is sure to be the hottest spot in town for both mortals and vamps this Halloween. If you’re the the baddest vamp around, come down and order an ice cold bottle of Tru Blood to quench your thirst; but watch out for werewolves or there could be trouble!

Sip on some tantalising Tru Blood cocktails served by “Fangtasia” waitresses, and dance until the sun comes up to the sounds of our DJ and band. The Tru Blood cocktail list includes such classics as the Tequila Moonrise, The Blood Maker-ita, The Fangbanger, and Death on the Beach.

Even though V.I.P tix went for $36.00 and General Admission $26.00, they're now sold out. And on that chilling note, I wish everyone of you a safe and happy Halloween.

Round-Up Time

Just a few items concerning vampire-related things in my life at the moment. We start off with my pursuit of Montague Summers, an eBay purchase, a rambling (brief) film review and giving props to Amazon.

I've gotten onto a bit of a Montague Summers (1880-1948) kick. A very prolific writer, best known in vampire studies for writing The Vampire: His Kith and Kin (1928) and its companion tome, The Vampire in Europe (1929). Even though he only wrote these two books in the genre, their impact was massive. Indeed, you'll still find them in print today. He's even spawned a blatant imitator.

Anyhoo, I've been looking for biographical info on the guy, so I ordered two books about him through interlibrary loan. Borrowed both of 'em, yesterday. They are Timothy D'Arch Smith's The Books of the Beast: Essays on Aleister Crowley, Montague Summers, Francis Barrett and Others (Crucible, 1987) and Frederick S. Frank's Montague Summers: A Bibliographic Portrait (Metuchen: The Scarecrow Press, 1988).

I was, quite frankly, disappointed with both. Not with their content, though. You see, I was expecting primarily original material from both, but, alas, they're essentially anthologies of previously published material. D'Arch Smith's book has two essays on Summers: "Montague Summers" (51-57) and "R. A. Caton, Montague Summers, and The Fortune Press" (58-74).

The first essay (presumably published with the second), is reproduced from his 1984 booklet, Montague Summers: A Talk (Edinburgh: Trargara Press). The preface mispells this as "Trargars".

One section of the book did startle me, though: the confirmation that Summers participated in a Black Mass on 26 December, 1918 (56-57). As to one of the other rumours swirling about Summers, the pederasty coverage is relatively hazy, but plausible enough to feel quite disconcerting.

Frank's book is indeed a "bibliographic portrait", consisting of a stack of content mainly reproduced from Summers' own works. The essays that comprise the first part of the book (3-34) have all been published elsewhere. However, the bibliographic chronology and annotated bibliography (156-246) seem to be unique to the book. So, props for that.

I know these might sound like harsh assessements, but just to clarify, these books certainly possess high value for those digging up info on Summers. The harshness is merely one of personal taste. I am keen on original material, you see. First editions. Items as close to a primary source as possible. The books are valuable in that they collate some pretty rare stuff into a solid whole. So, yes, I still recommend them. Personally, though, it means I gotta track down the original sources. At least I've got leads to work with!

*****************************

Speaking of original prints, Christopher Frayling's Vampyres: Lord Byron to Count Dracula (London: Faber and Faber, 1991) arrived in the mail today. I purchased the item from eBay on the 26th of September for GBP 4.99 (after requesting a markdown from 7.99). Quite a bargain.

I already own the paperback edition, which was published the following year. But, I just had to add this '91 hardback to my collection. Incidentally, it's a revised edition of Frayling's The Vampyre: Lord Ruthven to Count Dracula (1978). That one's on my of to-gets, too.

*****************************

Watched Suck (2009) on DVD today. Although the title's probably ironic, it's not far from the truth. It features a swathe of cameos, namely Henry Rollins, Alice Cooper, Moby, Iggy Pop, Henry Rollins, hell, even Alex Lifeson from Rush. As you might've gathered, it's a vampire rock 'n' roll flick. But the music was pretty average and none of those aforementioned musos actually sing in the movie.

It's a bit of an odd flick, incorporating stop motion and dramatic lighting during various scenes. And, I gotta admit, Dimitri Coats made a pretty damn effective vampire...despite his dodgy clothes. I just felt that the flick ran out of steam once the band (The Winners) hit the US border. Just kind've ambled along at that point. It certainly has some clever moments, like the flashback scenes for Malcolm McDowell's vampire hunter. Rather than make him look young or hire a younger actor to play him, the director deftly integrated footage from an actual young McDowell. Nice touch.

I'm also savvy enough to know that the director reproduced a few classic album covers in his shots, namely The Beatles' Abbey Road, Bruce Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A., The Who's The Kids are Alright and T. Rex's Electric Warrior. While quietly amusing at first, it got a bit repetitive, real quick. Didn't really fit the narrative, either. And speaking of "quietly amusing", I don't think I even laughed once during the film. It's a horror comedy. Seemed too limp for that. That said, it was vaguely entertaining. Probably needed a faster pace.

*****************************

The problems I had with Day's book (mentioned here), were fixed up shortly after I wrote that blog entry. I requested a partial refund (half of the total price), as I was still gonna keep the book, which they granted. Kudos, Amazon, for swiftly stitching that up.

The Wright Book for You

I've just come across an interesting sale on eBay, courtesy of this seller.

You can snap up a copy of Dudley Wright's Vampires and Vampirism (rev. ed., 1924) for US$160.


I'd buy it myself if I had the available fundage!

From a critical perspective, the work is pretty shabby (you can get a variety of reprints of this book, to see for yourself), but it still serves as one of the seminal entries in vampires studies of the twentieth century.

The original edition was published in 1914 and helped filled a gap in vampire studies at the time, which was primarily occupied by occultic articles and works like A. Osbourne Eaves' Modern Vampirism: Its Dangers, and How to Avoid Them (1904), a treatise on psychic vampirism.

Montague Summers was brutal in his review of Wright's work, noting

it were not an easy task to find a more insipid olio than Vampires and Vampirism, of which the ingredients, so far as I am able to judge, are most palpably derived at second, and even at third hand.

But one wonders if Summers would have made his own contributions to the genre, if it hadn't been for Wright stepping up to the plate.

Cyprien Robert and the Montague Summers Connection

Last Sunday, I was reading Manly Wade Wellman's "The Last Grave of Lill Warran" in Peter Haining's anthology, The Vampire Hunters' Casebook (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1997), when I was struck by an intriguing reference within the text.

The hero of the story, John Thunstone, pens a letter to his colleague, well-known French occult detective, Jules de Grandin, about a case he had been investigating. It was this particular passage that caught my attention (which contains spoilers, so look away if you want to read the story):

If Lill Warran was a werewolf, and killed in her werewolf shape, it follows as a commonplace that she became a vampire after death. You can read as much in Montague Summers, as well as the work of your countryman, Cyprien Robert (188).

No doubt many of those with even a passing interest in vampire scholarship would surely have heard of Montague Summers. Even though he only wrote two book-length studies on vampirism (The Vampire: His Kith and Kin, 1928 and The Vampire in Europe, 1929), his shadow looms long and large over the field.

But who was this Cyprien Robert character?

At first, I thought he might've been a fictional creation. Mainly because in all my studies, I couldn't recall his name in association with vampire scholarship. I also thought it could have been a cross-narrative in-joke: after all, as mentioned, Thunstone writes to de Grandin, who happens to be a creation of fellow Weird Tales writer, Seabury Quinn.

Wellman's story, incidentally, was first published in Weird Tales' May 1951 issue.

H.P. Lovecraft, another famous contributor to Weird Tales, and his correspondents would also engage in this form of inter-narrative play. Here's an example from Robert Bloch's Wikipedia entry:

Bloch's early stories were strongly influenced by Lovecraft. Indeed, a number of his stories were set in, and extended, the world of Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos. It was Bloch who invented, for example, the oft-cited Mythos texts De Vermis Mysteriis and Cultes des Goules.

Lovecraft also combined fictional works with real ones in several of his stories.

Anyhoo, I resolved to solve this matter by using the scholar's friend: Google! I typed in "Cyprien Robert" and "vampire" and the second entry was a major step in giving the game away:


The second entry is a facsimile reprint of Summers' The Vampire in Europe. Sure enough, the text cites Robert:

Again in his Les Slaves de Turquie Cyprien Robert describes the vrykolakes of Thessaly and Epirus thus: "These are living men mastered by a kind of somnabulism, who seized by a thirst for blood go forth at night from their shepherd's-huts, and scour the country biting and tearing all that they meet both man and beast." (218-19)

The first entry you see, is an article by Martin V. Riccardo called "Vampires as Sleepwalkers". Here's what he has to say about Robert:

Cyprien Robert, a writer and researcher in the 19th century, was given descriptions of vrykolakes in Thessaly and Epirus, regions of Greece. From what he heard of these vampires he wrote, "These are living men mastered by a kind of somnambulism, who seized by a thirst for blood go forth at night from their shepherd's huts, and scour the country biting and tearing all that they meet both man and beast." Somnambulism is another word for sleepwalking.

Obviously, Summers is the common thread.

However, Summers himself appears to have been a tad derivative. Here's a passage from a facsimile reprint of John Cuthbert Lawson's Modern Greek Folklore and Ancient Greek Religion: A Study in Survivals, originally published in 1910:

The other authority is Cyprien Robert, who describes the vrykolakes of Thessaly and Epirus thus: 'These are living men mastered by a kind of somnabulism, who seized by a thirst for blood go forth at night from their shepherd's-huts, and scour the country biting and tearing all that they meet both man and beast.' (379)

Summers acknowledges his debt to Lawson's work in his "Introduction" to The Vampire: His Kith and Kin.

But, back to Robert.

The work Summers and Lawson cite was published in Paris in 1844. Thanks to the magic of Google Book Search, it can be read here.

I haven't been able to turn up much on the author himself, except that he was born in 1807 and that he published a bunch of works - not on vampires - but on Slavs. So, far from being a "vampire expert", I'd say the vampire crossed into his ethnographic studies, as part of his coverage on Slavic folklore.

Thus, I'm inclined to believe that Wellman came across mentions of Robert in Summers writings and seamlessly blended him in.

Nonetheless, it also reveals that Robert could be a very interesting source for vampire studies...

"Beware Catchpenny Titles!"

Jacqueline Simpson's review (Folklore 111.1, April 2000: pp. 140-141) of Pëtr Bogatyrëv's Vampires in the Carpathians: Magical Acts, Rites, and Beliefs in Subcarpathian Rus’ (Translated by Stephen Reynolds and Patricia A. Krafcik. East European Monographs, No. CDXCII. New York: East European Monographs: Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1998) hits the nail on the head. In discussing the book's actual vampire content, she writes:

Beware catchpenny titles! The reader seeking vampires will eventually learn (pp. 119-20) that one can prevent their visits by strewing poppy seeds or by putting wood shavings and thorns in the coffin, and destroy them by decapitation; on pp. 132-3 he or she will encounter the opyr in rather unfamiliar guise, as a demonic being which scares horses at pasture, or lives beside water and tries to drown people. (p. 140)

To be fair on the late Bogatyrëv (1893-1971), the book's title wasn't his original choice, as Simpson goes on to note:

But the subtitle which renders the original title is a far truer indicator of this excellent book's contents; it begins with a long, systematic analysis of the principles underlying magical actions and verbal formulas, picking out the omens, divinations, and luck-enhancing actions prescribed for each date or event. (p. 140)

East European Monographs isn't the only publisher guilty of such deceptive titling. After alll, a similar tactic has been applied to Forests of the Vampire: Slavic Myth (Myth and Mankind, New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 2003).

Its index gives away how much coverage the "Vampire" of the title actually gets:

vampires, 94-99; kikimora and, 92, 93; in literature and film, 135-36 (p.143)

Then we have books which admittedly do contain a greater amount of vampire material, but inexplicably re-title the author's original work.

Take Dover Publications' The Vampire in Lore and Legend (2001) and Vampires and Vampirism (2005), both works authored by Montague Summers.

In his lifetime, Summers (1880-1948) never published any works under these names.

The first book is actually a retitling of The Vampire in Europe (1929) and the second is a retitling of The Vampire: His Kith and Kin (1928).