Victorian sources—another lead?

Redmond McWillams recently posted an interesting article by Andrew Gough on our forum, The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society. What fascinated me about it, was its allusions to Victorian era sources concerning supernatural activity at Highgate Cemetery.

Readers may be familiar with the lengths I've gone to try and validate reports of sightings from this era, with only uncited claims and speculations to go on. For instance, I queried David Farrant on the following statements he made in 1975:

Some interesting facts came to light. Firstly, it became apparent that stories of an apparition in Highgate cemetery had by no means begun with the then current sightings. Indeed, similar tales dated from the Victorian Era and interestingly enough more of them had "vampiristic" connections. One of the common tales of that time told of a "tall man dressed in black" who used to disappear mysteriously through the cemetery wall.¹

And,

That Bram Stoker was influenced by the Highgate Vampire when he wrote "Dracula" . . . is almost certain. In his book – written with typical Victorian authority – he makes direct reference to Highgate Cemetery (or at least, an area in the vicinity of Highgate Cemetery) as being the last resting place of one of Count Dracula's disciples.²

These statements are not 'out of date', either, as they're echoed in his recent writings. But rather than provide sources for these claims, I was repeatedly stonewalled. A reading of J.A. Brooks' coverage of the case, also turned up bupkiss. 

At the very least, I can establish that the second statement is inherently flawed. The resting place of the Count's 'disciple'—Lucy Westenra—was not formally identified as Highgate Cemetery in the novel, despite common presumption. Indeed, keeping in tune with Stoker's work as a novel—not historical treatise—it's likely her burial place was also fictional. 

As no writings prior 1970 equated Westenra's resting place with the cemetery—at least, none I'm aware of—it's also likely the association was made because of the Highgate Vampire case's Draculesque elements, not the other way round.

I digress. Let's get back to Gough's article. What fascinates me about it, is that not only does it allude to Victorian era sightings in the vicinity of the cemetery, but also features a Stoker connection:

The mother of Bram Stoker, author of the horror classic, Dracula, lived nearby and often recounted the legend of a tall, dark, supernatural-looking figure that roamed the area before the cemetery was created. 

The Bram Stoker Estate

A missing link! I knew Stoker's mum, Charlotte Stoker (1818–1901), told her son horror stories, but ghost sightings near the cemetery? That was news to me! 

Yesterday, I sent Gough a message, via Facebook, asking him what his source was. But soon after that, alarm bells started going off. I started thinking, did Stoker's mum even live in that area? I thought she remained in Ireland all her life. Indeed, Stoker, himself, didn't move to London till 1878. She didn't go with him. 

The cemetery, itself, opened in 1839—39 years before his move. If Gough was right, Charlotte, herself, must've had a secondhand source.

I decided to contact The Bram Stoker Estate: 'Good morning, I have a question concerning Charlotte Stoker. Did she remain in Ireland all her life?'

To my surprise, I was answered by foremost Dracula scholar, Elizabeth Miller: 'No. She moved to Italy in 1872 with her husband and 2 daughters. She returned to Dublin in 1886 (by this time her husband had died). She died in Dublin in 1901.'

After alluding to Gough's claim that she lived in the area of Highgate, Miller noted the speculative nature of such things, 'Of course, between 1886 and 1901, she "may" have visited Bram in London, and "maybe" he took her for a walk around Highgate, and "maybe" he explained to her that this was where Lucy was interred.... ad nauseam.' However, Gough's account is pretty clear: she lived there.

I then quoted the passage in question from Gough's article. Her response? 'Balderdash! Double poppycock! Utter garbage! Unmitigated claptrap!'

Miller's word on the subject was pretty substantiate in itself, but the Estate took my query on Charlotte's residency seriously enough to provide an official answer:

Very good question. We know Charlotte Stoker was a great influence on young Abraham Jr; not only did she tend to him while he was bedridden as a child, but it is speculated that her eloquent yet dark storytelling certainly had an influence on the future author of Dracula.

In the years after Bram left home, the Stoker family- composed then of Abraham Sr, Charlotte and their daughters Matilda and Margaret- moved about Europe. They lived in France, Switzerland and Italy, where Abraham Sr died in 1876. Several years later Charlotte returned to Dublin where she lived until her death in 1901.

Strong willed and with a keen intellect, Charlotte Stoker was more than a wife and mother. Through her life she was a staunch advocate for the rights of the disabled. Among her many works, in 1863 she published this paper on the need for state-funded education of the deaf and dumb. Charlotte Stoker's achievements may have been overshadowed by her son's but they certainly should not be overlooked.

So, there we have it. She never lived there, ergo, she didn't hear such stories during her supposed residency. But if that's the case, where'd Gough pull his account from? The ball's in his court on that one, but, at least we can debunk that element of the story.

---

^{1. D Farrant, 'Invoking the vampire', New Witchcraft, vol. 1, no. 4, 1975, p. 34.↩}  

^{2. ibid.↩}

Vampires: Demons in the Sack

I briefly discussed the semantics David employs regarding vampires, in the previous post. It's time to explore his unusual, alternative interpretation of vampiric phenomena. You'll see that vampires aren't outside his supernatural worldview.


Time and time again, David will insist that he doesn't believe in vampires, despite his association with the Highgate Vampire Case. However, he's particularly keen on emphasising his dismissal of the bloodsucking variety. Here's what he has to say on the matter in his interview for International Vampire Magazine:

I do not believe in "vampires" in the commercially accepted sense of the word ... i.e. physical figures or entities that go around draining victims of their blood in order to ensure "life everlasting".

There are two problems with his dismissals. Firstly, the "commercially accepted" use of the term, vampire, has historical and folkloric origins. It was introduced into the English language via an article published in the March 11, 1732 edition of The London Journal. The article covered an outbreak of vampirism in Serbia. This case popularised the Western concept of vampires, which is still used today.

However, writers and commentators soon saw the metaphoric applications of vampirism. Thus, the vampire could also be used as a political allegory, a reference to greedy people and a term for sexually voracious women.

The vampire was also given "new life" by occultists eager to distance it from its folkloric and historical status as an undead corpse, while retaining its supernatural element, to give themselves a "rational" edge in a post-Industrial society. Their alternate theories held that vampires were actually living people or discarnate entities that derived their sustenance not from blood, but from our vitality, or lifeforce. It was used to explain a metaphysical dilemma: how could a vampire transport a physical substance (blood), yet materialise in a grave under six feet of soil, without breaking the surface.

And now we arrive at the second problem with David's bloodsucking vampires dismissals. Despite his keenness to avail himself of the vampire tag (except when selling merchandise), it's clear that not only does he use the term himself, but he also believes in a variant of the vampire espoused by occultists, introducing an largely found in Medieval lore.

After yet another dismissal of the "Hammer Horror" style vampire, this time in an interview with Andrew Gough, David was asked "So, what are vampires then?" Here's his reply:

OK, fair point; just thought I’d mention it! So what are vampires?

Good question. Right, so I will tell you how the vampire legend was born. I assume most people have heard of the legend of the incubus and succubus?

Andrew responds with "Why yes, I believe most have." In case you haven't, an incubus is "a demon in male form who, according to a number of mythological and legendary traditions, lies upon sleepers, especially women, in order to have sex with them." The succubus is its female equivalent. And now, back to Dave:

Well, what is interesting is that they are said to visit people in their sleep, and the symptoms exhibited by these people – these victims, as it were - are invariably the same as those of vampire victims. People wake up for no apparent reason and are paralysed, and often report a pressure, as if someone is kneeling on their chest. I had a German girl visit me in 2001, and she was in quite a state. She had visitations at night and, like many victims, appeared to lose her appetite and, in this instance, the girl was anaemic and required iron pills from a doctor. Still others develop an aversion to bright lights and start sleepwalking; all characteristics of vampire victims. Furthermore, a lot of these people actually report a sexual element to the visitation. Sexual communication between the visiting entity and the person is very common.

So, Bram Stoker would have been aware of these legends and it is very possible that he could have based the legend of Dracula on the legend of the incubus and succubus.

At this point, you might think David was gearing up for a scientific explanation of this phenomena, especially in light of his harsh attitude towards people who believe in the bloodsucking variant. You'd be wrong.

Andrew continues his line of query with "We are back to the chicken and the egg again. Where do the legends of incubus and succubus come from, then?" David responds thusly:

Yes, but that quotation might be truer than you think you know! You see, I have often answered this point in my writings that ‘what came first’ was the consciousness or ‘life force’ that created and then formed both of these. This is perhaps not so irrelevant if you think about it, because psychic energy (like the incubus and succubus that you have mentioned) could operate in a similar way. It is neither ‘formed’ nor reproduces itself in human terms. In fact, reports of these entities date back for centuries and are world-wide.

The moral of the story is: when investigating this Case, don't take dismissals at face value. Explore the semantics of what's being said. Unravel the attacks. It's clear that the war being fought between Dave and his opponent is one of interpretation: bloodsucking vampires vs. "vampire-like" psychic entities, not science vs. supernatural or superstition vs. reason.

And in case you thought that Dave's take on vampires is simply a personal view, note that he's also applied it to the Highgate Vampire itself. Here's another extract from his interview with International Vampire Magazine:

Why was I inclined to admit or suggest that this particular entity or phenomenon pointed towards being "vampirical"? ... Well, during the course of the investigation it came to light that at least two independent people had been physically attacked by some unknown person or entity whilst they were passing the Cemetery late at night.

Joining Arcadia

I was doing a bit of Googling, and I noticed a comment by "DVB" that made reference to myself, on Andrew Gough's Arcadia Discussion Zone:

I've decided to join the forum so I can post responses. Stay tuned!

Incidentally, Andrew Gough managed to score an interview with Manchester and Farrant.

Separately, of course.