Showing posts with label Bram Stoker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bram Stoker. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

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These statements are not 'out of date', either, as they're echoed in his recent writings.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.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Victorian era vampire or modern-day sham?

Was Highgate Cemetery homes to ghosts, bogies and beasties over 140 years ago? Time to examine claims made by David Farrant.


He maintains that 'in the late 1960’s/70’s . . . wide reports began coming into the British Psychic and Occult Society about a "tall dark figure" with "hypnotic red eyes" that had been sighted in and around London's Highgate Cemetery', offering precious little evidence to that effect. Indeed, not only were early reports often contradictory, but the description does not even match his original sightings.

This attempt to link a dubious 'past tradition' to the cemetery was expounded in an article he wrote called, 'Invoking the vampire', New Witchcraft, vol. 1, no. 4 (1975). During the course of his alleged investigation,
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 (p. 34).
On the same page, he also discussed a famous 'witness' to this phenomena: 'That Bram Stoker was influenced by the Highgate Vampire when he wrote "Dracula" . . . is almost certain.'

How Farrant obtained this information is a mystery. After all, there appears to be no contemporary record of such tales told in association with Highgate Cemetery. I asked him for his sources on The supernatural forum (the Highgate section is password protected as of this writing), only to be confronted with nonsensical and evasive replies like this:
All you are doing here, Anthony, is just 'cut and pasting' your own questions, yet again!, most of which I have already answered in the past - many of these to you directly. For example: I have answered the question about the ghost sightings and how many times these occurred (and to whom) in detail near the beginning of this thread in my answer to the bogus "Vampire Research Society" - in fact the product of just one person, and one person only.
As I had to point out, several times, he had no answered questions regarding sources for his Victorian era claims. Indeed, his nonsensical claims were undermined by his partner, 'Della Vallicrus', who took also took up the conversational thread I was pursuing by asking, 'Also - I would also be interested to hear about pre-1969 sources, oral or otherwise, regarding the "ghost" or "ghosts".'

However, he wound up brushing off her query, too: 'Of course, I will Della. But it cannot be this precise moment. I have three people coming later, and I am not even half ready yet. I still think the allegations about the Ham&High letter and demands for "proof'' about the ghost's Victorian origins and comparatively trivial being based mainly on wild speculation by only a couple of people.'

It would soon become clear that Vallicrus' heart wasn't really in pursuing this lead. She'd later write, 'I know, that the entity he describes is real. Descriptions may vary. So what? This is not a stone-tape esque image from the past. It is a living, metamorphosising being, in a sense. David saw it. Others saw it. Others have seen it since. But in a strange way - if y'all want to pretend or hope it was a hoax - get on with it.'

I continued pursuing this angle, even engaging Vallicrus in discussion on the side, only for Farrant to pipe in with a decidedly warped view of our exchanges. He also offered a new 'validation' for not answering my (and, by default, her) queries:
You are now even ‘switching’ your personal obsession onto Della, just because she does not happen to agree with your own interpretation of the 1960 sightings. The only reason I have not answered Della’s question about Victorian sources now despite saying I would is simply because to do so would be to effectively answer yourself, when I have just explained why I will not do so. But rest assured, the ‘sources’ you are trying to dispute DO exist, and both Della and myself have examined them …
Yet, at no point did Vallicrus make any reference to examining these alleged sources. Indeed, as of this writing, she's yet to 'speak up' about them. It comes as no surprise that direct citations to the material are carefully avoided in Farrant's reply, which I'd call him out on:
Telling me the sources exist is not the same as stating what they are. I'm not asking you to prove the entity existed. I'm asking you to prove that there was a recorded history (from the Victorian era) of its 'existence', whether it be oral tales, books, articles, whatever...especially when a named person (Bram Stoker) is involved.
I should've been more cautious in providing a leading comment like 'whether it be oral tales, books, articles, whatever', but I needn't have worried, as he continued to evade providing any sort of reference. Instead, he made a vague offer to share his sources if I would discuss my Christian views on ghosts (?!): 'You have had my answer, i.e. that when you are prepared to explain your views here simply - and without further prevarication - I may then take up your repetetive [sic] question about "Victorian sources".'

I knew this was another ruse. After all, we had already discussed my views on the matter several times on the same forum, not to mention previous interactions on Arcadia. Nonetheless, I took the bait and provided an extensive answer on 11 July.

As of this writing, he has not replied. Therefore, the question still remains: do such sources exist or are we dealing with a manufactured history to 'validate' relatively recent claims? The jury's out, but my request/offer for him to provide sources still stands.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails