David Attributes His Lack of "Knowledge" to Me

As mentioned in the previous entry, press coverage of the supernatural hijinks at Highgate began with a letter David wrote to the Hampstead & Highgate Express. Recently, David claims a certain line is his letter was taken out of context. "Nonsense!" says I. I'll show you why.

The Highgate Vampire's "existence" was established by two people: Sean Manchester and David Farrant. Previous sightings (including David's) indicated spectral activity, which was later revised to a vampiric presence. Because of them, we refer to the Highgate Vampire, rather than the Highgate Ghost(s).¹

David has tried to whitewash his part in establishing vampire theory in popular consciousness, by his constant references to not believing in bloodsucking vampires, but contemporary press coverage reveals his true involvement in propagating the theory. Being that duplicitous doesn't come without a price, however. You see, it's caused him to start losing track of his own "story".

David's letter to the Ham & High, "Ghostly Walks in Highgate" (6 February 1970), apparently concluded with the following line: "I have no knowledge in this field and I would be interested to hear if any other readers have seen anything of this nature."² What's its context? Here's the rest of the letter:

Some nights I walk home past the gates of Highgate Cemetery.

On three occasions I have seen what appeared to be a ghost-like figure inside the gates at the top of Swains Lane. The first occasion was on Christmas Eve. I saw a grey figure for a few seconds before it disappeared into the darkness. The second sighting, a week later, was also brief.

Last week the figure appeared, only a few yards inside the gates. This time it was there long enough for me to see it much more clearly, and now I can think of no other explanation than this apparition being supernatural.³

This won't seem important, at first, but note there's no use of the word "vampire". Nothing remotely vampiric is implied in the letter. Yet, apparently, I've taken his "no knowledge in this field" line out of context!

After fellow Supernatural World forum member, Cú Chulainn, pointed out the line's omission from the revised edition of Sean Manchester's The Highgate Vampire (1991), David had this to say:

Regarding the 'missing line' accusing my self of saying . . . "I have noknowledge in this field", this has been taken deliberately out of context and just repeated in ignorance by your correspondent Anthony. I spoke to many reporters around this time and I may well have said (in fact, I am sure I did) that I "Have no knowledge in the field of 'blood-sucking vampires'" which some reporters had been led to believe that it was. And I do not. How can you possibly have knowledge in something you don't even believe exists!?

I'll prefigure my response by saying I haven't read the original letter. I've had to rely on Ellis (1993) for that line. I'll even disclose that the Vice President of the British Psychic and Occult Society, Gareth J. Medway, believes the line doesn't exist and attributes David's acknowledgement of it to False Memory Syndrome.

That said, David's gone and acknowledged its existence again, but added a bizarre twist: apparently he was talking about "no knowledge in the field of 'blood-sucking vampires'". Really? There's one major problem with David's rebuttal: the vampire theory was publicised 21 days after David's letter. Indeed, when the theory was first broadcast (by Sean Manchester), it got front page treatment in the Ham & High: "Does a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?" (27 February 1970).

Prior to that article's publication, there was no mention of the paranormal activity at the Cemetery being vampiric. David's own letter uses the following terms to describe his vision: "a ghost-like figure", "a grey figure", "apparition" and "supernatural". So why on earth would David attribute his "no knowledge in this field" comment to vampires, when no one was asking him about it, least of all himself? The actual implication of his lack of knowledge concerns ghosts (or, one could argue, the supernatural itself). That's blindingly obvious to anyone who's read the letter.

This, in itself, is rather odd considering his latter-day claims about the British Psychic and Occult Society's founding. You really gotta start wondering whether Tony Hill was onto something.

So, what about these reporters banging down David's door asking him about vampires? Funny you should ask! Firstly, the earliest press coverage given to David's vampire views would have to wait 'til March 6, 1970: a month after David's letter. The Ham & High published a front page story called "Why Do the Foxes Die?", in which David posited a supernatural theory for the death of foxes in the Cemetery:

THE mysterious death of foxes in Highgate Cemetery was this week linked with the theory that a ghost seen in the area might be . . . a vampire.

Tobacconist, Mr. David Farrant, 24, who first reported seeing the ghost last month, returned to the spot last weekend and discovered a dead fox.

“Several other foxes have also been found dead in the cemetery.” he said at his home in Priestwood Mansions, Archway Road, Highgate. “The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died.

“Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory being the most likely answer.

“Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest.”

The vampire theory was suggested last week by Mr. Sean Manchester, 25-year-old president of the British Occult Society, who believes that “the King Vampire of the Undead walks again.”

So much for taking his lack of knowledge in the field "deliberately out of context" and "repeat[ing] [it] in ignorance". As I've clearly demonstrated, it wasn't me or his imaginary reporters who took him out of context. The only person who did that was, well, him! Not often someone takes themselves out of context. Clearly, the poor guy's got vampires on the brain.

¹ As the Wikipedia's "Highgate Vampire" entry notes: "These ghosts were described as a tall man in a hat, a spectral cyclist, a woman in white, a face glaring through the bars of a gate, a figure wading into a pond, a pale gliding form, bells ringing, and voices calling. Hardly two correspondents gave the same story."

² Quoted in Bill Ellis, "The Highgate Vampire Cemetery Vampire Hunt: The Anglo-American Connection in Satanic Cult Lore", Folklore, vol. 104, no. 1-2, p. 21.

³ ibid.

Loop the Loop

The Möbius strip is "a surface with only one side and only one boundary component." It's not a concept usually applied to vampire theories, but I'm about to do just that (in a figurative manner).

The "model" I'm gonna work with is David Farrant's "The Highgate Vampire - How It All Began", in which he discusses his initial reaction to the vampire theory espoused by Sean Manchester.

Manchester's theory was first published in "Does a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?", Hampstead & Highgate Express, February 27, 1970, p. 1. It came in the wake of various sightings of apparitions in or near the cemetery. And it concerned an honest-to-goodness-bloodsucking undead corpse.

The following week, the same paper covered David's discovery of a dead fox in the cemetery at the spot in which he'd allegedly encountered an spectre. The article was called "Why Do the Foxes Die?", Hampstead & Highgate Express, March 6, 1970, p. 1:

Tobacconist, Mr. David Farrant, 24, who first reported seeing the ghost last month, returned to the spot last weekend and discovered a dead fox.

“Several other foxes have also been found dead in the cemetery,” he said at his home in Priestwood Mansions, Archway Road, Highgate. “The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died.

This lead him to the following conclusion:

“Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory being the most likely answer.

“Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest.”

The article goes on to chronicle their meet, indeed, the earliest public record we have of meeting in person. At this point, their theories complemented each other:

Mr. Farrant and Mr. Manchester met in the cemetery at the weekend. They are pictured left, Mr. Farrant pointing out the spot where he saw a spectre and Mr. Manchester with prayer book in hand.

Mr. Manchester, when told of the dead foxes, said: “These incidents are just more inexplicable events that seem to complement my theory about a vampire.”

Indeed. Now, back to David's "The Highgate Vampire - How It All Began". It is well-established that David no longer takes such theories seriously, instead offering an alternative theorum. However, his article is comparatively moderate on vampires, in light of his crusade to convince the world that bloodsucking vampires don't exist. Take this, for example:

When the investigation proper began in January 1970, I undertook the task of checking the cemetery's history. Some interesting things came to light ... First, it became apparent that stories of an apparition at Highgate Cemetery had by no means begun with the current sightings. Indeed, similar tales dated back to the Victorian era and, interestingly enough, many of them had 'vampiristic' connotations.

And this:

But perhaps most interesting was the 'vampire-like element' that had crept into these stories. Although it was difficult to pin-point the reasons or origins from whence the vampire legend came, it had nevertheless become an integral part of the cemetery's supernatural traditions. The Victorians, with their deep-rooted fears of the unknown and self-righteous attitudes towards religion, morals and death, may have contributed towards establishing - or perhaps re-establishing - a legend that was already in existence.

Whatever the case, it is reasonable to suppose that the Highgate phenomenon could have been connected with stories of vampirism.

David claims Stoker injected - and drew upon - a Victorian era association of vampires with the Cemetery. This presumably refers to the alleged basis of Lucy Westenra's resting place in Dracula (1897). However, her tomb isn't listed as Highgate, but a fictional place called Kingstead. See: "Bram Stoker vs Highgate".

Indeed, David doesn't elaborate on the supposedly "local tales" told about the place. I've repeatedly asked for sources to confirm his claims about these stories (one example here), but have heard nothing back. I find it rather peculiar that he'd go out of his way to establish a vampiric connotations for ghostly sightings at the Cemetery, only to turn around and dismiss the existence of vampires.

It becomes even more bizarre, when David admits to the vampire theory's plausibility:

The Ham and High, however, seemed especially interested in the 'vampire' possibility and the fact that black magic had been taking place at the cemetery. On March 6th, 1970, they ran a front page story entitled, perhaps appropriately "WHY DO THE FOXES DIE?" The implication was, was that in some manner the 'ghost' was no less than a 'vampire' which had been responsible for the death of the foxes. It was interesting hypothesis, and one which had not been overruled by the author himself. In fact, I held the view that as the phenomenon seemed definitely malevolent by nature, it was quite conceivable that it possessed sufficient power to have some affect upon 'weaker forms of intelligence's' - such as animals.

There was a reason for the Ham & High's interest in the theory, as I've revealed elsewhere. But I digress.

We now stray into folie à deux territory, when David tries to distance himself from the vampire theory:

Although these remarks were obviously intended to create maximum publicity, in reality, they were based on a misunderstanding of a report in the local Press the previous week when, humouring some over-zealous reporter, I had stated that if the apparition at Highgate Cemetery turned out to be anything like a 'vampire', I, for one, would be prepared to take any means necessary so that everybody could 'rest in peace'.

Yes, despite all his concurrences with the vampire theory (again, one that upheld a bloodsucking vampire was haunting the cemetery), not to mention saying that he'd take precautions against it, apparently, Manchester's remarks were "obviously intended to create maximum publicity"!

He then tries to emphasise the caution he displayed in discussing his sighting for an interview with Sandra Harris, March 13, 1970...

During the interview, and to avoid any possible sensationalism about 'vampires', I took great care to avoid such a term when referring to the phenomenon. Of course, it was realised that local opinion tended to support a 'vampire theory', but I certainly didn't accept the existence of vampires in their strictly commercialised sense and I had no intention of being misunderstood or misquoted.

...which was the same night a mass vampire hunt took place at the Cemetery. Too little, too late. You also have to question David's cautious approach, in light of vampire hunting re-enactments, posing for pictures with crosses and stakes, as well as his comments on another television interview, all covered here.

And guess what? He participated in those after the mass vampire hunt of March 13. Caution to the wind.

The vampire association hasn't stopped. Indeed, he's helped perpetuate it, himself. Take a look at the titles in his booklist, if you don't believe me. The case has dominated so much of his life (despite blaming me, for his continued association with it), that he even named his multi-volume autobiography after it: In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire.

To put this in perspective, David was 24 when the story broke in the press. On January 23rd, next year, he'll be 65.

The Church vs. the Undead, Pt. 4

We've had a peek at the views of Montague Summers and his "link" to Seán Manchester and the Vampire Research Society. Now we'll see what Augustin Calmet, and other notables within the Church, had to say about vampires.

Few authors, apart from Summers himself, are so closely associated with vampire studies than French Benedictine monk, Augustin Calmet (1672-1757). Renown for his Biblical exegesis, highly regarded as a scholar, yet he came under heavy fire from Voltaire and other eighteenth century philosophers for giving serious coverage to vampiristic phenomena.

His work on the subject was a best-seller. It went through three editions: Dissertations sur les apparitions des anges, des démons & des esprits, et sur les revenans et vampires de Hongrie, de Boheme, de Moravie, & de Silesie (1746), Dissertations sur les apparitions des esprits, et sur les vampires ou les revenans de Hongrie, de Moravie, & c. (1749) and Traité sur les apparitions des esprits et sur les vampires, ou les revenans de Hongrie, de Moravie, & c. (1751). What isn't often noted about these updates, is that they were marked by an increasing skepticism towards vampire belief.

Massimo Introvigne (b. 1955), the Italian director of the Transylvanian Society of Dracula and staunch Catholic, is assured that despite the cautious approach Calmet used in his books, he was far from a believer:

Personally, I would argue that Calmet did not really believe in the existence of vampires even in 1746, even if he was still undecided, and his writing style might have easily misled his readers. Many of his chapters include length quotations from other authors, manuscripts, anonymous works, newspapers and journals, without any comment. The work was, more than anything else, an anthology of contradictory statements, which should by no means be regarded as representing Calmet's own opinions ("Father" 606).

Selectively (and deceptively) representing one's source is a tactic the VRS uses in its "Vampirological Testimony", as we saw in Part 2 of this series. They even manage confuse the title of Calmet's first edition with its last (Fig. 1):

Fig. 1 The VRS incorrectly cites Calmet's 1746 book.

So what did Calmet actually have to say on the matter? Fortunately, for those of us who can't read French, Calmet's work has been published in English. The third edition, Traité, was translated by Rev. Henry Christmas and re-titled The Phantom World: or, The Philosophy of Spirits, Apparitions, & c. (London: Richard Bentley, 1850) in two volumes. Thanks to Google Books, you can read and download both of 'em online (See: Vol. I; Vol. II). The second volume's the one concerned with vampires. Calmet's views on the matter don't get any more clearer than this:

That the oupires, or vampires, or revenans of Moravia, Hungary, Poland, &c., of which such extraordinary things are related, so detailed, so circumstantial, invested with all the necessary formalities to make them believed, and to prove them even judicially before judges, and at the most exact and severe tribunals; that all which is said of their return to life; of their apparition, and the confusion which they cause in the towns and country places; of their killing people by sucking their blood, or in making a sign to them to follow them; that all those things are mere illusions, and the consequence of a heated and prejudiced imagination. They cannot cite any witness who is sensible, grave and unprejudiced, who can testify that he has seen, touched, interrogated these ghosts, who can affirm the reality of their return, and of the effects which are attributed to them.
I shall not deny that some persons may have died of fright, imagining that their near relatives called them to the tomb; that others have thought they heard some one rap at their doors, worry them, disturb them, in a word, occasion them mortal maladies; and that these persons judicially interrogated, have replied that they had seen and heard what their panic-struck imagination had represented to them. But I require unprejudiced witnesses, free from terror and disinterested, quite calm, who can affirm upon serious reflection, that they have seen, heard, and interrogated these vampires, and who have been the witnesses of their operations ; and I am persuaded that no such witness will be found (II: 240-1).

Testimony indeed. So how about other Church authorities not listed on the VRS page? Did any uphold belief in vampires? Let's go with Giuseppe Davanzati, another popularly cited eighteenth century Catholic authority. He's best-known for Dissertazione sopra i vampiri (1774; 1789). Here's what Introvigne has to say about his work:

Discussions between Cardinal Schrattembach, Bishop of Olmutz (a believer), and Monsignor Giuseppe Davanzati (1665-1755), Archbishop of Trani and later Cardinal (a skeptic), also led the latter to prepare between 1738-43 a report that, as we shall see, went on to play a crucial role in persuading the Vatican to condemn any, and all, belief in vampires as superstition ("Father" 600).

Yeah, that's right. The Vatican. Just in case it's not clear how significant this condemnation is, let me remind you of the authorial role it has in the Catholic Church:

The Holy See (Latin: Sancta Sedes) is the episcopal jurisdiction of the Catholic Church in Rome, in which its Bishop is commonly known as the Pope. It is the preeminent episcopal see of the Catholic Church, forming the central government of the Church. As such, diplomatically, and in other spheres the Holy See acts and speaks for the whole Catholic Church. It is also recognized by other subjects of international law as a sovereign entity, headed by the Pope, with which diplomatic relations can be maintained.

And speaking of Popes:

By 1749, Rome had also spoken. In 1740, Prospero Lambertini became Pope and took the namre of Benedict XIV; he was regarded as a specialist of apparitions and other supernatural occurences without parallel in the history of the church. His book on the subject is still quoted and used by the Catholic Church in the 20th century when allegedly supernatural events occur. In the first edition of his book, published in 1734, Lambertini did not deal with vampires. In the second edition, however, published in 1749 in Rome after he had become Pope Benedict XIV, he added two pages on vampires, pronouncing them to be "fallacious fictions of human fantasy". He followed this with an apostolic letter to the Archbishop of Leopolis urging him to vigorously "suppress this superstition [of vampires]". "Tracing the source of it you may easily discover that there are priests promoting these stories in order to persuade the gullible populace to pay good money for exorcisms and Masses" ("Father" 608).

So, despite Manchester's insistence that the "Catholic Church has always accepted the existence of such things and the need to deal with them by way of exorcism", I'm yet to see any convincing proof to back this claim. The VRS's "Vampirological Testimony" is useless in this regard.

As you've seen, major Catholic authorities, even a Pope, have condemned belief in vampires as "superstition". The small circle of believers that Manchester does cite are partial to the VRS, or, in Summers' case, of dubious connection to the Church itself.

What are we to make of Manchester's claim? Without further proof, without further citations indicating the widespread belief he alleges, I think we can borrow Benedict XIV's words and mark Manchester's statement as the "fallacious fictions of human fantasy".

The Church vs. the Undead, Pt. 3

I've whittled down the VRS's so-called "vampirological testimony" to two people: Augustin Calmet and Montague Summers. They also bring our initial peek into Catholic views on vampires, full circle.

Let's get Summers out of the way, first. He was an English Catholic clergyman, although some doubt the validity of his orders. He wrote two companion tomes on the undead: The Vampire: His Kith and Kin (1928) and The Vampire in Europe (1929).

Unlike most of the non-VRS-affiliated sources incorporated into the Society's "Vampirological Testimony" page, Summers actually did believe in the existence of vampires. In his second book, he even hints at a conspiracy of sorts:

Of recent years the histories of Vampirism in England are perhaps few, but this not so much because they do not occur as rather that they are carefully hushed up and stifled (115).

By whom, he doesn't elaborate. Nor does he give further proof for his allegation. Nonetheless, he was a highly significant influence on Seán Manchester, who establishes an affinity with the late cleric:

I, like wise, began in the Church of England and converted to Roman Catholicism before entering holy orders in an autocephalous Catholic Church ~ as, of course, did Summers. We were both ordained within the context of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and, as Catholic Bishops, led self-governing and independent jurisdictions which held authority in Great Britain.

As I mentioned, the validity of Summers' orders have been questioned. So have Manchester's. But the Bishop also admits that his primary knowledge on Summers is derived from Summers, himself:

My appreciation of Summers’ work is a matter of public record. Yet I have no knowledge of his private life, or his degree of involvement in esotericism about which rumours abound. I do not question his ordinations, as have some commentators, but I am not qualified to access him beyond his published works.

Little is known about Summers' private life, because he gave away so little of it, himself. His posthumously published autobiography, The Galanty Show (1980), left out a lotta detail. This void has left open rumours (?) about his supposed involvement in the occult and possible membership in the Order of Chaeronea, "a secret society for the cultivation of a homosexual moral, ethical, cultural and spiritual ethos." David Hilliard's essay explores this angle a little further:

A fellow member of the Order of Chaeronea and a writer of Uranian verse was Alphonsus Joseph-Mary Augustus Montague Summers. As an Anglo- Catholic he was ordained a deacon in the Church of England before being received into the Roman Catholic church in 1909. Rejected from training for the Catholic priesthood (though it is probable that he subsequently received priest’s orders through a schismatical source), he became a school teacher and antiquarian scholar, an author of voluminous works on Restoration drama, the Gothic novel, witchcraft, and demonology, and an active member of the British Society for the Study of Sex Psychology (16).

One of the sources for these charges is Brocard Sewell (1912-2000), one of Summers' biographers. It'd be surprising if Manchester wasn't aware of this stuff. Especially considering that he and Sewell, at one point, shared correspondence:

It has been assumed that Father Brocard Sewell and I were well acquainted. This is not the case, however; though a robust correspondence between us was occasionally entered upon; one might even say erupted. The topic of Montague Summers and, indeed, vampires was never too distant.

Of course, Sewell's coverage of this hidden angle of Summers' life is omitted from VRS coverage of the late biographer. All the same, the Bishop self-appointedly anoints himself as the heir of Summers' legacy: "Bishop Montague Summers died of a heart attack in 1948 and his mantle awaited the arrival of another." And just in case it's not clear who "another" is, the VRS elaborates:

Montague Summers died of a heart attack in 1948 and his mantle awaited the arrival in London of Seán Manchester who would there establish himself as the other celebrated vampirologist of the twentieth century.

The VRS's page on Devendra P. Varma (1923-1994) claims that Manchester had to assumed this "mantle" after the death of their Honorary Vice-President: "His text The Gothic Flame was his way of picking up the torch from Montague Summers, before the flame passed to Seán Manchester in October 1994."

We're presented with yet another spiritual lineage, bordering on reincarnation, at this point, when the VRS's Montague Summers page even claims that Manchester holds a Church position previously occupied by Summers:

Summers entered the Old Catholic priesthood in 1913 and, towards the end of his life, was elevated to the episcopate by Hugh George de Willmott Newman, Archbishop of Glastonbury ~ an office and See currently held by Seán Manchester.

A strange assertion, indeed, in light of Manchester not questioning Summers' "ordinations" and not knowing him "beyond his published works". The Database of Autocephalous Bishops also notes that Summers' ordination has "been disputed". More on autocephaly here.

Lastly, a brief word on Summers' connection to another VRS affiliate. Peter Underwood, (b. 1923) their Life-Member and Associate, recounts an interesting tale in The Vampire’s Bedside Companion: The Amazing World of Vampires in Fact and Fiction (London: Leslie Frewin, 1975), pp. 69-74. He claims that Summers bestowed him with an anti-vampire talisman. One Summers used against an actual vampire in Southern Transylvania, 1909. Yet, strangely, there's no mention of this incident in Summers' own vampire books.

Despite Summers' ecclesiastical credentials being up in the air, did his viewpoints reflect widespread Catholic attitudes to vampires? We'll take a look in the final installment when we examine what Calmet, and other prominent Catholic writers on the subject, had to say.

The Church vs. the Undead, Pt. 2

I looked into the impartiality of so-called "vampirological testimony" courted by Seán Manchester and the Vampire Research Society (VRS). Now we further examine the "testimony" of non-affiliated sources.

The remaining eight of the thirteen sources used within the VRS's "Vampirological Testimony" page are thankfully devoid of association to the organisation. In fact, they're commonly cited in works concerning vampires. Let's begin with the "testimony" of Leo Allaci aka Leo Allatius (c. 1586-1669).

A noted Catholic scholar, he's best known in vampire circles for his 1645 work, De Graecorum hodie quorundam opinationibus, which discussed Greek belief in a type of revenant called the bulcolaca. You might know it better as the vrykolakas. However, I should also point out that this subject only takes up a certain section of the book, namely, chapters 12-17.

Funny thing is, Allatius wasn't actually writing about vampires. At least, not the concept of them propagated by the VRS. After all, the vampire of folklore was a Slavic revenant-type unknown to Greeks of the time. This is notable by the fact that Allatius' account does not mention the bulcolaca, or its variants, drinking blood. Nor are common tropes, like warding them off with garlic, staking the corpse, etc., present. Instead, it's described as a "dead body, possessed by the devil, which rises black and swollen from the dead and roams the streets bringing disease and death." They were destroyed through cremation.

Allatius describes another similar revenant, the tympaniaios, which is a "body prevented from decaying by an excommunication from the church." They were "cured" by a priest absolving them, not staking them through the heart. It's this type of revenant that Allatius professed belief in. Not vampires. Hats off to Karen Hartnup's 'On the Beliefs of the Greeks': Leo Allatios and Popular Orthodoxy (Leiden: Brill Academic, 2004), p. 30 for the info. Oh, and I should also mention that the concept of the excommunicated, undecayed dead is primarily an Orthodox Church doctrine, not something the Catholic Church generally advocates.

Next up, there's Johann Heinrich Zopf (1691-1774), who the VRS page renders as "John Heinrich Zopfius". He's best known for his 1733 work, Dissertatio de vampyris Serviensibus. Admittedly, he did believe in vampires, acknowledging that "the devil could indeed animate the bodies of evil beings." See: Massimo Introvigne, "Antoine Faivre: Father of Contemporary Vampire Studies", Ésotérisme, Gnoses & Imaginaire Symbolique: Mélanges offerts à Antoine Faivre (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), p. 603.

It should be noted, however, that in spite of Manchester's claim that the Catholic Church accepted widespread vampire belief amongst its clergy, Zopf was actually an Evangelical Lutheran. Yep, a Protestant.

Now, back to Catholics. In this case, Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (1656-1708), who studied at a Jesuit convent, but became a botanist after his father's death. The VRS page draws upon an 1741 edition of his work, Relations d’un Voyage du Levant. The work was first published, posthumously, in 1717, and translated into English the following year.

It's best-known for the author's account of the spectacle surrounding a supposedly restless corpse on the Greek island of Mykonos. Once again, we're dealing with a vrykolakas. The inclusion of de Tournefort's account in the VRS's "vampirological testimony" was a hell of a gamble. It'd only make sense if they were banking on readers not being unfamiliar with the rest of what de Tournefort wrote on the subject.

Time and time again, he refutes the villager's claims of witnessing extraordinary phenomena around the exhumed body. It's hard to get more demonstrative of de Tournefort's dim view than this passage, as quoted in Paul Barber's Vampires, Burial, and Death: Folklore and Reality (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988):

In so general a prepossession, we chose not to say anything. They would have treated us not just as fools but as infidels. How is one to bring an entire population back to its senses? Those who believed in their soul that we doubted the truth of the matter, came to us to reproach us for our incredulity and claimed to prove–by authoritative passages taken from the Shield of Faith of Père Richard, a Jesuit missionary–that there was such a thing as a vrykolakas. He was a Latin [Catholic -ed.], they said, and therefore you should believe him. Nor should we have got anywhere by denying the conclusion (23).

And this:

As for the Turks [Greece was under Ottoman rule at the time -ed.], it is certain that, at their first visit, they did not fail to make the community of Mykonos pay for the blood of this poor devil [the alleged vrykolakas -ed.], who became in every way an abomination and horror to his country. And after that, is it not necessary to point out that the Greeks of today are not the great Greeks, and that there is among them only ignorance and superstition! (24)

Hardly a glowing endorsement for the existence of vampires, is it?

And speaking of superstition, that's the same term Emily Gerard (1849-1905) used to describe Romanian belief in the undead. In fact, it was incorporated into the title of a July 1885 article she wrote for The Nineteenth Century. Was was it called? You guessed it: "Transylvanian Superstitions." It was later incorporated into her book, The Land Beyond the Forest (1888). No wonder the VRS chose to cite this relatively innocuous title, instead.

It also makes you wonder why they chose to cite James Frazer (1854-1941). His 1934 book, The Fear of the Dead in Primitive Religions isn't written as a validation of "primitive" beliefs, but, rather, examines them from an anthropological and mythological viewpoint. He even personally believed that "human belief progressed through three stages: primitive magic, replaced by religion, in turn replaced by science." A strange choice of source, indeed, for an organisation presided over by a Bishop.

I admit that I haven't read Jean Marigny's (b. 1939) La Tradition Legendaire du Vampire en Europe (1987), another VRS source. I can't even speak or write in French. Ah well. Fortunately, I have a copy of one of his English-translated works! So, going by the contents of Vampires: The World of the Undead (London: Thames and Hudson, 1994), I think it's a pretty safe bet that Marigny doesn't believe in vampires, either:

The specific attribute of the vampire that sets it apart from other supernatural creatures of the night is that, to exist, it must drink the blood of living beings. The vampire myth was unquestioningly born of fantasies linked to blood, that precious life force whose loss could lead to death. The origins of these fantasies can be found in the most ancient reaches of human history (14).

Now we're down to two more sources on the VRS's "Vampirological Testimony" page: eighteenth century vampire authority, Augustin Calmet (1672-1757) and twentieth century occultist aficionado, Montague Summers (1880-1948). Both of 'em, Catholics. Will they attest to Manchester's claim that vampires are incorporated into Catholic doctrine? Wait and see!

The Church vs. the Undead, Pt. 1

To justify vampire hunting as part of his exorcistate role, Seán Manchester sometimes claims sanction from the Church. Does the Church actually encourage vampire belief? What have other Church members said about the undead?

During his interview with Andrew Gough, Manchester was asked "What position has the Catholic Church taken, both publicly and privately, with respect to your work?" He replied thusly:

The Catholic Church has always accepted the existence of such things and the need to deal with them by way of exorcism. I would only refer today, however, to the traditional wing of the Catholic Church in this respect and not the modernist, liberal elements who struggle to believe in the supernatural and question the very essence of Holy Scripture.

Oh really? Interesting. More on that, later. Meanwhile, the Vampire Research Society (VRS) website also incorporates a page on "Vampirological Testimony" featuring thirteen quotes from certain notables on the undead. Let's break these down a bit, shall we? Firstly, it's imperative to reveal that five of these quotes are derived from people who've had some sort of affiliation with the VRS.

The first such "testimony" comes from Life-Member and Associate, Peter Underwood. He wrote and edited The Vampire’s Bedside Companion: The Amazing World of Vampires in Fact and Fiction (London: Leslie Frewin, 1975). It's the same book in which Manchester contributed his account of the Highgate Vampire, on pp. 81-121.

Next up, we have Elizabeth Wojdyla, an alleged victim of the Highgate Vampire. At the time, she was Keith Maclean's girlfriend. Who's he? Oh, just the VRS's former Regional Area Secretary (Fig. 1). He's since been replaced by Robert Finch (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1 A cached page confirms the identity of the VRS's former Regional Area Secretary.

Fig. 2 The current Regional Area Secretary can be viewed on the VRS's homepage.

The next testimony comes from Gothic scholar, Devendra P. Varma. That is, the VRS's Honorary Vice-President, who died in 1994. Interestingly, Jeanne Keyes Youngson, the President and founder of Vampire Empire, alleges that Varma was critical of the VRS, when he visited her Dracula Museum in New York.

The last two of the VRS-affiliated quotes come from the same source. That's right, the VRS's own president President and founder: Sean Manchester himself. In this case, the "testimony" is take from two of his books, that is, The Highgate Vampire (1985, 1991) and The Vampire Hunter’s Handbook (1997).

Before we proceed onto the next part of this investigation, let's get a clear definition on exactly what "testimony" is, in this context. Obviously, the quotes used on the VRS's "Vampirological Testimony" page, are intended to indicate a demonstrated belief in vampires of the people cited, thereby justifying their promotion of the reality of the undead. Thus, the quotes serve as "testimonials". So, let's say that testimony is "is evidence provided by a competent witness."

In the next installment, I'll examine the "testimony" of the other eight people featured on the page and we'll soon get to the heart of the Church's views on vampires.

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.

Fighting Vampires with Vampires

Earlier this year, I wrote about David's disdain of vampires. More specifically, their association with the Highgate Vampire Case. Here's a snippet:

As to your quip . . . “Without the Highgate vampire case they wouldn’t be talking here at all”, etc, I rather think that relates more to yourself Anthony! You seem unable to talk about little else; notwithstanding its 40-year old history! It is YOURSELF who keeps incessantly referring to this case Anthony – almost like you’ve got some sort of obsession with it!

The vampire angle is something that he's been trying to whitewash for years, despite using it to further his own attention-seeking ends. Harsh? Well, here's proof. Want more? Scroll through the titles on his booklist.

And then there's this doozy from my "interview" with him last year:

DAWWIH?: Why is it that after the court case, you allowed yourself to be filmed in a television news article reconstructing your patrols for the vampire with a stake and cross? You also did the same thing for an article with Barrie Simmons. If you say the press labeled you with a "vampire hunter" tag, then why did you give demonstrations of stalking vampires in Highgate Cemetery to other members of the press?

DF: Why not? It was what the Press and television wanted.

Now, getting back to that vampire thang, you know, the one I have an "obsession" with, and that I like keeping its "40-year old history" alive. Yep, looks like I've got a contender!

And just who is this contender, you might be asking? Why, look no further than Dave's blog!

It seems interest in my film on the Highgate ‘vampire’ is still very active; which is why, I guess, the Producers want to add more footage. I hope they do, because all I’m doing is relating that whole story as it actually happened. NOT what other people may have been led to believe what ‘happened’, but as events really took place in actual reality. (They had nothing whatsoever to do with ‘blood-sucking vampires!). Most of such reports just amount to pure fiction and imagination and THEY JUST DIDN’T HAPPEN! (Except in the mind’s of a very few misguided individuals, that is).

Yeah, he's still banging that same old drum. One that seems, strangely enough, to exist independently of myself!

Oh, and he's heaps more fuel onto the feud fire, one of the other things keeping this thing alive:

My new book “Pact with the Devil”, is now ready for distribution, and I hope that will serve to clear some of the mysteries in the ‘puzzle’. It does not serve to redress the claims of ‘vampires’ (and other ‘vamp[ire enthusiasts’), just to set the record straight, that’s all.

It's somewhat ironic that the guy who repeatedly shuns the bloodsucking vampire variant, has pretty much built his, ahem, "career" off it. In fact, come to think of it, his very livelihood seems to be built on vampires and feuding. Hell, he even called his bloody autobiography, In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire.

Looks like the vampires got him after all.

Oh, and did you notice I was rather specific about him shunning the "bloodsucking vampire variant"? You see, the biggest joke of all is, that it's not that Dave doesn't believe in vampires, it's just that he doesn't believe in the classic bloodsucking-corpse variety.

I mean, come on, how preposterous are they? You'd have to be a total buffoon to believe in something like that!

Everyone knows they suck psychic energy instead!

Still Draining

In "Vampires Drain David Dry", I discussed David's reluctance to discuss vampires on his blog, The Human Touch.

Well, it's good to see that he's been keeping that proud tradition alive. Take "Found Some Old Letters...", for instance:

I had receipts today from the London Agents for the British Library. All the University Libraries have now got copies. So now I can tell you what the title is (if you haven’t already found it on Amazon”. It is . . . DAVID FARRANT: IN THE SHADOW OF THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE (Vol 1) and it costs ₤12.99.

It is indeed a good thing David eschews the dreaded "V" word, as found in such works like Beyond the Highgate Vampire (1991/1992/1997), The Vampyre Syndrome: The Truth Behind the Highgate Vampire Legend (2000), Return of the Vampire Hunter: An Exclusive Interview with Reclusive Vampire Hunter, David Farrant (2003) by Rob Milne, The Case of the Highgate Vampire, In Search of the Highgate Vampire or The Highgate Vampire Casebook Files.

I mean, we don't want the media to be associating him "ridiculous fanciful ‘vampires’", do we? Surely, it's their fault for quoting his own words! Like this ditty in from Marc Mullen's "Vampire Active Again, Says Occult Expert" (Ham & High, 02 September 2005):

The sighting of a tall, black figure in April on Swains Lane makes me think the vampire is active again.

However, if you want the real scoop on vampires from the President of the Highgate Vampire Society, then have a read of "Interview with the Real Vampire Hunter", Bite Me magazine:

As for my concept of a vampire, it is necessary to mention the existence of the incubus and succubus, male and female demons respectively (I prefer to call them psychic entities) that visit sleeping people by night and supposedly have sex with them.

Saucy stuff!

Vampires Drain David Dry

Poor David.

The author of Beyond the Highgate Vampire (1991; 1992; 1997), The Vampyre Syndrome (2000) and interview subject of Return of the Vampire Hunter (2003), among others, has had it with vampires!

He expresses his frustration with the subject in his latest blog entry, "That's All I Really Have to Say":

I have said it before, and I’ll say it again: This Blog is not intended to be about ridiculous fanciful ‘vampires’; although I have said it is OK to discuss ‘ghost cases’ here and the paranormal here if anybody wants to. But NOT talk about bloody stupid vampires or their so-called ‘creators’!

Amusingly, the following screencap reveals the name of his previous blog entry. Serendipity?:

Of course, that doesn't stop things like this ("Talk Went Well"):

Anyway, it was well received. Almost an empathy between the audience and myself. It was only in a religious Community hall but there were quite a few people there. I only ‘skimped over’ matters relating to vampires. How can you talk about things that you know don’t even exist – although I am expected to do so, so often. And I said so!

And this ("The Film Was On..."):

The film was on the whole history of the Highgate/Muswell Hill areas and, perhaps needless to say, my part involved talking about the so-called Highgate vampire.

And so forth.

Yep, the same guy (who also happens to be the President of the Highgate Vampire Society) who's also been quoted as saying, "The sighting of a tall, black figure in April on Swains Lane makes me think the vampire is active again." has had enough!

Ah well. I guess it's best to let him use his blog to get back to the more important stuff. Like, uh, well, like this ("To Return to the Boring Stuff"):

I went up to the town centre yesterday (not far away) and on the way back, I passed a house that had just been cleared out. There was a perfect piece of wood by the skip, and I thought it would be just right to replace the one I have been using as a ‘coffee table’. Problem was, it was very, very heavy. So heavy, in fact, I had to keep resting down the road in order to carry it. When I could, I kept resting it on a wall to take the weight, then carry on some minutes later.

Exciting!

Nicked at Highgate Cemetery

The reproduction to follow, was originally a response to a request I put to David Farrant, via Don Ecker's now-defunct message board, Dark Matters Radio Exploration.¹ The matter is featured in "Getting Bothered" and "Still Getting Bothered".

David has kindly given me permission to reprint his version of the story:²

FOR THE OVERSEER


ORIGINAL ‘VAMPIRE HUNTING’ COURT CASE OF 1970

This is not just for you personally, Overseer, but to set the record straight over all the confusion that might have occurred about this original Court case; the one which mainly contributed to the story that a ‘blood-sucking vampire’ really lurked in London’s Highgate Cemetery, and which saw myself at the centre of the whole affair.

[The following points have been put in note form to save endless repetition of this event.]

In the late 60s there were voluminous reports about a ‘tall, dark figure’ that had been seen in and around London’s Highgate Cemetery. With the British Psychic and Occult Society (BPOS), I decided to launch an investigation into all these accounts to see if there might be any foundation for them.

December, 1969, I visited the cemetery alone in an attempt to see if there might be any logical explanation behind these reports. That same evening, I actually witnessed a tall dark shape just inside the top gate of Highgate Cemetery. After this, the Society had members stationed in the cemetery by night to see if we might be able to obtain some photographic evidence of the entity’s appearances.

Then, in August 1970, a group of five of us eventually visited Highgate Cemetery (with a psychic medium) with the intention of holding a séance. For this purpose, we had with us several ‘magical implements’, including small Celtic crosses, cameras, candles, incense, and a tape recorder. The area chosen to perform the séance was a flat area of ground above the ‘Circle of Lebanon’, a Victorian circle of tombs not far from the back gate of the cemetery.

Unfortunately this was interrupted by the police, who had been keeping a watch on HC because of serious vandalism in months prior to this.

As the police approached, the four other people headed back towards the front of the cemetery, where they had two cars parked. I decided to leave via the back garden of a house which backed on to the cemetery, situated in South Grove. I knew the people who lived there, and therefore felt quite confident should I have been spotted in their garden. I discarded some of the paraphernalia I was carrying, but was shortly afterwards apprehended by the police.

I was taken to Hornsey Road police station, and the police had obviously found the discarded items, as they were lined up on a desk. These included a wooden cross, a wooden stake with a piece of string attached to it, some candles, my portable tape recorder, and a small camera.

I was questioned extensively by the police, who had already heard stories of a ‘vampire’ that lurked within the cemetery. I told them virtually nothing, except to say our presence was due to a serious psychic investigation into this phenomenon. To protect other members of the society from unwanted publicity, I refused to disclose their names. I also gave them a false name, and refused to give them my address in Highgate (which in fact is why some newspapers quoted me as being of ‘no fixed address’).

The detective in charge said if I was willing to plead guilty to the charge next morning, the case would be over without any fuss, and I would only get a technical warning for trespass.

I took him at his word, and pleaded guilty. But as soon as I had entered my plea, this detective made a statement to the court involving statements that I was alleged to have given. He said the ‘accused’ had told him that I had intended to search through coffins in vaults in Highgate Cemetery, to look for the ‘King Vampire of the Undead’. When I found it, he added, I intended to drive a wooden stake through its heart and then ‘run away’. He went on to say that there had been unlimited serious vandalism at HC since these vampire stories had started, and he believed I was one of those people responsible for it.

Now, ironically, as I had pleaded guilty to the offence, it is little wonder that all of this was being believed by the stipendiary magistrate, Mr. D. J. Purcell. It is also perhaps of little wonder that he remanded me in custody for medical reports, and remarked that I really ought to see a doctor.

As soon as I realized (in fact within half an hour) that the police had attempted to ‘frame me’ by entering a plea of guilty, I immediately changed my plea and decided to fight the case. Unfortunately, this was too late to prevent newspapers from picking up the story, whose reporters had been present in court, and apparently been granted free licence to ‘quote the police evidence’. (Please remember, my own evidence had not even been heard at this stage.) Subsequently, I became known as a ‘vampire hunter’ by the press, and this label has somehow always ‘stuck’.

In reality, after entering a plea of not guilty, I was given bail and went back to court determined to fight the case. It was adjourned twice more (on the second occasion it was heard by Magistrate Christopher Lea!) but finally heard on September 30th 1970. I informed the court that the police evidence had been untrue, that the stake had not been intended to ‘force open’ any coffins, and that in any event it was just as akin to ‘hunt vampires’ (which was the essence of the charge) as it was for some to spend small fortunes hunting out the Loch Ness Monster.

When he had heard all the evidence, the magistrate (D. J. Purcell again), stated that he was quite satisfied that my intention had not been to damage or open coffins. Had he though otherwise, he added, he would have treated the matter much more seriously by issuing a custodial sentence. He also added at the end, that in any event, the cemetery was not even an ‘enclosed area’ in the strict legal sense.

I was formally acquitted, the court having not believed the original police evidence.

End of story really, everyone, it is only some people with seemingly desperate intentions who try to make the facts seem otherwise.

David Farrant.

N.B. Don, please do not take any offence at my attack on the police, as I know you used to be a police officer yourself. But the difference is, in the 60s and 70s the Metropolitan police were notorious for ‘setting up’ innocent people when they could not catch the real culprits. This was before the days when tape recordings, and access to solicitors, were made compulsory.

The response certainly raises some questions, which I'll raise in a future post.

¹ David Farrant. "Re: From David". Sunday, 21 September 2008 12:57:25 AM. The attached Microsoft Word document, from which the reproduction is taken, was called "FOR THE OVERSEER + Vampire hunting case".
² David Farrant. "Re: From David". Thursday, 25 September 2008 3:34:33 AM.

Still Getting Bothered

I discussed an item written about myself in the previous blog entry. But what I didn't mention, was that I had also posted a response to it! Here's what I wrote back (September 14th, 2008 at 9:22 am):

Hi David,

I wrote about this very entry, in my blog (See: “Getting Bothered”).

For the record, I wasn’t able to read your Medway-transcribed post, because I’ve been unable to access the forum. Seems the whole damn website bit the dust.

Nonetheless, if you want me to read it, I’d be happy to. And if I have any queries about it, I’d be happy to raise them up with you!

Fairly straight forward.

Or so you'd think.

My comment elicited the following response from David himself (September 14th, 2008 at 1:54 pm):

I have allowed your comment, Overseer. However, it will probably be a ‘one off’ as I do not wish to discuss Highgate, ‘vampires’ or ‘him’ on here.
This is supposed to be about my ‘boring’ life in the present i.e. NOW! So I somehow don’t think it would suit you!
This does not mean you cannot ask questions or make comments. I do not believe in censureship of that kind.
But it does mean that I want to avoid Highgate and anybody connected with that time.
That is why I said I somehow don’t think it would suit you!

However, we can always try, I suppose. Its just possible you may have some other interests in life! Welcome anyway. Albeit a very cautious one!

I found this response a tad off-kilter, so in case you don't get to see it, I responded to that item, too!

As of this writing, it's pending moderation (September 18th, 2008 at 4:40 pm):

David, I find that response kind of ingenuine, since your blog is laced with items about the Highgate Vampire and “Bonky”.

Hell, look what this very blog entry discusses!

Alluding to allowing my response to be posted here (”I have allowed your comment, Overseer. However, it will probably be a ‘one off’ as I do not wish to discuss Highgate, ‘vampires’ or ‘him’ on here.”) even though it directly deals with the blog entry you posted…and then going onto say that you “do not believe in censureship of that kind”, well, it seems a tad bit narky.

You'll also note that he didn't even repost the Medway-transcribed response!

The question is, why would David suddenly clam up on such discussions, when he has no qualm incorporating mentions of the vampires ("Quite an Eventful Day", "’till Tororrow") or "Bonky" (his petname for Sean Manchester; "“Not At All, David”", "So That Still Stands", "Truly Shattered"), when he incorporates them into multiple blog entries already?

Getting Bothered

I've recently had the "fortune" of being written about ("I Don't Know Why I Bother Really") in David Farrant's blog, The Human Touch.

Farrant, the founder of the Highgate Vampire Society, has this to write:

Thought I better do a Blog tonight, as Gareth is coming over tomorrow and might not get a chance then. I have already promised my “friend” The Overseer (from ‘down under’) that I answer something for him and that I’d do it on Friday. I don’t know why I bother really concerning myself with old history concerning non-existent ‘vampires’ but I have always tried to answer questions where these concern matters which are in the public domain.

David was addressing a post I made on the Dark Matters Radio forum, concerning various quotes attributing him to a belief in vampires (despite his maintained non-existence of them) in the Press. Or, at the very least, making use of the term to describe his encounters with a supernatural phenomena he allegedly encountered at Highgate Cemetery.

I've touched on this matter in "When a Vampire Isn't a Vampire" and "The Highgate Vampire Resurrected?".

He was also going to discuss the reasons behind his arrests and imprisonment and mentioned that he was going to get his friend, Gareth Medway, to transcribe a rebuttal to my comments.

Unfortunately, I was not able to read Farrant's response, because it seems that the forum has gone offline! As Homer Simpson might say: "D'oh!"

When a Vampire Isn't a Vampire

David Farrant, at least since about 1991, has been publicly emphatic about his view that the alleged supernatural being that haunted Highgate Cemetery was definitely not a vampire:

The sighting of a tall, black figure in April on Swains Lane makes me think the vampire is active again.¹

Thankfully, he has a far more rational explanation for such phenomena:

As for my concept of a vampire, it is necessary to mention the existence of the incubus and succubus, male and female demons respectively (I prefer to call them psychic entities) that visit sleeping people by night and supposedly have sex with them. Reports about the existence of these phenomena date back for centuries and the symptoms of the visitations are invariably the same. People are suddenly awakened in the night to find themselves completely paralysed, often with a tremendous pressure on their chest that 'pins' them to the bed. They are unable to move, even scream, and can only lie helpless completely subject to the entity's will. These visitations often occur with persistent frequency and victims often find themselves growing physcially weaker, becoming anaemic and developing an aversion to bright sunlight. They also become prone to bouts of sleep-walking either soon before, or not long after, the 'attacks'. I am quite convinced that stories of vampirism actually derived, or were based upon reports about the well known existence of these malevolent phenomena; in fact, it is highly likely that Stoker himself could have been aware of such accounts when he wrote his fictional novel, Dracula²

Take that, science!

¹ Mullen, Marc. "Highgate Vampire at it again!!". Pentacle Magazine. Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 02:58 PM.
² "Interview with the Real Vampire Hunter". David Farrant.