What Manner Of Man Is This? The Depiction Of Vampire .

Samuelsson 4Höglund displays examples of vampire motifs (not vampire figures, as the vampireelements are in ways incompatible to the dictionary-defined vampire) in earlyliterature. In extension, the same can be said about any story that incorporates motiveslike life-stealing figures or resurrection from the dead. The motif can be traced evenfurther back than the Middle Ages; the ancient Greek stories about Achilles andOdysseus both feature blood-drinking. The story goes that the spirit of Achilles iscalmed down with virgin blood and in the Odyssey a ghost happily laps sheep’s blood(Wright 187). Again in both cases, the vampire motif is there, mainly in the form ofblood-drinking, but not the vampire figure.Höglund points out that “it is [ ] hazardous to create too fixed definitions ofwhat is to be seen as a vampire and what is not to be, especially before the figuretakes on a literary form” (64).6 This warning is preceded by a discussion about thetwo vampires that she brings up in her own dissertation. She means that there are twodifferent vampires: the vampire defined “as a character and a figure” and the vampirewho is “not always defined as a vampire character or figure but encompasses much ofthe attributes that are, in the specific context in which it appears, considered tocharacterise what we call a vampire” (25).7 With this Höglund, in my opinion, sumsup the problem that arises when researching vampire history: to compare the vampiresof different time periods becomes hard since the notion of what a vampire is haschanged. Whether or not the vampire figures described in Summers or Wright areconsidered to be factual beings or not, one of the things that makes them hard tocompare to the literary vampire is that these vampires do not take the same form. It isnot that the folklore vampires are not as “real” as the literary vampire; the problemlies rather in the definition of the word. This is also something that Höglund discusseswhen she notes that the researcher has two options: s/he can form the history eitherfrom the “etymology, from what is named a vampire” or “from the number of varyingnotions that together create a historic continuity” (25). The modern definition ofvampire, as given in the OED, was found first in the middle of the eighteenth century.This means that a way must be found to underline both the continuity and thedifference between earlier manifestations of elements connected to the vampire that,6My translation. From this point, all Höglund’s quotes have been translated, unless noted otherwise.A similar discussion is brought up in Summers: “[it] might seem to have been a vampire, but whichactually cannot be so classed” (4). Also, “vampires, as we have seen, particularly infest Slavoniccountries, and it does not appear that this species of apparition was well known in western Europe untiltowards the end of the seventeenth century”; the vampire motifs displayed before this are not“vampirism proper” (27) .7

Samuelsson 5in turn, make up the future, literary vampire. To solve this methodological problem, Iwould like to propose that the two instances of vampires are defined as follows: theinstances where the vampire character or figure, the vampire in its “literary form”,appears, it will be defined as a “vampire figure”, and when a story that encompassesmany of the vampire characteristics, but in which the figure is not called a vampire, orwhen parts of the story display traits connected to vampirism, it is better referred to as“vampire motifs.”When folklorists and authors such as Summers, Wright and Barber then try toretrace the vampire through time without making that distinction, they enter a hazyplace of allusion, the place Höglund warns against, since the object of their studybasically did not exist before the definition found in the OED. Researchers find theproperties of the modern vampire in various legends and with that recreate thehistorical origin of the modern vampire, rather than the other way around, which is thecongenital way. This is not to say that the vampire has no connection to folklore,because like most supernatural beings it does.As stated in the introduction, I would like to suggest that the transformation,of the vampire could be explained through the notion of folklorismus. Venetta J.Newall provides a helpful summary of the folklorismus8 concept in her article. Shepresents several theories concerning the concept, the foremost one being HansMoser’s explanation of the term:[Moser] distinguish[es] three forms of folklorismus: the performanceof folk culture away from its original local context, the playfulimitation of popular motifs by another social class, and creation offolklore for different purposes outside any known tradition. (131)And:Moser’s work drew a powerful response from the distinguishedGerman folklorist Hermann Bausinger, who rightly pointed out that thefirst and second existences of a custom often merge, so that theycannot be separated. (133)The essence of Moser’s and Bausinger’s argument is that folklorisms are folklorerepresented in other forums than the original and more often than not renewed bypeople outside the traditional region and/or context. Important to note is that,according to Moser’s third variation—that folklorisms can be created “for different8This is a Germanic term of which the English equivalent is folklorism. Newall only uses the Germanicterm, but other scholars seem to use folklorismus and folklorism synonymously. For the continuation ofthis essay folklorism will be used as the standard term.

Samuelsson 6purposes” independent from the known tradition—folklorisms might not benecessarily genuine. Hence, folklorisms are not automatically genuine, as they can bemade up without connection to folktales, but they might as well be based on realfolklore traditions. Further, the American scholar Richard M. Dorson expandsMoser’s argument about recreating folklore as he suggests that folklorisms, in someways, are much the same thing as fakelore; “the presentation of spurious and syntheticwritings under the claim that they are genuine folklore” (9). Hence, folklorisms areeither connected to folklore or not, whilst instances of fakelore are wholly made up.For argument’s sake, folklorisms will be considered as based on folklore whilefakelore is taken to be invented.The folklorism theory can be applied to the revival of the vampire myth inWestern nineteenth century literature. The fact that Stoker studied folklore at theBritish Museum further strengthens the argument that the vampire figure of hisnarrative derived from these stories (Ellmann xiv). Dracula is based on folklore—which will be shown later—but as the narrative at the same time reinvents folklore, itcould be seen as an excellent example of a folklorism. On the other hand, Dracula isnot fakelore because the vampire, which is essential for the narrative, is not a figure ofStoker’s imagination alone; it is still tied to folkloristic traditions.The vampire’s development, its status as folklorism so to speak, is thevampires’ new status which ensued partly through the surge of vampire literatureduring the gothic period9—both in society and in relation to nature. If the OED’sdefinition is remembered, the vampire is pointed out to be “a preternatural being of amalignant nature” (my emphasis). This suggests that the eighteenth-century vampire,as opposed to the folklore vampire, is regarded as abnormal rather than transcendent;the vampire is rejected to a place outside nature, it is no longer simply supernatural.Höglund connects this idea of detachment to the German Sturm und Drangmovement, mainly because of Heinrich Ossenfelder’s poem “The Vampire” (1748),since “the poet [Ossenfelder] makes tentative tries to explore the vampire subject’sfull potential in order to show the philosophical questions connected to the vampire’sexistence” (65). Further, Höglund connects the Sturm und Drang movement to thevampire debate through their ideas about society:9Starting at the turn of the eighteenth century, the interest in folk poetry grew and classical Greekliterature was at the centre of attention. Through the Greek literature the Lamia, a mythological figurewith several vampire traits, was rediscovered as a literary figure, something that according to Höglundlater lead to the popularisation of the vampire (73).

Samuelsson 7The words “storm” and “stress” aimed to express the group’srevolutionary desire and discontent towards bourgeois life. They putthemselves outside the community and allegedly wrote only forthemselves and not for the readers (insurgence and exile later becomesone of the vampire figure’s features). (65, my emphasis)Höglund points out that the Sturm und Drang features of revolt and exclusion laterbecome important characteristics of the vampire figure (65). Thus, the vampire’smovement from folklore to romantic hero starts somewhere during this protoromantic period; it is a representation of the Sturm und Drang movement’s outsiderideal, if one is willing to go that far.That this new literary vampire is indeed a new sort of vampire is arguedfurther by G David Keyworth. He starts by paraphrasing Augustin Calmet’s assertionthat “blood-sucking corpses were unknown in Western Europe until the lateseventeenth century” (Keyworth 241). It is also noted that Calmet does not find anytraces of “vampires [ ] driven by an all-consuming thirst for blood” until theseventeenth century. It is this notion, the unquenchable thirst for blood, that Keyworthargues is the biggest difference between the eighteenth century vampire and itspredecessors (Keyworth 251, 253). Unlike Höglund, Keyworth does not touch on thevampires’ social status but concentrates on the vampire’s physical attributes: itsapparent hunger. He explains this new development by stating that the vampire is “areflection of cultural stereotyping, that in different cultures at different times appear tohave focused on particular facets of the decomposing corpse” (256). Somehow thevampire then moved away from legend and folklore during the romantic period,moving away from the medieval imagery of a decomposed corpse to the eighteenthcentury image of an undamaged revenant when depicting the vampire (256). Thisdevelopment, then, might not be anything more than a reflection of the literaryclimate, with the introduction of first the romantic period and later the gothic period.The theme of the narratives moved through the fantastical imagery of the romanticperiod to later encompass the horrors of the gothic, which essentially created theplatform for the vampire figure. Keyworth’s argument, like that of several otherscholars, seems to begin and end with the transformation of the vampire. Thisapproach, similar to that of Höglund and Keyworth, does nothing if not providepossible proof that the vampire has changed, which, if the theory that the vampire ofthe eighteenth century is a folklorism is to be applied, is essential.

Samuelsson 8To conclude this section, I would like to return to Newall’s article for amoment, where she presents Moser’s and Bausinger’s argument “that the first andsecond existences of a custom [folklorism] often merge, so that they cannot beseparated” (133). If this idea is connected to the vampire myth, of which the firstexistence is the old folklore legends, then the second existence must be the vampirecreated during the 18th and 19th century, as argued above. Essentially, Moser’s andBausinger’s argument could then be applied to the reinvention of the vampire and thefunction it holds in modern literary narrative, especially in Western literature. Sincevampire motifs did exist before this time, and the fact that the OED’s definition ofvampires even precedes the period, the literary vampire presented during the 18th and19th century can be nothing but a folkloric reimagination, a folklorism, of the oldlegends.Folklore in Dracula and FanglandStoker’s novel is not only probably the most famous vampire story ever written but itappears to be one of those vampire stories that claim high authority among thesubsequent works inside the vampire canon (Höglund 26).The plot of Dracula followsseveral Londoners as they deal with the threat of a Transylvanian vampire, calledCount Dracula, as one of them, Jonathan Harker, involuntarily helps the Count tomove to London. To help them they have Dr Abraham Van Helsing, a Dutchprofessor. The story is told through the personal accounts of the central characters,such as journals and diaries, as well as letters and telegrams. Lucy Westerna, a friendof Harker’s fiancée Mina Murray, becomes Dracula’s prey as he starts to feed on herand, even though Van Helsing tries to stop it, she turns into a vampire. Later, Draculagoes after Mina as well, but this time the group manages to stop his progress bykilling him. As argued before, the Count in Dracula can very well be thought of as avampire folklorism. The novel, as well as similar ‘modern’ vampire narratives, mightthen be the perfect example of a vampire folklorism since it includes a mix betweenthe vampire of history and folklore and the vampire of fiction, while establishing theformer’s transformation into the latter.To begin with, the narrative’s antagonist is a vampire, a character that is—asthe previous section has discussed—likely grounded in folklore. What is fascinatingabout Stoker’s narrative is that the connections to folklore moves beyond the vampire

Samuelsson 9figure itself; for one thing, Stoker seems to have been able to incorporate severalrituals based in the world’s folkloric traditions when creating his narrative. So in orderto be able to argue fully for the transformation of the vampire motif, the folkloricelements of the story need to be discussed.In her influential article, “The Vampire in Roumania” (1926), Agnes Murgocidescribes the mythical figure of the striga, which according to her, is either the spiritof a live witch detached from the body or the spirit of a dead witch that is unable tofind peace.10 The striga apparently assembles to dance and sing the words: “Nup,Cuisnup, In casa cu ustoroi nu ma duc. Nup, Cuisnup, I won't enter any house wherethere is garlic” (321). Murgoci also states that:On St. Andrew's Eve and St. George's Eve, and before Easter and theNew Year, windows should be anointed with garlic in the form of across, garlic put on the door and everything in the house, and all thecows in the cowshed should be rubbed with garlic. [ ] Even although[sic] the window is anointed with garlic, it is wisest to keep it shut.(334)In Dracula, Van Helsing decorates Lucy’s room with garlic flowers in order to, wecan assume, keep the Count at bay, telling her that “there is much virtue to you inthose so common flowers” (130). He then shuts the window tight and rubs a handfulof flowers “all over the sashes, as though to ensure that every whiff of air that mightget in would be laden with the garlic smell” (131). Van Helsing goes on to rub thegarlic “all over the jamb of the door, above, below, and at each side, and round thefireplace in the same way” before he admonishes Lucy not to open the window (131).Murgoci further explains that vampires frequently enter the house by the chimney orkeyhole, something that is similarly mirrored in Stoker’s description of Van Helsing’sactions. Hence, the methods described by Murgoci and Stoker are almost identical.The similarities between Murgoci’s address and Stoker’s narrative continueswith Jonathan Harker’s account about common Slavic expressions for supernaturalcreature in the very beginning of the novel, as he reaches the foot of the CarpathianMountains. Harker overhears the word stregoica while listening to the local crowddiscussing his future travel to Dracula’s castle, a word that he, with the help of hisdictionary, translates into “witch” (Stoker 6). Murgosi identifies the Romanian wordstrigoica as the term for female vampires (321). Stoker’s word for witch is10Even though the striga is not really a vampire, they are sometimes confused with them (Murgoci321). This does not make the figures interchangeable, but the apotropaic used against the witch figuremight very well be transferred to the vampire since they, just as Murgoci remarks, are confused.

Samuelsson 10undoubtedly very similar to the Romanian word for vampire as well as the word forwitch, suggesting that Stoker made an honest mistake and misinterpreted the meaningof either word. If nothing else, the use of the Slavic/Romanian term hints that Stokerwas familiar with some Eastern European vampire folklore, just as Ellmann suggests(xiv). Consequently, it could be argued that the Romanian folklore has served, at leastpartly, as an inspiration for Stoker as he constructed his interpretation of the vampiremyth.The vampire figure itself, Count Dracula, also echoes a lot of folklore images.When Harker finds Dracula in his coffin on the night Harker plans his escape from thecastle, the image painted of the Count has several things in common with thedescriptions of older vampires. The passage of the novel reads as follows:There lay the count, but looking as if his youth had been half-renewed,for the white hair and moustache were changed to dark iron-grey; thecheeks were fuller, and the white skin seemed ruby-red underneath; themouth was redder than ever, for the lips were gouts of fresh blood,which trickled from the corners of the mouth and ran over the chin andneck. Even the deep, burning eyes seemed set amongst swollen flesh,for the lids and pouches underneath were bloated. It seemed as if thewhole awful creature were simply gorged with blood; he lay like afilthy leech, exhausted with his repletion. (Stoker 51)Barber presents a seventeenth-century account from Greece where the revenant isdescribed as “so swollen everywhere that the body had no flat surfaces but was roundlike a full sack” and an eighteenth century account from Walachia (a Romanianprovince) where the vampire is bathing in “brown-black ichor” that “welled out oftheir mouths and noses” (40). Both accounts seem to be in line with the generalbeliefs presented for each region. The Greek vrykolakas11 is described as so swollenthat “the skin becomes taut like the skin of a drum” (Barber 42) and the Slavicvampire “can give forth fresh blood, the face [is] red from the blood he has drunk”(Barber 41).12 From this Barber draws the conclusion that “in the makeup of therevenant, two characteristics stand out: the presence of a great deal of blood (he is infact full to bursting with fresh blood) and the swollen body” (42). In the passage fromDracula the Count is described to be “gorged with blood” just as the Balkanvampires. Here, in contrast to previous descriptions of a pale Count, Dracula isdepicted as having a “ruby-red” undertone to his “swollen flesh”. This description11The Greek name for “vampire” is of Illyric decent, which according to Wright, suggests that thename has Slavic origins (42). Murgoci also discusses the etymology of the word (337).12Direct quote from Barber, hence the alteration in the quote is not mine.

Samuelsson 11varies a great deal from Harker’s first depiction of the Count: “the mouth [ ] wasfixed and rather cruel-looking, with peculiarly sharp teeth: there protruded over thelips [ ] his ears were pale [ ] the general effect was that he was one ofextraordinary pallor” (Stoker 17-18).Furthermore, what is remarkable in this first description is the teeth. InSummers’ description of the vampire in his coffin, the teeth play a special role: “[t]helips which will be marked full and red are drawn back from the teeth which gleamlong, sharp, as razors and ivory white” (201). But just as Barber notes (44), and as myreading confirms, it does not seem to be any special attention paid to the teeth of anyof the folklore vampires. Summers appears to have crossed the line between historyand fiction here, most likely due to his beliefs regarding vampires. So, in conclusion,what can be said about the depiction of Dracula? It appears that Stoker has tried tomake the vampire figure his own, but when describing the newly, well-fed Dracula,he seems to evoke images that are consistent with the ones found in folklore.There are maybe not countless, but at least numerous, examples of thevampire depiction in Dracula that invoke the imagery of folklore traditions. BeforeLucy is buried, Van Helsing places a golden cross over Lucy’s lips before coveringher face again (164). This can possibly be linked to the German custom of placing asmall piece of silver or a stone, or even tie a handkerchief tightly around the mouth ofthe suspected revenant to prevent it from being able to consume the burial shroudtogether with whatever else that happens to be within reach (Wright 162). The Slaviccustom to drive a thorn or a nail through the tongue of the dead to prevent

motifs can be traced back far through the ages.1 During the Romantic period several vampire narratives emerged in Western literature, and the genre peaked during the Victorian Gothic in the mid to late nineteenth century.2 During this century, the vampire started the development from fantastical monster towards romantic hero as