Frequently Asked Questions
Each
question that follows is an e-mail enquiry the
Vampire Research
Society
received from visitors.
They
are answered by its President and Founder,
Seán Manchester,
author of four vampire books.
Q: What
precisely is a vampire?
A: To define what a vampire is you
need look no further than Chambers’ Twentieth Century Dictionary which
offers the following: “An accursed body which cannot rest in the kindly earth,
but nightly leaves its grave to suck the blood of sleeping men [and women].” Witney’s
Century Dictionary concurs that the vampire “maintains a semblance of life
by sucking the warm blood of living men and women while they sleep.” Webster’s
International Dictionary confirms that the vampire is a “re-animated body
of a dead person … believed to come from the grave and wander about by night
sucking the blood of persons asleep causing death.” The Oxford Dictionary
agrees with all the above, describing an undead as “a ghost that leaves his
grave at night and sucks the blood of sleeping persons.” Finally, Sir James Frazer
in the second volume of his work The Fear of the Dead in Primitive Religions
(1934) is in no doubt that vampires are “malicious ghosts who issue from their
graves to suck the blood of the living, and stringent measures are deemed
necessary to hinder or arrest this horrible proceeding.”
Q: Most people do not believe in vampires. Why do you think this is so?
A: Today the
majority of folk not only dismiss the existence of vampires, but also
most anything else remotely belonging to the supernatural. However, I
subscribe to the view that cases of vampirism have been stifled and covered up
by those in authority. So has much else, of course, and the recent
inaccurate portrayals of the vampire and vampirism in films and
literature only serves to assist this endeavour of disinformation.
Furthermore, most people have built in “slides” that short circuit the mind’s
critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive topics.
“Slides” is a CIA term for a condition type of response which dead ends a person’s
thinking and terminates debate or examination of the topic at hand. Any mention
of the word “vampire,” for example, often solicits a “slide” response with most
people. Owing to the incredible bombardment of information (and thereby also
misinformation) via the media, television, radio and, not least, the new
information technology, people are probably far less open-minded than they
were hitherto. Hence they dismiss the existence of the vampire phenomenon
without prior examination. This principle of prior contempt cannot fail to keep
people in everlasting ignorance of the undead. Notwithstanding the natural
predilection nowadays to dismiss any notion of vampires, when a BBC poll was
conducted to coincide with my online discussion on the subject the result was
interesting, to say the least. The question put to those who visited the BBC
website was: “Do you believe in vampires?” 47.4% said they did not believe, but
an encouraging 52.6% said that they did believe in the existence of vampires.
Q: Does
garlic really ward off vampires?
A: The
pungent herb Allium Sativum (wild variety: Allium Vineal) is
deemed by many to be effective as a vampire repellent. In 450 BC, Herodotus,
the Greek historian, in Euterpe: Concerning the History of Europe,
remarks about an inscription inside the Cheops pyramid at Gisa, built circa
2900 BC, that attests to the value of garlic’s arcane properties. It was
invariably employed to ward off evil spirits, and still is.
Q: What are
the strengths and weaknesses of vampires?
A: The
vampire’s powers are many and varied. They can remain undead
indefinitely unless exorcised in a specific manner. They can assume animal
shapes and some have been thought to control the elements locally.
Metamorphosis into mist is not unknown either. They can intrude upon sleeping
persons’ dreams and mesmerise their prey. Their infectious bite may eventually
result in the death of their victims, some of whom will likewise become undead
upon expiry. Vampires, despite their manifold supernatural abilities, are nevertheless not invulnerable. They leave the confines
of where the corporeal shell resides only between sunset and sunrise. They
cannot cross running water save at the slack or the flood of the tide. They
fear and shrink from the sign of the cross, the crucifix and, above all,
from the Host, the Body of God. Holy water will burn them as some scorching
acid and they flee from the fragrance of most incense, particularly
frankincense. Certain trees and herbs are hateful to them, especially
whitethorn, or buckthorn. They are also curiously allergic to garlic as seen in
the previous answer.
Q: What do vampires look like?
A: When
disinterred the abnormal condition of the corpse will be a sure mark of
whether it is a vampire or not. Such bodies do not suffer decomposition after
burial. They do not fall to dust. Generally described as being
exceedingly gaunt and lean with a hideous countenance, the vampire, when he has
satiated his lust for warm human blood, will appear horribly puffed
and bloated, as though he were some filthy leech, gorged and replete to bursting. The
lips are often markedly full and drawn back to reveal sharp teeth, gleaming
white against a frame stained with slab gouts of blood. The foul offal from the
previous night's feast. The gaping mouth, stained and foul with blood, might
reveal glutinous trickles that have spilled on to the lawn shrouding and linen
cerements. The form is therefore discovered gorged and stinking with the
life-force blood of others. The eyes are sometimes closed; more
frequently open, glazed, fixed, and glaring fiercely. The corpse will
nevertheless seem composed as if in a profound sleep. The stench of the
charnel where these undead repose is oftentimes so terrible and fetid that
the sickening odour can effect the senses of an observer for possibly months
afterwards. Epidemics of this unspeakable evil have resulted in entire
graves being discovered soaked and saturated with squelching blood. Such an
epidemic plagued south east Europe and reached England's shores in the early
part of the 18th century. It is believed that the Highgate contamination had
its origins in this particular plague.
Q: How do people become vampires?
A: In certain
circumstances those who expire from this parasite's visitations and quaffing of
their life-blood will themselves be at risk of becoming vampires in their turn.
This does not occur where the person is in a state of grace,
however, where any mortal sin that stains their soul has been
absolved. And by no means are the great majority of victims destined to return
as undead. It would seem that those chosen to increase the cult are fewer than
we might imagine. This remains an enigma, though probable candidates are
those who have led a life of more than ordinary immorality and unbridled
wickedness; where the individual has possessed a surfeit of selfish passions,
evil ambitions and cruelty. The vampire is thought to be one who has
delighted in blood and devoted himself during his life to the practice of
diabolism and the black arts. Thus a vampire is more likely to result from
exceedingly base and cruel actions; especially where devil worship and devotion
to the black arts has occurred. The supernatural agency, however, is
demonic and, whilst human beings cannot actually transform
into demons themselves, they may become possessed by them, and
thus appear transformed. In the case of contamination followed by expiry
of a suitable candidate there exists the possibility that their malevolence
sets in action forces that might prove powerful for terror and destruction
even beyond the grave. It is hardly to be supposed that such persons would
rest undisturbed while it is less difficult to contemplate the existence of
this hideous life in death where the demonic is extant and seemingly
manifests itself as an undead body.
Q: Is it true that a vampire may only enter a household where invited?
A: Evil tends to
need to be invited when it enters a portal into our hemisphere. This does
not necessarily require a full-blown evocation, or the raising of demons
per se. It is relatively easy to release evil into the world for evil is not
merely a lack of something, but an effective agent, a living spiritual being,
perverted and perverting; a terrible reality: mysterious and frightening. The
problem arises when attempting to cast such evil out of our world. This is
significantly more difficult than inviting it in.
Q: Does a vampire cast a shadow and reflect in a mirror?
A: Since vampires
do not exist in time ~ they dwell in what I have described as
"anti-time" (see The Vampire Hunter's Handbook, page 28;
and The Highgate Vampire, page 101) ~ they
will cast no shadow, nor will their reflection be seen in a mirror or water’s
surface.
Q: Is a crucifix
effective against vampires and evil in general without the person’s faith in
its power?
A: The crucifix
symbol itself is utterly abhorred by vampires, and indeed all
forms of evil. The object and what it is made of does not possess any power,
yet it is so strongly symbolic of the triumph of good over evil that it alone
repels evil and whatever is an emissary of evil. However, when employed by
a person the intent and faith of the person employing it is paramount.
This might seem like an paradox. Christian items and holy places utterly repel
evil people who oftentimes delight in their sacrilege. Likewise
supernatural evil shuns these holy things. It is indubitably unwise for these
sacred symbols to be adopted as mere fashion items. Similarly, of
course, it is unwise in the extreme for diabolical symbols to be adopted
and worn. So the power of the crucifix exists, but will be magnified one
thousandfold when supported by faith.
Q: Did you ever
meet the famous vampirologist, and chronicler of the undead, Montague Summers?
A: I would have
been a pre-school infant when Montague Summers passed
away, but my colleague Peter Underwood did
meet him and was provided with a vampire protection medallion by that
researcher of an earlier generation. Summer’s books, notably The Vampire:
His Kith & Kin (1928) and The Vampire in Europe (1929) are
invaluable reference works for all who study and research the lore
of the undead. I supported The Summers Project in 1986 to raise money
for a tombstone to the memory of Summers. A headstone was erected above his
hitherto unmarked grave in Richmond Cemetery on 26 November 1988. Inscribed on
it are the words: “Tell me strange things.” My own work The Highgate Vampire had
been published three years prior. When it came to be revised and enlarged in
1991, having become an established bestseller, I felt it entirely appropriate
to dedicate the second and all subsequent editions to the memory of Montague Summers.
Q: Who was Alan Blood,
referred to in latter-day books and also on the internet, and what part did he
play in the Highgate Vampire case?
A: Blood was a history teacher who
saw the “Today” television programme on 13th March 1970, and
travelled from Billericay to Highgate Village in order to satisfy his
curiosity. He became one of hundreds of spectators outside the cemetery’s North
Gate where he happened to be interviewed by a newspaper reporter. Though
described as a “vampire expert” in the London Evening News, 14th
March 1970; in a second interview he denied being anything of the kind; and
indeed told the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 20th March
1970, that he was “by no means an expert on vampires.” He added: “Before
investigating something like this I would get in touch with somebody more in
the know.” He realised that a competent investigation was already in progress
by the Vampire Research Society, and nothing further was ever heard of Alan Blood who,
in truth, played no part whatsoever in the case of the Highgate Vampire.
Blood’s name would nonetheless come to be exhumed by exploitation paperback
writers whose lazy journalism involved no proper research. Those who misinformed
the public with regard to Blood are Matthew Bunson in The Vampire
Encyclopedia (1993), Peter Hough in Supernatural Britain (1995), and
Tom Slemen in Strange But True (1998). None of the aforementioned spoke
to Alan Blood, or anyone closely connected to the case of the Highgate Vampire.
Q: Did you have any
contact or association with the American researcher Steven Kaplan and his
Vampire Research Centre?
A: I did
correspond with the late Stephen Kaplan during the 1970s and early 1980s, but
lost touch after it was established beyond all doubt that Kaplan's "Vampire
Research Centre" was concerned with vampiroidism and not vampirism. See Vampiroidism Defined for an explanation of the
distinction. There was never any bad blood between him and the VRS. Indeed,
despite malicious gossip about Kaplan from those within the CDFC (aka
Vampire Empire), I always maintained a convivial relationship. Kaplan, in his
correspondence (still on file), made it absolutely clear that he was not
involved in the pursuit of supernatural phenomena and therefore would (or
could) not engage in exorcism of any kind. He seemed to be researching human
beings with obsessive personality disorders. This much is apparent from his published
work on the subject and certainly in the press cuttings he sent the VRS
from time to time. The VRS found it regrettable that the late Stephen Kaplan
should suffer so much insult from many within his own country who did not
always share his views and methodology.
Q: How many vampires has the Vampire Research Society encountered?
A: The Vampire Research Society has
probably now lost count of the number of vampires its members, and those who
bring to it their knowledge and experiences, have encountered. The Kirklees Vampire and
Abney Park Cemetery investigations have been transmitted on UK television, but
no case has had more coverage in the media than that of the Highgate Vampire. Many
investigations, of course, revealed the subject matter to be non-vampiric. A
perfect example of this was an examination of the haunting of Brocket Hall and
a nearby churchyard. Both were reputed to be the venue of the unquiet spirit of
Lady Caroline Lamb,
reported by some journalists to be a vampire. Though some evidence was
unearthed to suggest paranormal disturbances (see Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know),
nothing truly vampiric was found.
Q: Did a vampire ever attack any VRS members?
A: I feel it is
best if I speak for myself and no-one else. I have been attacked by a vampire
and, moreover, have discussed this experience on television and radio in the
past. It is described in detail on page 176 of The Highgate Vampire (Gothic Press, 1991).
Q: How many vampires are there?
A: Their number is legion. There have been epidemics. Suffice to
say, such epidemics are recorded in historical annals. We know of them.
Q: Can vampires be killed?
A: Exorcism does
not "kill" the demonic agent. It rids the supernatural predatory
wraith from our sphere or dimension. The corporeal host obviously returns to
its true state and is no longer plagued by the apparent supernatural
ability to manifest as though it were living.
Q: Are there any vampire hotspots?
A: There are
no obvious "hotspots" these days, as there might have been in
past centuries, owing to the world becoming a village through information
technology and extensive travel from one country to another. Thus it might
now be more difficult to contain a serious epidemic.
Q: Besides vampires, are there other demons?
A: The vampire is a
predatory entity that feeds on the life-force, ie blood, of others.
It is but one of many types of demon. However, in all the darkest pages of the
malign supernatural there is no more terrible tradition than that of the
vampire, a pariah even among demons.
Q: How would you describe a ghost as distinct from a vampire?
A: Ghosts may be
any number of phenomena. At the undead level the spectre is
incarnate. It can be felt and touched. Apparitions are usually
discarnate where physical contact is not possible. However, I am not inclined
to the view held by some that they are deceased persons' spirits hovering in
our dimension. They are more likely to be demonic than not. I do,
however, subscribe to the notion that some of the phenomena attributed to
apparitions, particularly where the ghost seems to re-enact a scene over and
over again, is a hologram from the past, or even from the future by
virtue of a time warp allowing the original scene to be glimpsed, albeit
imperfectly, at the requisite moment in our time and subject to certain
prevailing conditions.
Q: What is a werewolf and how does it differ from a vampire?
A: The Vampire
Research Society certainly has an interest in werewolfism. Werewolves are an
altogether different category to that of vampires. The werewolf may be regarded
as a man or woman who, either of his or her own will through the black arts, is
able to assume the hideous appetite, ferocity, cunning, and other qualities of
the wolf; so that he or she will attack human beings in the same way as a wild
animal. There are recorded instances where the person has taken on a wolf-like
appearance. Werewolfism can be
hereditary, or acquired through a demonic agency, but, unlike the vampire,
werewolves are living persons either afflicted, or self-afflicted, with the
malady that sometimes results in an apparent transformation. Vampires, on the
other hand, are demonic entities in apparent corporeal form. Werewolves
are people who assume a wolf-form and behaviour. The condition known
as lycanthropy should not be confused with the voluntary werewolf, under whom
for this consideration any form of apparent shape-shifting may be included. An
essential prerequisite is a pact, formal or tacit, with a demonic agency. Such
metamorphosis as that examplified in the voluntary werewolf can only be wrought
by black magic.
Q: What happens during an exorcism?
A: I have been a
full-time exorcist since Easter 1973 when I entered the minor order of the
Exorcistate. These rituals apply to a wide spectrum of circumstance, each being
different to the next, so it is futile to offer any one description as it would
be a mere fragment of the whole. If we are talking about the exorcism of an
undead then the corporeal shell returns to earthly time with a bang as the demonic
presence is expelled.
A: Far too much to recount here, but my work The Vampire Hunter’s Handbook deals with it in
a chapter on its own. I had briefly met the foundress the Yorkshire Robin Hood
Society, which is now sadly redundant, in 1987. This led to the VRS gathering
various witness statements. The foundress’ own sighting of the vampiric
spectre, like others, certainly suggests that the undead had probably been in
life a thirteenth century apostate nun known as the “Wicked Prioress” who,
according to a Sloane manuscript, bled the outlaw Robin Hood to death at
Kirklees Priory. His remains are believed to be interred in unconsecrated
ground 650 yards from the priory gatehouse. The tomb of the “Wicked Prioress”
is also nearby. Following a nocturnal, mist-shrouded visit to the legendary
outlaw’s forgotten grave, the YRHS foundress recounted: “Like a bat she hung
there for what seemed like an eternity, her black nun’s robes flapping eerily
while her eyes flashed red and venomous and her teeth bared sharp and white
between snarling blood-red lips.” This plus many other people’s accounts are
certainly redolent of testimony to a vampire active in the immediate vicinity
of Kirklees Priory Estate, near its well-hidden tombs and gatehouse ruins.
Q: Was the historical
Dracula ~ Vlad the Impaler ~ a real vampire?
A: The Draculas were held by their contemporaries to have had
dealings with the Devil. The stories of Vlad Tepes III’s ferocity and
hair-raising cruelty in defiance of the Turks is, according to the author of Dracula,
related at length in two fifteenth century manuscripts, one of which speaks of
him as a “wampyr.” In my sequel to Stoker’s masterpiece, Carmel, I identify the historical Dracula as
Wladislaus Dragwyla. He was a Voivode, which concurs with Stoker’s anti-hero,
whose bloody acts were far too horrible to relate here (they are recounted on
pages 33-34 of Carmel).
He was finally murdered by a hired assassin from the Turkish camp when
he was forty-five years old, but when his tomb was opened in 1932 it was found
to be empty save for some ceramics and various animal bones. If anyone
threatened to return as a vampire, in accordance with undead lore, it was Vlad
Tepes III, or Dragwyla who had forsaken Christ to embrace the Evil One ~ Satan.
Even Dracula’s name in his native Wallachian language means son of the Devil.
Did he actually return as an undead? Quite possibly, but the proof is absent.
Q: What do you suggest and recommend for people who want to become
vampirologists?
A: I recommend Montague Summers’ and my own published works to those interested in speculative vampirology. To those interest in operative vampirology I would urge immense caution and advise them to consider such a course carefully. If they have such a calling ~ for that is what it is ~ they must certainly include amongst their considerations entry to the minor orders and possibly even holy orders.
Q: How long have you been warning against amateurs taking up
operative vampirology, and why are you so opposed to lone vampire hunters?
A: A lone, amateur “vampire hunter” is as much a danger to
himself as he is to any investigation that might already be in progress. It is surely fundamental common sense that
if the pursuit of supernatural evil is a dangerous occupation to embark upon,
then the last thing anyone needs are bungling amateurs drawing attention to
themselves in the media as invariably always happens. The outcome is a
breakdown in relations between officials, landowners and perhaps potential
witnesses and the bona fide researchers. This certainly happened at
Highgate Cemetery in London, and at Kirklees Hall Estate in West Yorkshire. One
amateur “vampire hunter” is bad enough, but each of those investigations became
plagued with all too many amateurs who only served to add to the mayhem. The
curious thing is that some subsequent reporting of events at a very much later
date by journalists who could not be bothered to do their homework only
referred to the antics of meddlers and amateurs in the Highgate Vampire case
and made absolutely no mention of the genuine VRS investigation that took place
over a period of thirteen years. The Vampire Research Society, though
informally a specialist unit within the BOS from 1967, became autonomous in
February 1970. On 13 March 1970, I made a transmission for Thames Television as
the head of that organisation, and its parent BOS, where I warned against lone
“vampire hunting” by amateurs. I reiterated my disapproval on 15 October 1970
for a BBC television documentary that also included brief footage of one such
amateur brandishing a home-made stake and cross.
A: Those kind words by Paul Spencer Vickers followed
publication of the first edition of The Highgate Vampire. Yes, I have always felt
drawn to what might more accurately be described as Gothic Revival art and
architecture. The Victorian period witnessed the restoring of the glories of
the Old Faith in its new freedom, following the Catholic Emancipation Act of
1829. The Gothic Revival re-established a connection with our medieval past,
finding in Gothic architecture an ancient and majestic expression of
Catholicism. Bishops Arnold Harris Mathew and Montague Summers, and, indeed. the late Father
Brocard Sewell of the Carmelite Order, and I first became Anglo-Catholic before
converting to Roman Catholicism.
Summers and I went on to Old Catholicism; and all four of us can only be described as
traditionalists in the extreme. I would
echo the sentiments of Pugin who would distinguish between “the glories of
Catholic antiquity and Modern trash.” The Gothic Revival ensured that churches
were liturgically planned and disposed with pointed arches, brass, dim light,
carved marble and stone, embroidery, stencilled walls, encaustic tiles and
stained glass. In a sentence, the Gothic style was and remains the fullest
expression of Catholicism.
A: The smallest drop of blood can be employed by a demonic
entity, enabling the wraith to form a tangible form. Revenants are attracted to
blood which allows them to effect their purpose. The ancient Israelites would
not eat the blood of any flesh at all, because the life of the flesh is in the
blood. The Hebrew word that translates as “life” in Deuteronomy 12: 23
(“Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life”) also signifies
“soul.” The vampire partakes the dark nature and mysterious qualities of both
revenant and demon, yet is distinct from each by the degree of its lust for
blood. The vampirologist must always be mindful of this alarming
characteristic, and must never go unprotected when putting himself at risk
during operative field work. Contamination via the blood is the cult’s
sole means of expansion: like a vile plague.
Q: There are living people who call themselves “vampires” and
sometimes even drink blood. Do you classify them as real vampires?
A: If
people who incorrectly call themselves "vampires" would
conform to the description given in the English dictionary (see answer to first
question at the top of the page), we would all be able to communicate a lot
better. Such individuals are what vampirologists describe as vampiroids
(see Vampiroidism Defined) and
psychologists refer to as people suffering from some form of obsessive
personality disorder, but they are not, repeat NOT, in their remotest dreams
and wildest imaginings, "vampires." The only persons they are
deluding are themselves, and a handful of similarly reluctant dictionary
users. If we do not agree on the definition and meaning of words,
what is the point in communicating at all, much less using the most
sophisticated means of communication via all
the information technology available to us? Words
sometimes have quite specific meanings. "Vampire" is one. A
small number of people choosing to hijack that word and alter its meaning to
apply it, albeit absurdly, to themselves does not, in fact, change the meaning
of the word itself. Dictionaries have not accommodated the appearance of
vampiroids by expanding the word to mean "people who follow what they
believe to be 'vampire' lifestyles and behaviour patterns." The
word "vampire" still means what is always meant in English
dictionairies. To qualify, such people would have to be dead, or, rather,
undead. And they clearly do not qualify in that department. So call
themselves what they will, they are not, nor ever have been, vampires; no
matter how much they might wish to imagine otherwise. They are, at best,
imitating what they construe vampires to be, but that is a million miles from
the reality according to its accepted meaning in the English language. Once we
lose the meaning of words, we might as well all act dumb.
Some, notably those described here as vampiroids, are finding
that all too easy to do already without perverting the meaning of
"vampires."
NEXT