Monday, December 28, 2015

The Lost Word YHWH and Freemasonry (1912)


The Lost Word YHWH and Freemasonry (1912) by ALEXANDER S. Bacon, 32°

See also 200 Books on the Divine Name Jehovah on DVDrom (Yahweh, Tetragrammaton, YHWH) and Freemasonry and Other Secret Societies - Over 120 Books on DVDrom

Join my Facebook Group

In the beginning God— —

"In the God (in Hebrew. Elohim) created the heaven and the earth." —Gen. i:I.

"And God (Elohim) spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD" (Y H W H). Ex. vi: 2,3

"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty (El Shaddai) but by my name JEHOVAH (Y H V H) was I not known to them."—Ex. vi: 2. 3.

The Hebrew letters Y H W H (or J H V H) are what are known as the Tetragrammaton. It occurs 5989 times in the Old Testament and is translated LORD (in capitals) in every instance save seven, when it is translated Jehovah.

To this day no orthodox Jew utters the word represented by the Tetragrammaton, Y H W H. He says “Adonai” (Lord) instead.

The Jews held that the very foundation stone of religion was a belief in the true God, the only God, the one, who has no brother, and whose very name must be treated with the most reverential respect. They did not treat their Deity with the profane levity that was common to the heathen, whose gods were legion. and whose attributes were magnified human vices, rather than virtues. In Athens, at one time it is said that there were 30,000 gods, and it was easier to find a god than a man. You will remember that St. Paul found one image at Athens dedicated "to the Unknown God."

The Jews held the name of the One God—the name (Y H W H) given by Himself to them by revelation to Moses—in such reverence that they not only never took it in vain, but they never spoke it at all. Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the High Priest, after ablutions. went alone into the Holy of Holies and there. while the priests without chanted a hymn, uttered the sacred word. To the masses of the people, it was already "a lost word."

After the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey in the year 63 B. C., the temple ceremonial on the Day of Atonement, was, of course. abandoned, and from the destruction of the city in the year 70 A. D. until the sixteenth century. the Tetragrammaton was absolutely a lost word. Jew and Christian alike held the name of God in such reverence that it was never written—never uttered,  even Its pronunciation was lost, and is lost to this day.

Learned men tell us that in all probability it was Yahweh. In the year 1513, the Confessor of Pope Leo X, guessed at certain vowels; put them into the Tetragrammaton (Y H W H or J H V H), and created the new word "Jehovah." The world almost gasped at the presumption of even the great Confessor who had dared to utter a word so holy.

A century goes by, and in the year 1611 the committee selected by King James I of England gave us our present authorized version of the Holy Scriptures; and those learned men, obedient to public sentiment and to centuries of tradition, translated the Tetragrammaton as LORD (in capitals). Only seven times did they use the word Jehovah.

Let us go forward another century, to the year 1717. Four weak masons' trades union in London got together to form a grand lodge. The event was unimportant; no paper announced it: no minutes were kept for six years; and during that time certain learned philosophers, honorary members of the trades union, got control of the Grand Lodge and devoted it to philosophy and the theory of a fraternity that should magnify the essentials of religion and universal brotherhood: the worship of the One God, and teach and practice the Code of Morals set forth in His Holy Book, their only rule and guide in faith and practice.

About the year 1723, the drama of the Third Degree was originated, and those learned and distinguished men to whom we are indebted for “The Tragedy of the Architect,” or the Hiramic Legend, utilized the current tradition of the Tetragrammaton in a way that every Mason will fully appreciate.

You will notice how beautiful is the idea. The True God, without the worship of whom there can be no Judaism, no Christianity, no Masonry, must be treated with unbounded respect, reverence and devotion. He is a spirit representing all wisdom, strength and beauty; so pure and holy that He must not be represented by any idol, or even by any name, written or uttered. Reverence for Deity caused the name to be lost. He is referred to only as Adonai, LORD, and even that name is uttered with deepest reverence.

The God of the Jew was everything in characteristics that the gods of the heathen were not, and Jehovah was treated with a reverence and respect that were never paid to the heathen gods, who were treated with profane and obscene levity. He was so holy that His name must not be taken in vain; must not be spoken or written at all. The nearest approach to it was the Tetragrammaton Y H W H, “The Lost Word."

The true character of God was revealed in the Old Testament, and illustrated and illumined in the New, and in the life of the Peasant of Nazareth, His Divine Son. It will be found, upon reflection, that the troubles of individuals and nations begin when they cease to worship the true God, but worship, in His place, some convenient divinity, earth-made and created to suit some earth-born vice or vanity.

Just now, Europe worships Thor or Mars, the god of force. America is said to worship Mammon, the god of greed. Neither is Jewish; neither is Christian; neither is Masonic. There can be no correct code of morals not founded on a correct religious belief in the true God, and no nation can permanently endure unless it worships the Tetragrammaton. “For the nation and people that will not "serve thee, shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted."— Isaiah Ix: 12.

We might quote further from St. John: “In the beginning was the word (Greek. 'logos') and the word was with God and the Word was God." — John 1:1

But we have carried the argument sufficiently far. Little does the world appreciate what those learned philosophers did for the world in the third decade of the eighteenth century when they rescued Masonry from the political grip of the Duke of Wharton, and prevented it from joining "The Twelve Great Livery Companies" of London, political corporations which now control the city. Masonry was destined to be more than a local political factor. It was to be a world power, emphasizing the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man: a power that is not local to the city of London, but is widely influential for good throughout the world, and as the handmaid of religion, it may yet assist to dedicate the world to a millenium of peace, when the sermon on the mount shall be recognized as good law everywhere, and the whole world be conquered. not by force, as the brutal Roman conquered it, but by love; and all peoples shall sing eternal praises to Y H W H and recognize Jerusalem, the desert created by Titus, as the City of the Great King, the spiritual capital of a regenerated World — Alexander S. Bacon, 32°.

For a list of all of my disks, and ebooks (PDF and Amazon), click here

A Defense of Penny Dreadfuls by GK Chesterton 1911


A DEFENCE OF PENNY DREADFULS by Gilbert Keith Chesterton 1911

See also 70 Penny Dreadfuls & Dime Novels on DVDrom (+ Gothic Novels)

Join my Facebook Group

ONE of the strangest examples of the degree to which ordinary life is undervalued is the example of popular literature, the vast mass of which we contentedly describe as vulgar. The boy's novelette may be ignorant in a literary sense, which is only like saying that a modern novel is ignorant in the chemical sense, or the economic sense, or the astronomical sense; but it is not vulgar intrinsically — it is the actual centre of a million flaming imaginations.

In former centuries the educated class ignored the ruck of vulgar literature. They ignored, and therefore did not, properly speaking, despise it. Simple ignorance and indifference does not inflate the character with pride. A man does not walk down the street giving a haughty twirl to his moustaches at the thought of his superiority to some variety of deep-sea fishes. The old scholars left the whole underworld of popular compositions in a similar darkness.

To-day, however, we have reversed this principle. We do despise vulgar compositions, and we do not ignore them. We are in some danger of becoming petty in our study of pettiness; there is a terrible Circean law in the background that if the soul stoops too ostentatiously to examine anything it never gets up again. There is no class of vulgar publications about which there is, to my mind, more utterly ridiculous exaggeration and misconception than the current boys' literature of the lowest stratum. This class of composition has presumably always existed, and must exist. It has no more claim to be good literature than the daily conversation of its readers to be fine oratory, or the lodging-houses and tenements they inhabit to be sublime architecture. But people must have conversation, they must have houses, and they must have stories. The simple need for some kind of ideal world in which fictitious persons play an unhampered part is infinitely deeper and older than the rules of good art, and much more important. Every one of us in childhood has constructed such an invisible dramatis persona;, but it never occurred to our nurses to correct the composition by careful comparison with Balzac. In the East the professional story-teller goes from village to village with a small carpet; and I wish sincerely that any one had the moral courage to spread that carpet and sit on it in Ludgate Circus. But it is not probable that all the tales of the carpetbearer are little gems of original artistic workmanship. Literature and fiction are two entirely different things. Literature is a luxury; fiction is a necessity. A work of art can hardly be too short, for its climax is its merit. A story can never be too long, for its conclusion is merely to be deplored, like the last halfpenny or the last pipelight. And so, while the increase of the artistic conscience tends in more ambitious works to brevity and impressionism, voluminous industry still marks the producer of the true romantic trash. There was no end to the ballads of Robin Hood; there is no end to the volumes about Dick Deadshot and the Avenging Nine. These two heroes are deliberately conceived as immortal.

But instead of basing all discussion of the problem upon the common-sense recognition of this fact—that the youth of the lower orders always has had and always must have formless and endless romantic reading of some kind, and then going on to make provision for its wholesomeness— we begin, generally speaking, by fantastic abuse of this reading as a whole and indignant surprise that the errand-boys under discussion do not read "The Egoist," and "The Master Builder." It is the custom, particularly among magistrates, to attribute half the crimes of the Metropolis to cheap novelettes. If some grimy urchin runs away with an apple, the magistrate shrewdly points out that the child's knowledge that apples appease hunger is traceable to some curious literary researches. The boys themselves, when penitent, frequently accuse the novelettes with great bitterness, which is only to be expected from young people possessed of no little native humour. If I had forged a will, and could obtain sympathy by tracing the incident to the influence of Mr. George Moore's novels, I should find the greatest entertainment in the diversion. At any rate, it is firmly fixed in the minds of most people that gutter-boys, unlike everybody else in the community, find their principal motives for conduct in printed books.

Now it is quite clear that this objection, the objection brought by magistrates, has nothing to do with literary merit. Bad story writing is not a crime. Mr. Hall Caine walks the streets openly, and cannot be put in prison for an anticlimax. The objection rests upon the theory that the tone of the mass of boys' novelettes is criminal and degraded, appealing to low cupidity and low cruelty. This is the magisterial theory, and this is rubbish.

So far as I have seen them, in connection with the dirtiest book-stalls in the poorest districts, the facts are simply these: The whole bewildering mass of vulgar juvenile literature is concerned with adventures, rambling, disconnected and endless. It does not express any passion of any sort, for there is no human character of any sort. It runs eternally in certain grooves of local and historical type: the medieval knight, the eighteenth-century duellist, and the modern cowboy, recur with the same stiff simplicity as the conventional human figures in an Oriental pattern. I can quite as easily imagine a human being kindling wild appetites by the contemplation of his Turkey carpet as by such dehumanized and naked narrative as this.

Among these stories there are a certain number which deal sympathetically with the adventures of robbers, outlaws and pirates, which present in a dignified and romantic light thieves and murderers like Dick Turpin and Claude Duval. That is to say, they do precisely the same thing as Scott's "Ivanhoe," Scott's "Rob Roy," Scott's "Lady of the Lake," Byron's "Corsair," Wordsworth's "Rob Roy's Grave," Stevenson's "Macaire," Mr. Max Pemberton's "Iron Pirate," and a thousand more works distributed systematically as prizes and Christmas presents. Nobody imagines that an admiration of Locksley in "Ivanhoe" will lead a boy to shoot Japanese arrows at the deer in Richmond Park; no one thinks that the incautious opening of Wordsworth at the poem on Rob Roy will set him up for life as a blackmailer. In the case of our own class, we recognize that this wild life is contemplated with pleasure by the young, not because it is like their own life, but because it is different from it. It might at least cross our minds that, for whatever other reason the errand-boy reads "The Red Revenge," it really is not because he is dripping with the gore of his own friends and relatives.

In this matter, as in all such matters, we lose our bearings entirely by speaking of the "lower classes" when we mean humanity minus ourselves. This trivial romantic literature is not especially plebeian: it is simply human. The philanthropist can never forget classes and callings. He says, with a modest swagger, "I have invited twenty-five factory hands to tea." If he said, "I have invited twenty-five chartered accountants to tea," every one would see the humour of so simple a classification. But this is what we have done with this lumberland of foolish writing: we have probed, as if it were some monstrous new disease, what is, in fact, nothing but the foolish and valiant heart of man. Ordinary men will always be sentimentalists: for a sentimentalist is simply a man who has feelings and does not trouble to invent a new way of expressing them. These common and current publications have nothing essentially evil about them. They express the sanguine and heroic truisms on which civilization is built; for it is clear that unless civilization is built on truisms, it is not built at all. Clearly, there could be no safety for a society in which the remark by the Chief Justice that murder was wrong was regarded as an original and dazzling epigram.

If the authors and publishers of "Dick Deadshot," and such remarkable works were suddenly to make a raid upon the educated class, were to take down the names of every man, however distinguished, who was caught at a University Extension Lecture, were to confiscate all our novels and warn us all to correct our lives, we should be seriously annoyed. Yet they have far more right to do so than we; for they, with all their idiotcy, are normal and we are abnormal. It is the modern literature of the educated, not of the uneducated, which is avowedly and aggressively criminal. Books recommending profligacy and pessimism, at which the high-souled errand-boy would shudder, lie upon all our drawing-room tables. If the dirtiest old owner of the dirtiest old book-stall in Whitechapel dared to display works really recommending polygamy or suicide, his stock would be seized by the police. These things are our luxuries. And with a hypocrisy so ludicrous as to be almost unparalleled in history, we rate the gutter-boys for their immorality at the very time that we are discussing (with equivocal German Professors) whether morality is valid at all. At the very instant that we curse the Penny Dreadful for encouraging thefts upon property, we canvass the proposition that all property is theft. At the very instant we accuse it (quite unjustly) of lubricity and indecency, we are cheerfully reading philosophies which glory in lubricity and indecency. At the very instant that we charge it with encouraging the young to destroy life, we are placidly discussing whether life is worth preserving.

But it is we who are the morbid exceptions; it is we who are the criminal class. This should be our great comfort. The vast mass of humanity, with their vast mass of idle books and idle words, have never doubted and never will doubt that courage is splendid, that fidelity is noble, that distressed ladies should be rescued, and vanquished enemies spared. There are a large number of cultivated persons who doubt these maxims of daily life, just as there are a large number of persons who believe they are the Prince of Wales; and I am told that both classes of people are entertaining conversationalists. But the average man or boy writes daily in these great gaudy diaries of his soul, which we call Penny Dreadfuls, a plainer and better gospel than any of those iridescent ethical paradoxes that the fashionable change as often as their bonnets. It may be a very limited aim in morality to shoot a "many-faced and fickle traitor," but at least it is a better aim than to be a many-faced and fickle traitor, which is a simple summary of a good many modern systems from Mr. d'Annunzio's downwards. So long as the coarse and thin texture of mere current popular romance is not touched by a paltry culture it will never be vitally immoral. It is always on the side of life. The poor—the slaves who really stoop under the burden of life—have often been mad, scatter-brained and cruel, but never hopeless. That is a class privilege, like cigars. Their drivelling literature will always be a "blood and thunder" literature, as simple as the thunder of heaven and the blood of men.

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

Why I am Opposed to Socialism 1913


Why I am Opposed to Socialism by George Lansing Raymond (Author and University Professor.) 

See also 300 Books on DVDrom for Libertarians, Objectivists and Voluntaryists and Over 300 PDF/Acrobat Books on Socialism, Communism and Economics

Join my Facebook Group

I am opposed to Socialism because I think it founded on a misconception of the requirements of human nature; and this, mainly, for three reasons:

First: A great many people will not practice diligence and thrift, unless stimulated to do so by a possibility of obtaining, possessing and using something that they can call their own. This is something that Socialism theoretically, and so far as it has been applied, practically, would deny them.

Second: A great many will not work at all, when their only inducement is that others wish them to work, or need their help. Socialism, if established, would be obliged merely to secure support for the community to force such people to work against their own wills. This would inevitably involve the re-establishment of a system of human slavery.

Third: All a man's mental and moral development in this world - to say nothing of what may come after death needs training. According to a law apparently divine, but certainly human, this training, whether in home, school, business or society, is imparted by means of discipline. The discipline is mainly derived from the circumstances of life in which one finds himself placed, and, in such cases, is always accompanied by dissatisfaction with one's alloted place, and by actual suffering. The Socialist aims to escape from this dissatisfaction and suffering by making a change in his circumstances such a change, for instance, as would make a king a servant, or make all men kings or servants. But history and experience show that kings, whose friends die, courtiers flatter, and enemies trick, are no more free from the sufferings attendant upon discipline than are servants. The truth seems to be that to occupy a different position in life means merely to be placed in a different part of the same apparently divine and certainly social machine which as some have faith to believe is at work grinding out of the coarse grain of humanity what shall, some day, prove to be its fine flour. One who has the wisdom to apply this theory to life, will, in no position that a man can fill, feel either too haughty or too humiliated to sympathize with everybody, and to do his best everywhere to alleviate suffering, lessen oppression, equalize opportunity, enthrone justice, and prove himself, in every sense of the term, a fellow-man. The result upon individual consciousness and conscience of this attitude of mind is the most important of any that can be exerted in order to secure human welfare. It differs from Socialism in being derived as Socialism is not from a recognition of the exact and entire truth a truth that includes, both that which is material and spiritual, philosophical and religious.

Why I am Opposed to Socialism by Horace Ellis (President Vincennes University.) 

Socialism originally meant to become an effective protest against the tyrannies of all forms of monarchy. If it had succeeded in its ambition we all had been Socialists. But it failed utterly. Its failure may be traced to certain fundamental errors as to the means it should employ to realize its purpose. It presumed that most practices it found in the economic world were inherently bad because they had been employed by heartless men in furthering their individual interests. Socialism denies the accepted maxim relating to competition in spite of the evidences of history which have fully established the fact that, in every realm of human activity, competition has been one of the mightiest factors for individual, community, national and racial prestige. Socialism would deny to virile, purposeful, masterful leaders of men the privilege of leadership because, forsooth, some such leaders have misused authority reposed in them. In lieu of this practice, it would constitute society at large the rightful leader in all economic matters because some evidences appear which indicate that society possesses some attributes of stability. Fatal both of these deductions. There are many thousands of good Socialists, but few substantial economic contentions behind them.

Why I am Opposed to Socialism by Boyd-Carpenter, William B., B.A., F.R.G.S. 

The world has always sighed after novelty. Even St. Paul found that the Athenians of old longed to hear some new thing. The craze for novelty, or an increasing curiosity are the symptoms of the decline of a philosophic outlook on life. It is the idea that a change means reform. Now reform can never be a change in the substance, but rather an application, a direct and precise application of a thought-out remedy for a particular and authentic grievance. Nor is innovation a real reform we have to change our clothes because they are wet, but this does not mean we reform ourselves or our clothes. "Woman makes an innovation in the shape of her clothes or her hats she does not reform her clothes or her hats. But Socialists and syndicalists demand the immediate alteration of the capitalists' system of production by which they mean, if they mean anything, such a reform as will give to them, as a political party within any State, the power of using the forces, political
and capitalistic within the State on behalf of their own section of the community, unless they mean this, they cannot hope to benefit wages and employment. If they do not mean this, they are hoodwinking workingmen and merely are seeking a change, not a reform. Change is impermanent therefore transitory change is merely the expression of want of tone in the political health of a people. But Socialism and syndicalism by seeking the benefit of the many workers at the expense of the few capitalists, is creating a form of injustice, which in their main doctrines Socialists assert they are hoping to avoid. Injustice to any section of a community is the creation of inequality again in a community. If we cannot reform with equity, let us not reform at all. As we put back the hands of the clock's progress, so we recreate inequalities. Life at best is a matter of compensation; it is the disturbance of this balance which makes for injustice and inequality.

Then again, Socialism has been tried and has always resulted in the re-erection of the capitalist system. The Revolutions of France 1789, 1832, 1848, 1871 all were to usher in the millennium. But France is capitalistic today and amongst the wealthiest nations on the earth. The German Revolution, 1848, or the Spanish Revolution all began in high hopes of republics to be ruled by Democrats. All these countries have gone back to what the world has tried and found stands best the test of time. Nations, like individuals, are impatient and do damage in fits of temper for which many years of steady care are required to effect the repairs. The world wants more religion in active life and more ostracism of the irreligious. The fear of public disgust is the beginning of ordered honesty. The strength of a public opinion is the poor man's friend. "To complain of the age in which we live; to revile the possessors of power; to lament the past; to conceive wild hopes for the
future, are the common dispositions of the vast majority of men." They are also the attributes of laziness and the form of a vulgar levity. A nation must have all classes grumblers and saints, happy and querulous, in order to make strong men.





Why I am Opposed to Socialism by Henry Louis Mencken. (Author of "The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche," editor of The Players' Ibsen, part-author with Robert Rives LaMonte of "Men vs. the Man." Member of the editorial staff of the Baltimore Evening Sun.) 

I am opposed to Socialism because, in general, it means a vain and costly attack upon the immutable natural law that the strong shall have advantage over the weak. I do not defend that law as perfect, nor do I even maintain that it is just. If I had the world to make over I should probably try to find something to take its place, something measurably less wasteful and cruel. But the world is as it is and the law is as it is. Say what you will against it, you must at least admit that it works, that it tends to destroy the botched and useless, that it places a premium upon enterprise and courage, that it makes for health and strength, that it is the most powerful of all agents of human progress. "Would brotherhood, supposing it to be achieved, do as well? I doubt it. Brotherhood would help the soft man, the clinging man, the stupid man. But would it help the alert and resourceful man? Answer for yourself. Isn't it a fact that difficulties make daring, that effort makes efficiency? Do not functions develop by use? Does the cell act or react?

For a list of all of my disks, with links, go to https://sites.google.com/site/gdixierose/ or click here

Works of Imagination in the Old Testament by C.A. Briggs 1897


Works of Imagination in the Old Testament by C.A. Briggs 1897

See also 100 Old Testament Bible Commentaries on DVDrom (Torah, Psalms, Prophets etc)

Join my Facebook Group

The Bible approaches all classes of people in the way in which they can best be reached. Accordingly, the Bible has been given to men in the varied forms of the world's literature. A great division of Hebrew literature is the poetical. This embraces a collection of lyric poetry,—the Psalter; a collection of sentences and poems of wisdom,—the book of Proverbs; a collection of dirges,—the book of Lamentations; and three elaborate pieces,—the book of Job, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. The three last named are not collections, but rather pieces of composite poetry of a more artistic kind than anything found in the three great collections. Job is a gnomic, didactic drama, presenting a combination of poetic skill that is unique in the world’s literature, only approached in modern times by Goethe's Faust, which indeed was modeled after it. The older writers thought that Job was prose and the story historical, but it is now conceded that the book is a masterpiece of poetry, and it is commonly recognized that the story of Job in whole, or in part, is a work of the imagination. It is a drama of human experience under divine discipline, human persecution, and Satanic temptation, which is a masterpiece of literature as well as a marvel of grace. The Song of Songs has been the most abused of all the writings of the Old Testament. Its divisions in the authorized version and the revised version are bad. The arrangements of chapters are wrong. The headings of the chapters are misleading. It was for centuries interpreted as allegorical and Messianic, and in later times as typical. No wonder that many discarded it from the canon, and regarded the reading of it as unprofitable. As the climax of the sins against the book, it was rendered, in many verses. in indelicate and immodest language. There is not an immodest or impure word or thought in the book from beginning to end. Modern scholarship finds in this book a drama of love, five acts of an operatta. each act having its refrain. In it are solos, duets, trios, responsive choruses, and a dance. The Song of Songs is the drama for women as the book of Job is for men. The Shulemite, a rustic maiden of northern Palestine, of wonderful beauty, affianced to a shepherd whom she dearly loves, has been enticed to the pavilion of Solomon, in northern Palestine. She is taken to Jerusalem. and every effort is put forth at the court of the great monarch by sensuous temptation, by enticing flattery, by brilliant promises, and even by love philters, to win her love for Solomon. But all this extraordinary temptation fails; she is faithful to her lover and conquers by the simple and irresistible energy of her own purity and virtue. She is permitted to return at last to her mountain home, leaning on the arm of her beloved. The drama closes with her song of the triumph of love and with the marriage feast. If love is holy and Christian—and who can doubt it?—no piece of poetry has a better claim to be in the canon of Holy Scripture than the Song of Songs. The book of Ecclesiastes is the most difficult book in the Old Testament. The traditional theory that it was written by Solomon in his old age is scarcely worthy of mention at the present time. The book has the latest form of the Hebrew language known in Holy Scripture, and if there is any such thing as a history of the Hebrew language, the book was one of the last in composition in the Old Testament. Ecclesiastes gives us the victory of the sage who triumphs over internal soul-conflicts and trials. There are two sides of the soul’s experience, the dark side of doubt, and the bright side of piety. These come in regular succession in the book until the victory is gained. The difficulty in interpreting the book is in distributing the material between these two sides. No one can use the book with profit who does not possess the key to its interpretation.

This rich development of the poetic imagination among the Hebrews raises the question whether there may not also be in the Bible prose works of the imagination. Works of the imagination play a very important part in Hebrew literature outside the Old Testament. The Haggadistic literature of the Hebrews, used chiefly for the instruction of the people in the synagogues and in the schools, was largely composed of such writings. The apocryphal literature has many such stories, which have been the favorite themes of art in all ages. These writings are all regarded as canonical in the Roman Catholic Church. There are no a priori reasons therefore why we should not find such prose works of the imagination in the Old Testament. We should not stumble at such literature even if the idea be new to us or repugnant to us. A careful study of the literature of the Old Testament shows that we have at least three prose works of the imagination in the Old Testament, all written in the times of the restoration. These are Jonah, Esther, and Ruth. The reasons for regarding the book of Jonah as essentially an inspired work of the imagination are these: It was not the aim of the writer to write history; the story is given only so far as it is important to set forth the prophetic lessons of the book. The prophet Jonah is mentioned in the history of the book of Kings, and a prediction of minor importance is mentioned as given by him. It seems very remarkable that the book of Jonah, on the one hand, should omit this ministry in the land of Israel, and on the other hand that the author of the book of Kings should give such comparatively unimportant ministry and yet pass over such important prophetic ministry as that given in the book of Jonah. The two miracles reported in Jonah are marvels rather than miracles. They are more like the wonders of the Arabian Nights than the miracles of Moses, of Elijah and Elisha, of Jesus and the apostles. We have such a faith in God’s grace and holiness and majesty that we find it difficult to believe that he could work such a grotesque and extravagant miracle as that described in the story of the great fish. The repentance of Nineveh, from the king on his throne to the humblest citizen, the extent of it, the sincerity of it, the depth of it, are still more marvelous. Nineveh was at that time the capital of the greatest empire of the world. The history of the times is quite well known, and the history makes such an event incredible. The prayer given in the book is not suited to it, if the story be historical, but it is entirely appropriate if it be regarded as ideal and symbolical. The prayer is a piece of poetry of two complete strophes concluding each with a refrain, and then half a strophe without a refrain. It is a mosaic from several more ancient psalms and prophecies. It is objected that Jesus in his use of Jonah gives his sanction to the historicity of the story. But this objection has little weight; for his method of instruction was in the use of stories of his own composition. We ought not to be surprised therefore that he should use such stories from the Old Testament likewise. He does not make a more realistic use of Jonah than he does of the story of Dives and Lazarus. Paul makes just as realistic a use of the story [from the Jewish Haggada] of Jannes and Jambres withstanding Moses; and compares them with the foes of Jesus in his times (2 Tim. iii., 8). Jonah represents only too well the Jew of Nehemiah's time. the Jew of the New Testament times, and also the Christian Church in its prevailing attitude to the heathen world. If the church had learned the lesson of Jonah, its theologians would not so generally have consigned the unbaptized heathen world to hell fire. The present century, brought face to face with the heathen world, is beginning to learn the lesson of Jonah.

The book of Ruth in our Bible is placed between Judges and Samuel, among the historical books. That was the arrangement in the Hellenistic canon, which mingled the apocryphal books with the books of the Palestinian canon. But in the Rabbinical canon, which is based on an earlier arrangement, Ruth is placed in the third division, among the miscellaneous and later writings, chiefly poetical. The language of the book is tinged with Aramaic, making it probable that it was not written until after the exile. The scene is put in the times of the Judges, but there is nothing to remind us of that time except certain antique customs which the author thinks it necessary to explain to his readers. The book is an ideal picture of primitive simplicity and agricultural life in Bethlehem, separated from all that was gross and rude and rough in the real life of those times. This story of Ruth and Boaz, the ancestors of David, is all the more striking that it comes into conflict with a law of Deuteronomy and its enforcement by Nehemiah. The book of Ruth sees that the grace of God to Moabites overrides legal precepts, and their zealous enforcement by painstaking magistrates. It was written probably soon after the return from exile under Joshua and Zerubbabel, to encourage Israelites to take advantage of the imperial decree and return to the Holy Land; and with the special purpose of encouraging those who had married foreign wives, and also the foreign widows of Israelites, to return with their children and seek refuge under the wings of the Lord in rebuilt Jerusalem. It is an Old Testament parallel to the Syro-Phoenician woman of the New Testament. Although we regard the book of Ruth as a work of the imagination, we do not deny that Ruth and Boaz were historical characters. The historic persons Ruth and Boaz and the events of their courtship and marriage were embellished by the imagination in order to set forth the great lessons of prophecy. The book of Esther is one of the miscellaneous writings of the Rabbinical canon. Esther is not used in the New Testament, and has been regarded in all the centuries as the most doubtful of the biblical books. The language is one of the latest specimens of biblical Hebrew. The style is dramatic, and rapid in its development of incident. Scene after scene springs into place until the climax of difficulty is reached and the knot is tied so that it seems impossible to escape. Then it is untied with wondrous dexterity. All this is the art of the story-teller and not the method of the historian. The things which interest the historian are not in the book. The book is connected with the Purim festival, and is supposed to give the historical account of its origin. This is denied by many modern scholars. It is held that Esther is a piece of historical fiction designed to set forth the importance of the Purim festival, as a national feast, and to teach the great lesson of patriotism. The feast of Purim, in all probability, had another origin than that reported in the story of Esther. But if patriotism is a virtue, and belongs to good morals in the Jewish and Christian systems, then the book has its place in the Bible, as teaching this virtue, even if everything else be absent.

For a list of all of my disks, and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

Stephen Crane and the Red Badge of Courage 1896


Stephen Crane and the Red Badge of Courage, article in the Saturday Review 1896

See also 220 Books on the American Civil War on DVDrom 1861-1865

Join my Facebook Group

The want finds the book as the opportunity finds the man: Mr. Stephen Crane’s Red Badge of Courage really supplies the want more completely, and, therefore, more satisfactorily, than any other book with which we are acquainted. Tolstoi, in his War and Peace, and his sketches of Sebastopol, has given, with extraordinary depth of insight and extraordinary artistic skill, the effect of battle on the ordinary man, whether cultured officer or simple and rough soldier; but he takes no one man through the long series of experiences and impressions which Mr. Crane describes in its effects on young Henry Fleming, a raw recruit who first saw service in the last American Civil War. While the impressions of fighting, and especially of wounds and death, on an individual soldier, have been painted with marvelously vivid touches by Tolstoi, the impressions of battle on a body of men, a regiment, have been also realized and represented with characteristic vigor by Mr. Rudyard Kipling in such admirable work as The Drums of the Fore and Aft. With less imagination, but with an accumulated mass of studied knowledge altogether too labored, M. Zola in La Debacle has done some excellent literary work, but work not so convincing as Kipling’s, and work certainly far inferior to Mr. Stephen Crane’s, whose picture of the effect of actual fighting on a raw regiment is simply unapproached in intimate knowledge and sustained imaginative strength. This we say without forgetting Merimee's celebrated account of the taking of the redoubt. The writing of the French stylist is, no doubt, much superior in its uniform excellence; but Mr. Crane, in the supreme moments of the fight, is possessed by the fiery breath of battle, as a Pythian priestess by the breath of the god, and finds an inspired utterance that will reach the universal heart of man. Courage in facing wounds and death is the special characteristic of man among the animals, of man who sees into the future, and has therefore much to deter him that affects him alone. Indeed, man, looking at the past, might almost be described as the fighting animal; and Mr. Crane’s extraordinary book will appeal strongly to the insatiable desire, latent or developed, to know the psychology of war—how the sights and sounds, the terrible details of the drama of battle, affect the senses and the soul of man. Whether Mr. Crane has had personal experience of the scenes he depicts we cannot say from external evidence; but the extremely vivid touches of detail convince us that he has. Certainly, if his book were altogether a work of the imagination, unbased on personal experience, his realism would be nothing short of a miracle. Unquestionably his knowledge, as we believe acquired in war, has been assimilated and has become a part of himself. At the heated crises of the battle he has the war fever—the Berserk fury in his veins; he lives in the scenes he depicts, he drinks to the dregs the bitter cup of defeat and the bitter cup of fear and shame with his characters no less completely than he thrills with their frantic rage, when repulsed by the enemy, and their frantic joy when they charge home.

The Red Badge of Courage—a name which means, we may perhaps explain, a wound received in open fight with the enemy—is the narrative of two processes: the process by which a raw youth develops into a tried and trustworthy soldier, and the process by which a regiment that has never been under fire develops into a finished and formidable fighting machine. Henry Fleming, the youth who is the protagonist of this thrillingly realistic drama of war, has for deuteragonist Wilson, the loud young boaster. Wilson, however, comes only occasionally into the series of pictures of fighting, and of the impressions that fighting produces on the hypersensitive nerves of the chief character. Fleming, a neurotic lad, Constitutionally weak and intensely egotistic, fanciful and easily excited, enlists in the Northern Army, and finds himself a raw recruit in a new regiment, derisively greeted by veteran regiments as "fresh fish." Nights of morbid introspection afflict the youth with the intolerable question, Will he funk when the fighting comes? Thus he continues to question and torture himself till his feelings are raised to the nth power of sensitiveness. At last, after many false alarms and fruitless preparations, the real battle approaches, and whatever confidence in himself remained oozes away from the lonely lad. “He lay down in the grass. The blades pressed tenderly against his cheek. The liquid stillness of the night enveloping him made him feel vast pity for himself. . . . He wished without reserve that he was at home again.” He talked with his comrades, but found no sign of similar weakness. He felt himself inferior to them: an outcast. Then, in the gray dawn, after such a night of fear, they start hastily for the front. "He felt carried along by a mob. The sun spread disclosing rays, and one by one regiments burst into view like armed men just born from the earth. The youth perceived that the time had come. He was about to be measured. For a moment he felt in the face of his great trial like a babe, and the flesh over his heart seemed very thin." He looked round him, but there was no escape from the regiment. "He was in a moving box." The experiences of the battle are led up to with masterly skill. First he is fascinated by the skirmishers, whom he sees running hither and thither, “firing at the landscape.”

The new regiment took its ground in a fringe of wood. Shells came screaming over. "Bullets began to whistle among the branches and hiss at the trees. Twigs and leaves came sailing down. It was as if a thousand axes, wee and invisible, were being wielded." Then the tide of battle moved toward them, and out of the gray smoke came the yells of the combatants, and then a mob of beaten men rushed past, careless of the grim jokes hurled at them. "The battle reflection that shone for an instant on their faces on the mad current made the youth feel" that he would have gladly escaped if he could. “The sight of this stampede exercised a flood-like force that seemed able to drag sticks and stones and men from the ground.” At last, “Here they come! Here they come! Gun-locks clicked. Across the smoke-infested fields came a brown swarm of running men who were giving shrill yells. A flag tilted forward sped near to the front.” .

The man at the youth's elbow was mumbling, as if to himself: “Oh! we’re in for it now; oh! we’re in for it now.” The youth fired a wild first shot, and immediately began to work at his weapon automatically. He lost concern for himself, and felt that something of which he was a part was in a crisis. “He felt the subtle battle-brotherhood more potent even than the cause for which they were fighting.” "Following this came a red rage. He had a mad feeling against his rifle, which could only be used against one life at a time." The description goes on, full of vivid realistic touches, of which we can only give a fragment or two. "The steel ramrods clanked and clanged with incessant din, as the men pounded them furiously into the hot rifle barrels." The “men dropped here and there like bundles.” One man “grunted suddenly as if he had been struck by a club in the stomach. He sat down and gazed ruefully. In his eyes there was mute indefinite reproach.” The first attack was repulsed. The youth had stood his ground and was in an ecstasy of self-satisfaction. The supreme trial, he thought, was over. Suddenly from the ranks rose the astonished cry, "Here they come again!" and a fresh attack developed. The men groaned and began to grumble. On came the rebel attack. “Reeling with exhaustion, the youth began to overestimate the strength of the assailants. They must be machines of steel.” “He seemed to shut his eyes and wait to be gobbled.” Then “a man near him ran with howls—a lad whose face had borne an expression of exalted courage was in an instant smitten abject. He, too, threw down his gun and fled. There was no shame in his face. He ran like a rabbit.” The youth saw their flight —-yelled—swung about—and sped to the rear in great leaps. "He ran like a blind man. Two or three times he fell down. Once he knocked his shoulder so heavily against a tree that he went headlong."

The fugitive, after a time, comes upon a procession of wounded men, limping and staggering to the rear. The wounded men fraternize with him, supposing him to be wounded also. The growth of shame that begins with a brotherly question, “ Where yeh hit, ol' boy?” is as good as any part of this long psychological study. “At times be regarded the wounded soldiers in an envious way. He wished he too had a wound, a red badge of courage.” There was a spectral soldier at his side, whose eyes were fixed in a stare into the unknown; he suddenly recognized his old comrade, Jan Conklin, the tall soldier. The gradual dying on his legs of the tall soldier is described with extraordinary vividness. The soldier, with the instinct of the animal wounded unto death, wishes to creep off and be alone. His comrades, anxious to help him, insist on following him. He suddenly slips away and leaves them. "Leave me be, can’t ye? Leave me be for a moment," is his entreaty, and they follow at a distance. They watch his death, as wonderfully described as a death in Tolstoi. "Well, he was reg’lar jim-dandy fer nerve, wasn’t he?" says the tattered soldier in a little awe-struck voice. “I never seen a man do like that before.” Presently, the incoherent talk of the wounded man is made to reflect with a Sophoclean irony on the runaway youth. The night bivouac in the forest after the battle is finely described. The weary men lying round the fires, under the forest roof; the break in the trees, through which a space of starry sky is seen. At dawn the motionless mass of bodies, thick spread on the ground, look in the gray light as if the place were a charnel-house.

The fighting of the new regiment, a forlorn hope, proceeds with a breathless speed of narrative that emulates the actual rush of the battle-worn and desperate men, among whom there is no flinching or fear now, any more than there is in the sensitive youth, who, having had his battle baptism, is soon to bear the colors, wrenched from the iron grip of the dead color-sergeant. “As the regiment swung from its position out into a cleared space, the woods and thickets before it awakened. Yellow flames leaped towards it from many directions. . . . The song of the bullets was in the air, and shells snarled in the tree-tops. One tumbled directly in the middle of a hurrying group and exploded in crimson fury. There was an instant's spectacle of a man, almost over it, throwing up his hands to shield his eyes. Other men, punctured by bullets, fell in grotesque agonies." The regiment stopped for breath, and as it saw the gaps the bullets were making in the ranks, faltered and hesitated. The lieutenant worked them forward painfully with volleys of oaths. They halted behind some trees. Then the lieutenant, with the two young soldiers, made a last effort. They led the regiment, bawling "Come on! come on!" “The flag, obedient to these appeals, bended its glittering form and swept toward them. The men wavered in indecision for a moment, and then, with a long wailful cry, the dilapidated regiment surged forward and began its new journey. Over the field went the scurrying mass. It was a handful of men splattered into the faces of the enemy. Towards it instantly sprang the yellow tongues. A vast quantity of blue smoke hung before them. A mighty banging made ears valueless. The youth ran like a madman to reach the woods before a bullet could discover him. He ducked his head low like a foot-ball player. In his haste his eyes almost closed, and the scene was a wild blur. Pulsating saliva stood at the corners of his mouth." At last the men began to trickle back. In vain the youth carrying the colors aided the lieutenant to rally them. The battered and bruised regiment slowly makes its way back, only to be condemned by the general who had ordered the charge.

The book is crowded with vivid passages and striking descriptions, often expressed in picturesque diction.

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

Robert W Chambers and the King in Yellow 1897


Robert W Chambers and the King in Yellow - An Appreciation by William Sharp 1897

See also The Best Victorian Literature, Over 100 Books on DVDrom

Join my Facebook Group

The four books by which this author has been known hitherto are The King in Yellow, In the Quarter, The Red Republic, and A King and a Few Dukes. Of these, the first is much the most noteworthy, though the third is a powerful and moving romance of the Paris Commune of 1871. In the second, we have a light, pleasantly told story of artist life in the Quartier Latin: charmingly written, in fact, but without that distinction of individuality which could make a narrative in this familiar genre stand out from its fellows. When A King and a Few Dukes appeared, the American Press in general hailed the author as a new humorist, and as a master of a fresh and delightful style. The hook certainly is amusing, and the fantastically extravagant narrative proceeds with unflagging verve, and, indeed, often with a charming suggestion of delicate style, if not style itself. But would Mr. Chambers have written it, have thought of it, if he had not read, let us say, Prince Otto and The Prisoner of Zenda? Along the Stevensonian road many feet have tramped; but where Mr. Anthony Hope has gone far Mr. Chambers has fared a brief way only, and rather obtrusively. It is to be feared that when the history of later Victorian fiction comes to be written there will be a large chapter headed "Stevenson first, and the rest nowhere." Perhaps one is a little prejudiced against A King and a Few Dukes by the declaration of the New York World that "it would be difficult to name in the whole range of English fiction a more charming, wholly delightful story"; while the New York Times, more enigmatically, states, "No superior fiction has appeared in months." "The whole range of English fiction," &c. These be large orders. The book is an amusing and well-written extravaganza, with scenes where the fantastical element is so delicately exposed as to recall the charming sidelong imaginings and deft craft of the author of the New Arabian Nights. To say this is to say a good deal. To advance the New York World claim is heavily to handicap a "coming man."

While it is true that it was by The King in Yellow Mr. Chambers won special attention on both sides of the Atlantic, that book is neither his most ambitious nor his best achievement. The Red Republic is the most vivid certainly, and I think the most enthralling narrative of the evil days of the Commune which any romancist has given us. In his winsome little Quartier-Latin story, In the Quarter, Mr. Chambers shows what may be called his spectacular familiarity with Paris and Paris life, but in his romance of the Commune he gives ample proof that he has studied the City of Revolutions and its firebrand populace with a thoroughness shown by few novelists who attempt to depict foreign life. So far as I have read in literature of this kind, I know only two romances of outstanding merit: The Red Republic and The Reds of the Midi, the one dealing with the Commune of 1871, the other with the Revolution of '48, or, rather, with the revolutionary march of Marseilles upon Paris.

When The King in Yellow appeared, critics and readers were puzzled. Here was a new writer with an imagination in fantasy as strange and vivid as that of Stevenson in his New Arabian Nights, though more Bombre in quality; so touched, indeed, with the contagion of horror akin to madness that one instinctively wondered if the author of "The Fall of the House of Usher" were reincarnate in this new disciple of "The Grotesque and the Arabesque.

In one of the tales in this strange book, a paragraph begins thus: "I belong to those children of an older and simpler generation, who do not love to seek for psychological subtleties in art." If Mr. Chambers were speaking in propria persona this would be a wild perversion of the truth. He is all for psychological subtleties, and the darker and deeper and more uncanny and perturbing the better is he pleased. The King in Yellow is not to be recommended to readers of a natively morbid turn. The whole book, or the dominant portion of it, might well be the literary recreation of a man whose uncontrolled imagination had landed him in an asylum; and it is the best proof of Mr. Chambers's "psychological subtlety" that he can turn from these studies of wildly fantastic mental obsession to work so sane and virile as his Red Republic or In the Quarter. This strange little volume, however, would be much more impressive were it shorn of "The Street of the Four Winds" and its companion stories; not because these are poor, for they are among Mr. Chambers's best work, but because they do not cohere with the haunting, the painfully fascinating tales dominated by the subtle conception of "The King in Yellow." Who is the King in Yellow? That mystery is never explained, though the reader infers him to be Death incarnate. But the words which come to have so terrifying a significance indicate not a personality but a book. "The King in Yellow" so frequently alluded to in Mr. Chambers's volume of the same name is a mysterious book. It is the very quintessence of evil, of moral and mental corruption. From its pages the spiritual tyranny of hell is exhaled. Despair, madness, and death lie in wait for those who read them. In his veiled allusions to this terrible work Mr. Chambers betrays imagination of a remarkable kind, an imagination coloured by sombre poetry. One begins, soon or late, to believe in this accursed book, whose influence is so widespread and disastrous. It is as though Baudelaire and Maldoror had combined, with subtle art, to make abstract evil actual; though a Power infinitely more potent than the author of Les Fleurs du Mai or Les Chants de Maldoror, the Supreme Evil himself, fashioned this impossible book, this bible of corruption and the grave. Even as the fantastic background of The House of Usher has, for many readers, a convincing actuality, or as the shadow-haunted valleys of Ulalume are as real as other vales on the hither verge of dreamland, so is Carcosa credible—Carcosa, the mysterious land where Hastur and the Hyades, the Lake of Hali, the Black Stars, the tattered King in Yellow, the Pallid Mask, the Yellow Sign, are names of indefinable terror.

In The King in Yellow the three most distinctive stories are those which, collectively, might bear that title: "The Repairer of Reputations," "The Court of the Dragon," and "The Yellow Sign." The first is the most remarkable. To use a commonplace, no one who has read this wild fantasy is likely ever to forget it. True, it is, after all, merely the uncontrolled imagining of a madman, one Hildred Castaigne: but there is method with a vengeance. "The Repairer of Reputations" is, in its opening pages as in its title, eminently Stevensonian. Later, as also in The Yellow Sign, one is reminded more of Poe in his most morbid tales of horror. In one and all, however, Mr. Chambers is no imitator. Here he is akin to the two great writers alluded to, and not merely a self-trained follower.

As yet Mr. Chambers has done nothing to equal, much less to surpass, his first volume—if, as I understand, The King in Yellow is his first book. He has produced none so unsatisfactory as his Maker of Moons. There is in this certainly entertaining and occasionally convincingly able book little of the distinctive quality which pertains to his first. A cheaper, a vulgar note is struck again and again till it becomes insistent. The art is less subtle, loss genuine, more arbitrary: the tricks of the craftsman are more obtrusive. Something of the same fantastic imagination as informs The King in Yellow characterises the exciting titular story, but there is (for one interested reader, at any rate) a fatal lack of verisimilitude. The best thing in this book seems to be "In the Name of the Most High," a powerfully realistic war episode, clearly inspired by Mr. Stephen Crane's Red Badge of Courage, or, if not, then singularly suggestive of Mr. Crane's method and manner. Perhaps the stories in The Maker of Moons are reprints of early experiments: one hopes so. But it is time for so promising, for so genuinely able and individual a writer, to be done with tentatives. Let Mr. Chambers eschew the extremes of fantasy; let him cease to emulate the example of Stevenson; let him subdue his ambition to out-Poe Poe. Then, if he will concentrate his forces and give us a book, whether fantastically real or actually real, he will, I am convinced, speedily be among the few who have honourably arrived.

For a list of all of my disks, with links, go to https://sites.google.com/site/gdixierose/ or click here

The Vampire Legend by Alfred Fellows 1908



THE VAMPIRE LEGEND BY ALFRED FELLOWS 1908

See also Over 100 Books on Vampires & Werewolves on DVDrom

Join my Facebook Group

THOSE who investigate the occult may do so for many reasons, and may come to diverse conclusions, but on one point they are likely to be in entire agreement. On the one hand, beneficent spirits may appear, messages of peace be given, and the sorrowful be comforted; but on the other manifestations of evil may take place, and those who wish to control or check these without injury to themselves may require stout hearts, good nerves, strong wills, and, probably, consciences which will not betray them in the face of the encounter. In fact, taking an average of ghost stories and legends of apparitions, it is hardly too much to say that evil seems to preponderate. Now and then a messenger may come with tidings of value to the living; but more often the reverse is the case, and perhaps it might be possible to make a scale from messages or apparitions which are of real service, through others which are uncertain, ambiguous, or merely futile (which might form the large majority of those obtained at amateur séances, where there are any results at all) to those which are actually harmful. These might range from deliberately misleading communications, through mischief of shattered crockery and overturned furniture of the poltergeist order, and such manifestations of evil spirits as occurred in the case of Mr. Stainton Moses (as recorded in the proceedings of the Psychical Research Society) to grave injury to the living either through terror, or even physical violence. For the whole literature of the subject abounds with such instances, and there are many stories of evil entities which, either resenting the presence of man, or desirous for their own purposes to injure or kill him, have added to the list of human victims. But at the bottom of the scale of horror, below the tales of black magic, witchcraft, even of the great Spirit of Evil itself, may be placed the legend of the vampire.

Broadly speaking, it is almost universal. The ghouls of Asia, vampires of Servia, vroncolaces of Greece, oupires, revenans, in different names, and with local variations of details, as described in old books and legends, and to this day believed by the peasantry of many lands (especially in the east of Europe) bear a broad general resemblance. The legend may thus be typified: after the death of some known bad character, usually by suicide or violence, an apparition of the dead is seen, and as it draws near the watcher, the latter is paralysed much in the same way that a bird is paralysed at the approach of a snake. The vampire then draws the blood from the victim, as a rule by biting or fastening on the neck, the victim sometimes being killed outright by its loss, in other cases grievoust injured. After this has occurred once or more, and when those round about realize what is happening, the body of the criminal or suicide is disinterred, and is found to be like that of a living person—the skin smooth, the cheeks ruddy, without decay, and the limbs supple and pliable—and in one gruesome account the coffin was stated to be an inch deep in blood. On finding these signs, either the head is cut off, or a stake is driven through the heart, or the body is placed upon faggots and burnt outright —sometimes, by various accounts, shrilly screaming as it is mutilated or consumed by fire. But when this has been done the vampire is laid, and the living have rest from its visits.

There are vampire legends in England; there are vampire legends in Ireland; there are many legends in Germany, Russia, Bohemia, Moravia, Greece, and Servia, and perhaps most of all in Hungary. Indeed, though the word appears to be of Servian origin, all researches seem to lead back to the Carpathians, and the most circumstantial stories, with perhaps one exception, relate to the Hungarian instances in the early part of the eighteenth century.

In this hideous legend of the vampire there are two remarkable features. Its ubiquity—for a belief found amongst the common people in India and Ireland can hardly have had the same origin, unless it is primeval—and the agreement of the main incidents. The details of a story of Irish witchcraft, for example, might not be recognized by a Russian or Hungarian peasant, but he would at once understand those of an Irish vampire legend.

In the panic which, if there is any truth at all in the Hungarian legends, seems to have pervaded several villages at about the same time (and no one who disbelieves in vampires need disbelieve in a panic arising from faith in them), another characteristic was firmly regarded as true—that the victims were likely themselves to become vampires, and that from a single example numbers were thus likely to multiply and to afflict whole communities. For instance, one Arnald Paul, of the village of Madreiga in Transylvania, died in 1727, after having been bitten by a Turkish vampire. He in turn bit and killed the son of one Heyducq Millo, and the last victim, after having been buried for nine weeks, attacked a girl called Stanoska, who was almost strangled, and died three days afterwards. In another case a man who had been dead over thirty years killed his brother, his son, and a servant, each dying instantly; and on a general disinterment of those recently dead in one village, seventeen out of forty were discovered to have the signs of vampirism.

Again, in another case, after nine people had died, the Emperor of Austria sent an officer, who, together with a local curé, deposes to the facts. The result of inquiry was the exhumation and cremation of one Peter Plogojovitz, and after this the village was left in peace.

These circumstantial stories are all related by the learned Abbé Calrnet, who tells them with comments and observations and quaint theories almost worthy of Herodotus. One may be quoted. After remarking on some difficulties arising from identifying the vampire when its ravages have been discovered, he relates a method he had heard for this purpose. A boy of great purity and innocence is placed on a young horse, hitherto unridden, and led about the cemetery. The horse will proceed freely until he comes to the grave of the vampire, which he will refuse to cross. This having thus been identified, it can be opened and the body burnt.

Madame Blavatsky, in Isis Unveiled, tells an even profuser tale of the vampire of a governor of a Russian province, which, on the stroke of midnight, crossed a bridge over a river in Russia in a coach and four, the sentries being numbed or paralysed, and fastened itself on the widow, whom it was slowly killing until the corpse was exhumed and burnt, when the widow recovered.

Those who have been to Waterford in Ireland will recollect the little graveyard under the ruined church near Strongbow's tower. Legend has it that underneath there lies a beautiful female vampire, still ready to kill those she can lure thither by her beauty.

A vampire story is also told about an old Cumberland farmhouse, the victim being a girl, whose screams were heard as she was bitten, and who thus escaped with her life. In this case the monster was tracked to a vault in the churchyard, forty or fifty coffins being found open, and their contents mutilated and scattered. But one coffin was untouched, and on the lid being opened, the apparition was recognized, and the body was burnt.

Of such material is the vampire legend. And the seeker after truth may either cast it aside as worthless, or may read the incredible details with mild interest that a peasantry could believe such things, or may study it to give himself a pleasant thrill of horror (for this Mr. Bram Stoker’s Dracula may be recommended; the reader will soon know as much about vampires as there is to be known, and perhaps a great deal more), or he may set himself to work to discover whether, out of much that is obviously worthless, there is a residuum, which, at some time and in some possible circumstances, it would be better for mankind to know than not to know.

Even for those who are disposed to be credulous in the matter of ghost-stories, the material here is certainly tough. The Abbé Calmet relates that one sign of a vampire was the muddy feet, and found himself terribly puzzled to know how the corpse could leave its grave. No doubt, if all vampires came from vaults like “Dracula" or that in Cumberland, it might be supposed that they knew of some outlet; but most are related to have been placed in coffins buried in the earth in the usual way. Now, a ghost which can pierce the skin and transfuse blood from the body of a victim to its own, must be at least partially materialized; and since by no known process can either a solid body or a fluid pass without alteration through yards of earth and the walls of a coffin, the evil spirit must have the power to materialize above ground and the power to de-materialize and re-materialize its ghastly provender above and below ground respectively. Also, it must be assumed from the beginning that it has power to return to its dead body; that the stolen blood can give it the vitality it desires; and that it deliberately elects to lead this horrible existence, even though it involves the murder of the living.

Turning to those who have entertained such beliefs, it may be remarked that they were held no more incompatible with Christianity than belief in witchcraft (for St. Dunstan remains a saint, though he states that he tweaked the devil's nose; and it is just possible that, in the province of the powers of darkness, St. Dunstan’s testimony may be worth as much as the ignorance of Professors Tyndall and Huxley).

Thus devout Christians have believed in this possibility; and, of course, in modern days the Theosophists accept it without question, identifying the vampire as one who by a wicked life has so become entangled in his lower nature that his immortal soul is lost, and he seeks to postpone his terrible fate of the “second death” in this way.

For those who are not prepared to accept the teachings of Madame Blavatsky and Mr. Leadbeater, very great difficulties remain. Thus, though we no longer bury suicides with a stake through them, not a shred of evidence of vampirism appears to exist to-day; and in addition to suicides, many thousands of people a year die suddenly, by violence or otherwise, and at least some of these must be sunk enough in evil to qualify. Yet no one becomes mysteriously anaemic during the night, with curious little blue punctures near the veins of the neck (in passing, it might have been thought that arterial rather than venous blood would have conferred most vitality)?

Two answers have been given; the first, that the combination of circumstances which creates a vampire have always been rare, and must become rarer, and, secondly, that some occult knowledge of materialization and de-materialization is necessary for the evil spirit, and if this is not acquired during life, it is not likely to be learnt after death. Thus in the days when men tampered with black magic, the possibility existed; but now, in the west of Europe, it has virtually disappeared.

These maybe received for what they are worth; but perhaps the most profitable line the speculation can take will be towards our own extreme ignorance of the great problems of life and death. For example, let a doctor be asked if, when he is watching on a death-bed, he can state the exact moment of death. He may answer that he can; but, probably, the older and more experienced he is, the less confident will be the reply. Again, let the resuscitatation of the apparently drowned be considered: a body which has no breath in it, and all the signs of death, is brought from the water; but, perhaps hours afterwards, by the steady patience of those practising the artificial respiration (and, it may be, the strength of their wills also—we know very little), the life returns, very painfully, and the rescue is complete.

For another research, some of the literature of the “Association for the Prevention of Premature Burial“ might be found suggestive. Tales of catalepsy and stirrings in cofiins being lowered into the ground; tales, even more gruesome, of bodies which have been buried, and have apparently moved in their coffins—stories which, when they come home, seem almost to touch the limits of horror.

But these, it might be argued, record mistakes only, of the burial or attempted burial of those really living. This, however, is mere juggling with words. The point is that the body may be apparently dead, even to a skilled observer (there are many walking about with their own death certificates, signed by a doctor), and yet the soul may return; and it has been said that the only absolute criterion of death is the decomposition of the larger organs—which, of course, would plainly render the body uninhabitable. [A case—authentic or otherwise was recorded in the papers recently of a lady in Paris who became a vampire as the result of being buried alive.]

In the restoration of the apparently drowned the compelling force is known; but is any one wise enough to know with certainty that other and vastly different forces cannot act to the same end? And in particular, artificial breathing is an impulse from this side—but what do our orthodox teachers know, of the forces on the other? Is it so past belief, for example, that the discarnate spirit of a suicide, appalled at the frightful conditions he has created for himself, should seek refuge from them, desperately, by an ineffectual attempt to retrieve his step?

Those who have studied the occult will have less difficulty than others in regarding the body as the clothes or shell, and the soul as the inhabitant—the "dweller in the innermost." Every case of possession may thus be regarded as the ejectment of the rightful owner by an intruder. But whereas for spirits anxious for life in the body it might be next to impossible to seize one occupied by an ordinary and healthy man, an empty tenement would clearly be very different. And if it was only just vacated, its former owner would most easily re-enter it.

But such a tenement would have no life in it; if then it could be vivified by the “blood which is the life” it might just be habitable. There is no magic in transfusion of blood; cases of wounds and accidents where the body has almost been drained of blood and has been restored by transfusion are numerous.

Now, if the possibility of "black magic" is postulated; if an utterly unscrupulous man could learn the secrets of materialization and dematerialization in his lifetime; if he suffered a violent death without mutilation; and if, rather than experience the horrors he had brought upon himself, he preferred a life-in-death in his dead body—all the elements for the vampire legend are completed. The evil spirit could enter its tenement, vacate it by night and roam about, materializing sufficiently for its terrible purpose (the known phenomenon of "repercussion" would, of course, account for the muddy feet of the body), dematerialize itself and its burden to go through the ground, and dwell in the grave during the daytime. Of course, if the body was burnt or the head severed this would be impossible, and thus the explanation suggested above would be consistent with the one underlying feature of every vampire legend—that the living, to rid themselves of the monster attacking them above ground, must disinter and destroy the body buried below.

But with every probability, it is of no importance at all, whether the inhabitants of England or America believe in vampires or not. If their existence was ever possible a combination was required of extraordinary baseness with certain occult powers, and though there might still be men base enough, and others with sufficient knowledge, yet in our own days strong-willed men of utter depravity do not study magic, and those who do so sincerely, though they may have plenty of faults, must have such a genuine desire for knowledge for its own sake that it is to be hoped they would not be sufficiently evil in nature to choose such a course.

But the legend suggests one quality of evil spirits which modern investigators might readily corroborate—their desire for vitality. For this, as they have none or next to none themselves, they must rob the living. And if the dreadful method of the vampire is the most effective, it is not the only way; and the consequences to those who have attended séances without proper precautions, in the loss of vitality, of health, of sanity, sometimes even of life itself are well known. For the lesson of caution in dealing with the supernormal cannot be too often repeated; and if the legend of the vampire helps to point it, it need not be wasted.

And again, in studying the transfer of vitality from one living being to another it is not sufficient to confine the attention to the actual vampire animals. These exist, and are numerous; for in addition to the one noxious species of bat, there are active water-beetles and larvae, and the weasel tribe may be mentioned. But vitality may be transferred consciously or unconsciously, from one human being to another, and probably the process is always going on to a greater or less degree. Old people are said to absorb it from the young, and some people seem to have the special faculty of gathering it in, just as others radiate it. No doubt a healthy person with an abundance would gladly part with some to an invalid wife or child or parent, and it is probable that a strong presence has done good in many a sick chamber; but a voluntary offering is different from robbery by a person with a special faculty for this sort of theft, and if any one continually finds himself or herself languid or enervated after being in a particular presence it may be better to avoid that individual’s society.

If there are good arguments against giving up vital energy to a living being who absorbs it, there are tenfold better against yielding it to a discarnate spirit, and thus those who find themselves utterly wearied and used up after séances should either discontinue their researches or change their circle, and that without delay.

Finally, so far as the dead can injure the living, and wish to do so, modern evidence corroborates the ancient and widely held beliefs of other centuries, both from Christian and non-Christian sources—that those who die violent deaths, and especially suicides, are far more likely to haunt particular places or persons than others, and, if any of the stories of sleepers hurled from their beds and violently beaten are true, are occasionally, capable of real mischief. In these circumstances sometimes a religious ceremony is used (within the last twenty years, to the writer's knowledge, a ghost has been laid by an eminent dignitary of the Church of England) or again the troubled spirit has been able to communicate a particular wish and has disappeared after it has been obeyed.

And thus it is just possible—for those who keep open minds, and who do not believe that the agnostic knows everything (though he seems ready to teach everybody)—to credit priest and peasant in the Middle Ages with a greater knowledge of their own affairs and their own afflictions, and the appropriate remedies, than we ourselves possess in the twentieth century. And in such wise the legend of the vampire may be left to those who care to study it, with the heritage of knowledge that they possess, and the open mind, of which the gift nowadays is perhaps less evident.

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here