Customer Reviews

Dracula Was a Woman: In Search of the Blood Countess of Transylvania

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is probably the best book about Erzsebet Bathory available. The problem is that information about the countess is a bit scarce, hence the book has some "fluff" in it to expand what would otherwise be a 100-page book. That explains the second half of the book which is a bunch of folklore about vampires, werewolves, and necrophilia that is just kind of thrown together to fill out the book. However in the first half, Florescu and McNally offer a straightforward, no-frills account of the Bathory murders and the politics surrounding them with no stupid speculation about blood-bathing or vampirism. There is no flowery prose or substitution of poorly drawn conclusions for facts. The sad truth is that there isn't a whole lot of information about the countess and the book is hindered by that. But, I'd rather have a concise, factual account with what information is available than a bunch of flowery pseudo-Gothic trash masquerading as history. Until the countess's diaries are translated -- they are sitting in the state archives at Hungary -- this is the best anyone can hope for.

One crucial element is a little out of whack with this book: it is almost 250 pages long, yet only the first 92 are dedicated to the Bathory tale, and only about 50% of that is about Elizabeth.
I'll repeat that because it sounds vaguely important: out of a 250 page book, only part of the first 92 pages have to do with the subject matter. There is more info on the political upheavals going on at the time, and much of it has seemingly nothing to do with Elizabeth. It's sort of a "meanwhile, in another part of the country..." type of digression. The focus is largely on what was going on "around her" instead of what was going on "with" her. As if McNally is saying "look at me, I'm a professor of eastern European history and you're not!"
After page 92, it gets a little ridiculous. Notice how each chapter afterward begins with a sentence which includes Elizabeth's name in it (just to remind you who the book is supposed to be about and poorly attempt to tie her in to the subject matter), then goes way off course and discusses Werewolves, Necrophilia, and then vampire movies. Apparently she fits into these somehow, but I think it is all in McNally's mind. He just needed to fluff up the book by a couple hundred pages with pointless sensationalism, since the actual part about Elizabeth had none and made her seem rather boring, believe it or not. He actually begins to champion her by book's end, as if he were her hero who will clear her name of these acts.
By the end of the tale, I still did not understand why she did it. There is no explanation or barely even a speculation. It's presented in a "yeah, she just kinda got into it for no apparent reason" fashion. McNally even alludes to the possibility of it all being a conspiracy against the Countess by other aristocrats who wanted to have their debts to her cancelled by having her imprisoned.
McNally says Elizabeth *probably didn't* bathe in blood since no official records tell of that, and that much of the killing was done by her servants. And there is nothing more than a glancing touch on her sexuality, which is a subject that could have helped paint a better picture of her as a person. Of course, with such little documentation available, some topics are going to suffer if there is a lack of speculation on the author's part.
Ultimately I was left thinking, this is it? that's all? Not that what she was accused of wasn't bad, but, if this is closer to the truth, it doesn't come near the drama of the legends. A bit of a let down for those fascinated by the myth.
If the legends were true it would have made for a more interesting psychological evaluation of the Countess, and subsequently a more interesting book.
Sorry to burst any bubbles out there, but I personally was a little perturbed about spending a pretty penny on a book that is less than halfway full of what I bought it for.

McNally did a great job of presenting and backing up all of his facts with historical documents that were uncovered in the early 80s in the archives in Budapest. He discounts all of the false legends regarding Elizabeth, including one that says she showered in young girls blood, bathed in, and drank it to remain youthful. Elizabeth tortured and killed servants merely because she enjoyed the act (similiar to Vlad The Impaler). It recounts the history of her family and her subsequent trial and house arrest, although she should have been executed along with her henchmen. The high body count she incurred sounds like a legend but some evidence did come out in the trial that did substantiate it as fact, im sorry but I wont mention it more than that cos I dont want to spoil it for you. If you want a well written, no-nonsense book about the Blood Countess of Translyvania get this book.

This book was well written, accurate, and all in all, a good book. The first half was excellent, the true story of Elizabeth Bathory, who legend says bathed in the blood of young girls to make herself beautiful. That's not true, but the real truth is just as bad. She was responsible for, in her own estimate, about 650 deaths of young girls. McNally is a great historian, and knows his stuuf. He also is fortunatly a good writter. But the reason I gave the book only 3 stars is because the whole second half of the book was horrible. It loosely ties into the Countess' story, talking about vampirism, lycanthropy, and necrophilia in history, books, and movies. This was not to my taste, although it might be to someone else's. If you are interested about the Countess, read the part about her, and then stop.

So, Reader 140 from New York thinks Elizabeth Bathory was "cool". That's interesting. Does this reader also think that Hitler and Stalin were cool as well? How about the KKK or Gilles de Rais or King Herod or Vlad Tepes? Bathory was one of the worst sadists and anti-woman persons ever to walk the earth. She was responsible for the deaths of perhaps 650 young women who worked for her in her castles (pictures of Cachtice available on the Net).

This biography of the Hungarian countess Erzebet Bathory is both remarkable and sad. The more I read of her atrocities, the more I held to my belief that some criminals need to receive the death penalty. Though Erzebet wasn't put to death for her crimes, she was certainly deserving of such a fate.

Erzebet lived in Hungary and Slovakia during the time of Elizabeth of England and Shakespeare, and 100 years after the reign of Wallachian prince Vlad Tepes. The legend goes that Erzebet killed young girls then bathed in their blood. This would make her a sanguimaniac or hemamaniac. She was less a vampire in the usual sense, but more of a torturer and murderess. She even bit her victims. Her housekeepers were also partners in the dastardly crimes. She finally got caught in the act of killing an aristocratic daughter. She was put on trial and sentenced to house arrest till the end of her days a short time later.

The author shows how he came across the sources for his work, including the trial transcripts from the early 1600s. He describes Erzebet's life among the royal Hungarians. What's really interesting is the lesson the author gives in Hungarian history. We learn about warriors like Erzebet's husband Ferenc Nadasny, Michael the Brave, Count Thurzo, King Matthias, the Hapsburgs, etc. We learn of Erzebet's horrible assistants: Fiszko, Dorka, Darvulla, and Helena Jo.

However, the reason this book deserves only 4 stars is because only two thirds of it is actually about Erzebet. In the other third Professor McNally discusses the nature of vampirism, lycanthropy, and necrophilia in history, novels, and films. Though it is entertaining, these chapters are unnecessary for this type of book. It's as if McNally didn't have enough material on Erzebet to begin with. At any rate, his bibliography and filmography will encourage the reader to seek out his sources on the Net.

After reading this story it should come as no surprise when one hears of atrocities committed in Eastern Europe. The people there have had hundreds of years of experience. And Erzebet Bathory was the master.

Though gory and horrifying, Elizabeth Bathory was one of the most unique serial killers in history.Though most female serial killers kill to gain some financial or material reward, she, unlike any other female serial murderer in history, killed for sheer sadistic pleasure.Not only is the history itself in this book well researched,the author understood how important it was to explain the psychology of the Countess Bathory's behaviour. Though not for the faint of heart, it is definately useful for the psychology major.I am concerned about READER 140, this book is not for morbid unhealthy pleasure reading!

So, Reader 140 from New York thinks Elizabeth Bathory was "cool". That's interesting. Does this reader also think that Hitler and Stalin were cool as well? How about the KKK or Gilles de Rais or King Herod or Vlad Tepes? Bathory was one of the worst sadists and anti-woman persons ever to walk the earth. She was responsible for the deaths of perhaps 650 young women who worked for her in her castles (pictures of Cachtice available on the Net).

This biography of the Hungarian countess Erzebet Bathory is both remarkable and sad. The more I read of her atrocities, the more I held to my belief that some criminals need to receive the death penalty. Though Erzebet wasn't put to death for her crimes, she was certainly deserving of such a fate.

Erzebet lived in Hungary and Slovakia during the time of Elizabeth of England and Shakespeare, and 100 years after the reign of Wallachian prince Vlad Tepes. The legend goes that Erzebet killed young girls then bathed in their blood. This would make her a sanguimaniac or hemamaniac. She was less a vampire in the usual sense, but more of a torturer and murderess. She even bit her victims. Her housekeepers were also partners in the dastardly crimes. She finally got caught in the act of killing an aristocratic daughter. She was put on trial and sentenced to house arrest till the end of her days a short time later.

The author shows how he came across the sources for his work, including the trial transcripts from the early 1600s. He describes Erzebet's life among the royal Hungarians. What's really interesting is the lesson the author gives in Hungarian history. We learn about warriors like Erzebet's husband Ferenc Nadasny, Michael the Brave, Count Thurzo, King Matthias, the Hapsburgs, etc. We learn of Erzebet's horrible assistants: Fiszko, Dorka, Darvulla, and Helena Jo.

However, the reason this book deserves only 4 stars is because only two thirds of it is actually about Erzebet. In the other third Professor McNally discusses the nature of vampirism, lycanthropy, and necrophilia in history, novels, and films. Though it is entertaining, these chapters are unnecessary for this type of book. It's as if McNally didn't have enough material on Erzebet to begin with. At any rate, his bibliography and filmography will encourage the reader to seek out his sources on the Net.

After reading this story it should come as no surprise when one hears of atrocities committed in Eastern Europe. The people there have had hundreds of years of experience. And Erzebet Bathory was the master.

I just finished Raymond T. McNally's book and I'm underwhelmed. I was expecting a history book and got mostly regurgitated fiction instead. It has more in common with Valentine Penrose's lurid "The Bloody Countess" than Tony Thorne's fascinating "Countess Dracula". McNally claims that the first 92 pages are "straight" history. He should have said "legendary" history since he peppers what little he has gleaned from personal letters and trial documents with the usual hearsay. For example, on page 29, McNally asserts that in 1574, "while engaging in sexual play with one of the local peasants at the chateau of her future mother-in-law (whom she secretly hated, as is evident from Elizabeth's letters), Elizabeth became pregnant...The private correspondence of Ursula shows that the entire affair was hushed up in anticipation of Elizabeth's coming marriage to Count Ferenc Nadasdy."

Ursula Kanizsay, Elizabeth's mother-in-law-to-be, DIED in 1571, when Elizabeth was eleven. There is no evidence that she even met Elizabeth face to face, much less arranged her promiscuous daughter-in-law's child's adoption. At least McNally doesn't claim to know the name of the child (Anastasia!?!) as some biographers have done. Where are the letters which show Elizabeth's hatred for Ursula? Why did the real Elizabeth name one of her daughters after her?

Other discrepancies with history include Elizabeth's Aunt Klara, "the notorious bisexual 'AND' lesbian" flagellist who supposedly indoctrinated her niece, Elizabeth. There WAS a Klara Bathory, younger sister of Elizabeth's father, George, who was born in 1523(or 1521, the same biographer places Elizabeth's wedding as May 8,1573 instead of the usual 1575) [and would have to have been in her fifties while she was supposedly engaging in sexual activities with her teenage niece] of which virtually nothing is known. McNally repeats hearsay with no footnotes, just a bibliography in the back. Other mistakes are minor, but irritating. Elizabeth was fourteen at the time of her marriage on May 8, 1575 (she was born August 7, 1560) not fifteen. Her husband (born Oct. 6, 1555) was nineteen, not twenty-one as McNally asserts. Elizabeth's would-be father-in-law (Thomas Nadasdy, died 1562) was born in 1498, not 1493. I know people are thinking, "what's the difference?". Well, I can't help it. I'm a stickler for ages and dates.

Most damaging of all is McNally's response to the trial witness, "Zusannah",who recalls hearing about a diary with 650 victims' names belonging to the countess. Rather than asking how this other person was able to count all 650 (or 610 or 612, accounts vary) names (were they numbered one to 650, did they approximate by the number of pages and number of names per page, or what?) McNally assumes this is proof-positive that the Countess was killing people for most of her life, and that the servants who claimed deaths in the 36-50 range were only aware of murders committed in the last few years of Elizabeth's life.
I am not an Elizabeth Bathory defender or apologist. If she was indeed "the tigress in human form, the hyena of Csejthe" then she is deserving of our scorn and our contempt. But, if the legends are exaggerations or flat out lies, then as historians we should ferret out the truth.

this book rocked so much. i love this book. yeah i may be morbid, but this was so fascinating. ... i wish there were a lot more books about her just because what she did was fascinating. it was a dark time in history, but to bathe in blood because it supposedly made you look youthful? to have parents that had intermarried? this was riveting and it held me from the very first few pages. the last section about necrophilia was cool, but i kind of wondered what that had to do with her.

I had the incredable honor to be in 3 of Dr. McNally's Russian History courses at BC. He was my mentor and idol. I was very saddened at his recent demise.

He is an A plus scholar and a historian the likes we'll never see again!

Hey, Ray, this one's for you.