In the scene in the drawing room where Van Helsing pulls out a cross (or is it a communion host with an image of the cross?), Dracula is warded off and shouts "Sacrilege!" before turning into a wolf and jumping out the window. What does he mean my shouting that?
And if Van Helsing is successful with warding him off with a cross (or host), why is Harker later unsuccessful?
Dracula knows that he is something unholy and apart from God. I take his crying out of "Sacrilege!" to be continued defiance.
Where Jonathan Harker stands, it's a working theory among many of the individuals on this board that Van Helsing, as a man of deep personal faith, was able to ward off Dracula with a religious icon whereas someone of no faith, like Jonathan, could not -- because he had no faith in the relic itself. You'll notice that Dracula pauses and looks at him for an instant, before he smiles and grabs the cross, causing it to burst into flames. He waited to see if it would "work," but because Jonathan is not religious, it didn't.
Does that make sense?
Yes, thank you.
Regarding the "Sacrilege!" exclamation, I took it to be that what is in actuality something holy is a sacrilege to him.
The explanations you gave had occurred to me, but I just wanted to see if others thought so as well.
OR there is the fact that in those days (late 19th - early 20th century) no one except a priest or deacon in Holy Orders would be allowed to touch a consecrated host. For anyone else to do what Van Helsing (presumably a layman) would indeed be considered sacrilege - ESPECIALLY laying down particles of consecrated hosts in dirt. Nowadays, lay people are allowed to touch the host and give communion, but this was not so a century ago (I used to be in Catholic seminary).
shareExtraordinary Ministers may give out the Host, but they are still required to make sure that no partical of the Host drop to the ground.
JOE TYRIA
Creed Wolf Productions
Silver Creed Wolf Music (BMI)
[email protected]
[deleted]
It could be prompted by his own self hatred, brought about by memories of his glory days as the defender of Christianity. Being repelled by the symbol of your cause might be painful.
shareschnoebelen2: Bingo (no pun intended).
Which is why Van Helsing replies "I have a dispensation..." meaning that he has permission to use the wafer as he does.
Van Helsing would have needed a dispensation simply to be in possession of the Host, as he was.
I think that the previous posters comments about Dracula's now being repelled by the religious icon to be what he meant about sacriledge.
To further comment on the issue of Van Helsing using the Host, extraordinary ministers can now distribute the Host at communion, as well as recipients being allowed to receive it in the hand. However, at the time this film was set (@ 1910-1913), only a priest would be allowed to handle it.
Also, the reason Harker wasn't able to repell Dracula with the cross was because he didn't have the faith to back it up. Van Helsing was a man of great faith, so he was able to repell Dracula with the Host. Incidentally, someone mentioned that the cross Van Helsing used was upside down. He actually had the Host in a monstrance (a vessel used for carrying and displaying the Host). Within it, the Host could shift when moved, thus appearing upside down.
I think part of the problem that Jonathan Harker had as well was that he didn't really believe in Vampires. Van Helsing was of the old school of thought that still admitted to the possibility of things that were not known by man, while Harker was a young man of the modern age who put his faith in science to explain things. For him to work past the idea of Vampires being real and that a simple cross could ward them off when modern science had no defense against them would have taken a great deal of effort.
As reguards the sacrilege quote I agree that Dracula knew he was unclean and not fit to be in the presence of the Host. He was an unnatural being who had turned from God and so just being in the presence of anything considered Holy must have been painful for him.
As reguards him being up and about during the day where Vampires are supposed to be asleep at that time I think they had a unique answer. Dracula observes that it is always night somewhere on earth at any time. He does seem to go out during the day or at least early evening after Mina is buried (though the sky is overcast at the time too). Later when the sky is clear (on board the ship) he is burned by the sunlight.
[deleted]
You must remember how Dracula became what he is in the movie. It was in the service of God, whom he renounced upon the death of his beloved. I suggest that, even in his villianous form, the Count objected to the profane and faithless invocation of the images of faith.
As for the cross, remember that with Jonathan, the Count was closer to his soil, scattered in boxes about the Abbey. Perhaps these gave him strength, particularly when pitted against the faithless Jonathan.
You must remember how Dracula became what he is in the movie. It was in the service of God, whom he renounced upon the death of his beloved. I suggest that, even in his villianous form, the Count objected to the profane and faithless invocation of the images of faith.
As for the cross, remember that with Jonathan, the Count was closer to his soil, scattered in boxes about the Abbey. Perhaps these gave him strength, particularly when pitted against the faithless Jonathan.
That is a reference to the Coppola version, so we cannot state with certainty that is Dracula's history for this particular film. The two are separate, and neither accurately represent the book. Still, if you do want to believe him a Crusader, that theory makes perfect sense. =)
I thought that the novel basically tells how Dracula became a vampire. It says that he studied the Scholomance, which was a school that taught Black Magic. Folklore says that people who practice black magic were likely to become vampires after death.
share
Yes, it tells you that he studied at Scholomance but in actual Transylvanian lore it just was a school of magick. It's mostly Scottish author Emily Gerard, who popularized the idea of it being taught by The Devil.
Actual Transylvanian lore says that the school was founded by Lord Samuel von Brukenthal, to teach "white magic" and esoteric matters to seven chosen pupils, one for every burg or schloss of Saxon Transylvania. This version did not involve any black magic or the Devil.
Now, Stoker seems more likely to be familiar with the version described by Emily Garard but if he did as much research on the book as many fans like to believe than surely he came across the Lord Samuel von Vrukenthal version. The version Abraham Van Helsing references is the one from Emily's writing but the question is was that Van Helsing's own view on the subject or Stoker's?
Either way the school dealt with the learning of sorcery and even mentioned in the novel in reference to the version described by Emily Gerard, there were ten students, nine get to go on to be sorcerers, the tenth gets claimed by The Devil.
And not all folklore says that the simple use of magick will have you turn into a vampire. Certain other descriptions could imply that Dracula was a werewolf in life (old world werewolf folklore where a man can take wolf form at will). Some Eastern European folklore that says a werewolf will have hair on his palms and eyebrows that meet will become a vampire after death.
Either way I think if Stoker wanted to specify the how of Dracula becoming a vampire he'd have spelt it out. He did, after all, have Abraham spell out a lot to the readers. I think he left it ambiguous for a reason. If he wanted to claim scholomance is what made him a vampire I think he'd have said so directly. I thought he mentioned that because the students there are taught how to communicate with animals and to control the weather, which are things Dracula knows how to do.
''Yes, it tells you that he studied at Scholomance but in actual Transylvanian lore it just was a school of magick.''
Magick?! You mean M A G I C, magic. We are not living in the Early Modern era so kindly use the correct spelling of magic when you wish to make a point.
''It's mostly Scottish author Emily Gerard, who popularized the idea of it being taught by The Devil.''
The only really detailed description of Scholomance is from Emily Gerard who likely tells the more traditional version of the story. The ''white magic'' version in which Samuel von Brukenthal (not Vruckenthal) founded the school seems like the usually later esoteric/neo-Pagan nonsense. In folklore, schools, cults and magic associated with the devil is far more common than any talk of ''white magic''.
''The version Abraham Van Helsing references is the one from Emily's writing but the question is was that Van Helsing's own view on the subject or Stoker's?''
Van Helsing is a fictional character created by Bram Stoker. I think it is safe to say that they both hold the same view on the subject.
You are, however, right that Stoker doesn't really say how Dracula became a vampire. I think he wanted it to be a mystery left up to readers. I do, however, feel that Dracula becoming a vampire due to his own sorcery (perhaps due toa wish to extend his own life much like with Koschei) rather than being mundanely bitten by another vampire. Being a werewolf in life is acceptable, but I find it hard to imagine. Dracula has wolf-like traits but, as a vampire, he doesn't really need to have been a werewolf to have these characteristics.
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!
Magik is the term preferred by actual Occultists to distinguish it from Stage Magic. It's not inaccurate.
The term White Magik, (Or White magic) does not exist in real Neo-Pagan terminology, that's purely fiction.
You are correct that the Satanic version is probably older and more valid. The more specific historical context of the latter version is much more characteristic of some latter messing around with the idea.
Van Helsing is a fictional character created by Bram Stoker. I think it is safe to say that they both hold the same view on the subject.Not necessarily, as a writer myself, even the "Old and wise" character often don't share my own views. Stoker's novel does present some of Van Helsing's info as unreliable, including stuff he knows via Arminius.
''Magik is the term preferred by actual Occultists to distinguish it from Stage Magic. It's not inaccurate.''
I would argue that the only ''real'' magic is stage magic. I have always been disturbed by an excessive belief in magical powers after the Enlightenment. Occultists are, in my honest opinion, merely charlatans. At least all the Occultists I have ever encountered are. Maybe some Occultists are legitimate but they obviously do not publicize themselves.
Christian faith healers are far worse than Occultists and ''witches'', though.
''You are correct that the Satanic version is probably older and more valid. The more specific historical context of the latter version is much more characteristic of some latter messing around with the idea.''
Agreed!
''Not necessarily, as a writer myself, even the "Old and wise" character often don't share my own views. Stoker's novel does present some of Van Helsing's info as unreliable, including stuff he knows via Arminius.''
Maybe so, but I think Stoker's Van Helsing character is usually one of his ''Mary Sue's''. Out of all the characters in Dracula I think he is probably closest to Stoker. I especially think his view of Dracula learning dark arts under the Devil at Scholomancre is the view of Stoker. It is presented as a truth in the novel. I think if it was just pretty much the theory of Van Helsing it would be more fanciful and lavished rather than, in the context of the supernatural, rather mundane.
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!
That remains that's it is a correct spelling if that's what you mean.
Being a Mary Sue personality wise doesn't automatically equally an accurate source of information. I try to my self aware that my biases might blind me.
"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"
Magick is actually a archaic spelling for magick meaning the non-illusion version. It was repopularized in the early twentieth century by Alister Crowley.
Also I wouldn't trust a nineteenth century Scottish woman who had never actually set foot in Romania before actual Romanian folklorists.
Emily was married to a Hungarian Cavalryman stationed in Romania.
On Wikipedia the White Magik version is unsourced all together.
"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"
''Magick is actually a archaic spelling for magick meaning the non-illusion version.''
As I acknowledged with my mention of Early Modern, but you are wrong with the second part of your sentence. The etymology of ''magic'' and ''magick'' is exactly the same as ''magick'' is only an archaic spelling. There is no differentiation between magick (non-illusion) and magic (illusion) that most real, non-Occultist/neo-Pagans linguists will accept. And all magic/k is simply illusion or downright fakery in the first place.
Outside of modern Occultism and neo-Paganism, the spelling ''magick'' is not correct. I am not an Occultist or a neo-Pagan so I can never find legitimacy in using a archaic spelling of a word we still have (magic) just because it was used by people like Crowely to describe their own alleged powers. We are talking about magic in a folkloric sense outside of Occultist/Wiccan/Neo-Pagan circles and thus we should use the REAL spelling of our era.
Occultism and neo-Paganism are just two branches of charlatanism and superstitious nonsense and have marred serious folkloric scholarship almost from the start. I'll never see ''magick'' as a correct modern spelling of the word ''magic'' for the simply reason that it A) died out after the Early Modern era (only being revived by Occultists) and B) it is very unnecessary! Why prefer a spelling which just adds an extra ''K''. The minds of Goths, neo-Pagans, Occultists and Spiritualists boggle me at times.
''Also I wouldn't trust a nineteenth century Scottish woman who had never actually set foot in Romania before actual Romanian folklorists.''
Emily Gerard was a Scottish woman who lived in Transylvania (1883 to 1885) with her Hungarian husband. Both her and her husband actually lived in Hermannstadt (near to where the school of Scholomance is said to be). I'd trust her book over the neo-Pagan or Occultist horsewhip claim that it was a school of white magic! Utter nonsense.
Your claim that Emily Lazlowska (nee Gerard) didn't live in Romania is either yet another example of your ignorance or lies.
There are seemingly no legimate Romanian sources that ever claim that Scholomance is a school of white magic. As per usual, it is nonsense.
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!
Professional linguists don't matter, a word's meaning is one people use them.
"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"
"Professional linguists don't matter, a word's meaning is one people use them."
Most people don't use "magick" but instead use "magic" for any form of supernatural or illusory, well, er, magic.
There are people that use all sorts of words incorrectly like calling liberals (who are centrists as are conservatives' centre-left and centre-right) "socialist" or "communist"; some who call conservatives fascist (which is far-right); you ahve all sorts of nonsensensical terms being used by various cults (like Scientology most famously). It is a bit of a cop-out to claim people using a word incorrectly makes it correct.
Professional Linguisics does matter as well... what next professional Archaeology doesn't matter?
"The game's afoot!"
''Magick'' is only used by a major large minority of the English-speaking people of the world (probably nearer to 1% than even 10%) for the simple reason it is not considered a correct modern spelling by linguists, teachers, education experts, the media, scholars or everyday normal folk. The fact that Occultists use the term ''magick'' shows their immaturity and that they are mostly poseurs who care more about image than anything else. The reason Occultists/Wiccans use ''Magick'' is because it looks more ''epic'' and ''archaic'' than the correct modern English spelling of ''magic''. But my hypothetical religion could prefer to use ''godas'' as a plural of god instead of (the modern spelling) ''gods''. But that would not make it correct or justify me using it in a discussion with non-believers in my religion.
Most people here are not Occultists or Wiccans and thus to us, ''magick'' is not a legitimate spelling. I majority of the world is in full agreement that ''magick'', correctly, morphed into the modern English spelling of ''magic'' after the Early Modern era and thus shouldn't be used. It would be like spelling ''spear'' as ''speare'' or ''inn'' as ''inne''; it just isn't done in modern English. Usually old words are only resurrected if we do not have any modern forms; case in point, ''Woden'' was revived because, after the adoption of Christianity, the word didn't survive and change over time; with the exception of the Yorkshire dialectal ''Wod''.
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!
They view a need for a distinction, so it is their right to do so. Plenty of non Occultists respect their beliefs enough to also use the distinction.
As a Fundamentalist Christian I believe what they do is wrong, but I believe it is real.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
I equally loathe Fundamentalist Christianity and Occultism though (I guess hating both YHWH and Satan makes me rather fair. True limbo I guess), so I see no reason why I should accept their ill-conceived lingo. Some non-Occultists would accept their use of language, but most people wouldn't and the unwashed masses would simply think that ''magick'' is a misspelling; which, in the context of the modern era, it is. Dead spelling are not valid when only used by the vast minority of English speakers. To be honest, if agnostic atheist (my belief more or less, though I am more ''nuanced'' than most) groups start spelling things archaically without any real rhyme or reason, I'd also criticize them too. There is never really a valid reason to fight against linguistic progression.
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!
You should be into Gothic Horror if archaic spelling offends you.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
Most spellings used in Gothic literature (1760s-onwards) are the same we use today. Gothic literature is usually from the Modern era of English language, the period we still belong in, whereas the spelling ''magick'' was from the Early Modern era.
The Early Modern era ended with the onset of Modern English during the mid to late 17th (1660s-1690s). Since the Early Modern ere language has not changed that much, which is why the English of Stoker ('Dracula' was published in the 1890s) is pretty much the same as the English of modern writers.
And besides, we are talking about the needless addition of a ''K'' to the word ''magic'' which is not accepted by the wider populace or linguists. Some archaic spellings have survived and been accepted by linguists but ''magick'' is not one of them. It is a dead spelling of a living word, that was only resurrected by Crowley as a name for his one brand of beliefs. One should not use the word ''magick'' in a serious discussion of folklore on a message forum. End of.
Many writers are against the ridiculous use of an archaic spelling for a word we have in modern English:
http://www.writingforums.com/grammar-punctuation-spelling/127491-magic-vs-magick.html One member says this ''Anyway, Magick just sounds childish & stupid in my opinion.'' I couldn't agree more.
Oþþe mægbeon we sceolde ignorer eal þe riules of moderne Englisc ond juste writan wið ænig archaismus we gelic?
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!
Lovecraft repeatedly used archaic and other abnormal spellings of words.
Frankly "Modern" English sucks, I prefer King James and Shakespearean English.
The Letter "c" should be dropped altogether, it makes 2 sounds that are both made by other letters.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
Lovecraft wasn't a writer of Gothic literature, and his words were generally just rare rather than extinct.
Shakespearean/King James English is no better or worse than today's English, it is just an older form of the same language. The English of the King James's Bible is usually printed with more modern spellings than they used at the time, to conform to modern English. Actually they are also written late Early Modern English which is very similar to Modern English. I agree with you about the letter C and it will probably be replaced by other letters in a "post-modern" form of English.
But we should not succumb to using archaisms for no reason. It is unacceptable in Modern English. If we were free to pick and choose the spellings we like, my previous post could look like this:
''Mast spellynges usered ynne Gutþisks literatura (MDCCLXs-anweards) earun þe samr we user todæge. Gutþisks literatura ist usuellic fram þe Moderne aera æf Englisc langage, þe periodus we stille belangian ynne, hwæralswa þe spellynge ''magikue'' wæron fram þe Ærlic Moderne æra.
þe Ærlic Moderne æra ended wið þe ansettan æf Moderne Ænglisc durand þe midden do læt XVIIþ (MDCLXs-MDCXCs). Synnes þe Ærlic Moderne æra langage hes noht changiered þatte muchel, hwilic es whi þe Ænglisc æf Stokenere ('Dragkwlya' wæron publicened ynne þe MDCCCXCs) es prættig muchel the same as þe Ænglisc of moderne writeras.
Ond be sidan, we earun talkenende onbutan þe niedleas additionem æf an ''K'' do þe wurdan ''magique'' hwilic es noht acceptered bi þe wider popolaccio oþþe linguaists. Sum arkhaikos spellynges habban survivred ond beon acceptered bi linguaists but ''magikue'' es noht ane æf þem. Hit es an dead spellynge æf an lifiende wurdan, þatte wæs anlic resurrectio bi craweleah as an nama fura his brond æf bileaves. Ane sceolde noht user þe wurdan ''magikue'' ynne an sérieux discussionem æf folclar on an missaticum forum. Andja æf.
Gif þe hatian Iesous khristos ond aron C% prouz æf hit copiare þis ond macian hit eower signatura!''
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!
"I agree with you about the letter C and it will probably be replaced by other letters in a "post-modern" form of English. " Which will restore Magic to Magik.
I'll spell things however I want, it's a free country.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
''Which will restore Magic to Magik.''
In which case it would be correct, but our language has not went down that road yet so ''Magik'' is a not the correct spelling of a word that still exists. And ''Magick'', the spelling we have actually been talking about, would still be incorrect in our current form of English.
''I'll spell things however I want, it's a free country.''
I'd disagree that the US (I take it you are from there) is truly free, but that is besides the point. Your country may be ''free'', but true publishing an article with your own spellings in it and see what the publishers do. There are rules in English that should be followed if you want to truly fit into an English speaking society. ''Humour'' can be ''Humor'' due to the US spelling but if you are to spell it hoomur just because that is how you want to spell it, it would be incorrect and open to ridicule. Likewise, ''Magick'' is not correct in Modern English and it leaves people who use it (outside of Thelema, ''Wicca'' etc. religion) open to ridicule.
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!
If they do it for religious reasons, ti's certainly protected by the First Amendments.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
They are not technically doing it for religious reasons when they are talking about ''magick'' out of context. Folkloric magicians such as the Solomonari are not practitioners of Thelema, ''Wicca'' or Occultism. Magic in folkloric discussions is simply ''magic''.
And the First Amendment doesn't allow them to butcher English outside of their own nonsensical ''religious'' (occultism is only loosely religious. Most are in it for the image) publications. ''Magick'' is not correct English in the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Australia or New Zealand. If someone tries to get a piece published by publishers that are not new age or neo-Pagan, they would be told to correct the spelling error ''magick''. If a university student was, lets just say, to try to publish a thesis on Scholomance and uses ''magick'' instead of ''magic'', the peers who are reviewing it would consider ''magick'' to be a spelling mistake.
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!
Correct English is simply how people use it.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
''Correct English is simply how people use it.''
No, correct English is simply how the majority use and are meant to use it. Hence we have a spell check, and in English lessons you are marked on your spellings and grammar. The English language isn't very subjective.
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!
Choosing to be offended by this only makes one come off as a snob.
shareTo cut in here.... I'd say using "magick" makes someone come of as an elitist. Using it in their own role-playing circle is fair enough but it is another thing to use it around the "uninitiated". Scientologists do this all the time as well; use their damned make-believe (not even, in their case, archaic) words as if we are supposed to accept them and know the subtle nuances between them and similar real life words.
"The game's afoot!"
The only porblem is Materialists don't understand the need for a distinction.
"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"
''Choosing to be offended by this only makes one come off as a snob''
On the contrary, it just makes me sensible. If we were all to use archaic or misspelt words, online discussions would be quite anarchical and difficult to follow. That is my point.
I think Pharaoh sums it up better than me. We cannot be expected to follow the spellings of people whose ''beliefs'' we do not follow ourselves.
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!
You should check out the new thread I started on the 92 Dracula board.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103874/board/thread/202344585
"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"
Gramatical/Spelling rules don't matter when giving someone a name. So I look at Magik as the proper name of the force they utilize, not just a common noun for paranormal.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
''...The Hell kind of God is that?!?''
A jealous god? A god who, it is said, will pour bowls of plague on humanity and who tortured Job just to test his loyalty.
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!
God: "You renounce me, huh? Well, let's see how the world likes it if I sick a blood thirsty predator on the innocent."This is a common trait among Polytheist pagan gods, many monster of Greek mythology exist because of divine punishment on a normal human.
It was because what Van Helsing was doing was, according to Catholic doctrine, a sacrilege. According to the Catholic Church, the Host is the literal body of Christ and must never be used in a profane way, no matter how lofty the intended goal. There is an interview in Leonard Wolf's "Annotated Dracula" where a Catholic priest explains that Van Helsing's treatment of the Host was absolutely incorrect and would never have been sanctioned by the Church (despite the "Indulgence" he mentions in the book, which actually means something else entirely.) Even though Van Helsing was on the "right" side, to break up the Host and carry it about, or to put it in a coffin, would have been a violation of its sacred status.
Keep in mind, I don't believe any of this stuff myself. I was a Catholic growing up, though, and as a Dracula fan as well I actually worked out this question after seeing the film.
Wer is absolutely correct.
Yes, exactly, Helsing is using a wrong to make a right.
And it would make sense that even Dracula was insulted by it. Vlad Tepes was a Knight of the Church and held a sacred duty to protect the faith during the Turkish/Muslim invasions of Eastern Europe. Most of the modern Dracula interpretations take this history into account.
I thought it was interesting that Langella's Dracula is still trying to protect the church's icons even after he was forsaken by God.
Yes, exactly, Helsing is using a wrong to make a right.
And it would make sense that even Dracula was insulted by it. Vlad Tepes was a Knight of the Church and held a sacred duty to protect the faith during the Turkish/Muslim invasions of Eastern Europe. Most of the modern Dracula interpretations take this history into account.
I thought it was interesting that Langella's Dracula is still trying to protect the church's icons even after he was forsaken by God.
In the Eastern European vampire myths they used rose thorns as a weapon against vampires not religious icons.
They covered coffins in rose thorns. They also surrounded their doors and windows with rose thorns. The idea being the vampire would be impaled on the thorns.
Actually they used both. Religious symbols being used to ward off evil is still used today in Slavic countries. There's one Russian folktale of a Merchant forced to carry a vampire into a village and the vampire stopped at every door and any door with a religious ikon over it was "locked" to him.
And it wasn't just rose thorns. In some regions it was wild roses placed on a grave, or hawthorn, and of course garlic, which was very convenient as most Slavic cooking requires garlic.
The garlic bit was probably a case of class warfare. The joke being Dracula/vampires fancy themselves royalty and would never deign to eat like a peasant and smell like garlic.
I don't think wild roses were just a random item mixed in with religious icons. At one point they must have been a sacred symbol of a pagan religion which we have forgotten. But the spirit in the old stories are still with us even though we don't remember. Most likely we were forced not to remember.
Roses are considered the flower of the Virgin Mary and yes, I think they do have an ancient religious significance.
As for the garlic, I'm not so sure, the upper classes tended to like their garlic too.
Garlic was probably used for protection because it has long been used in traditional medicine.
Roses symbolise the wounds of Christ, the ''Blessed Virgin'' and the blood of Christian martyrs.
Roses have long been associated with divine females, probably for obvious reasons, such as Isis and Aphrodite/Venus.
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!
I kind of figured Garlic was the result of it being used in folk medicine for blood issues and not fully understanding why it would work.
I think it's base don nothing more then that it does repel insects.
share
I think anything with a strong sense of smell would be repulsed by a pungent odor. However garlic (if eaten raw) will build the blood and helps lower blood pressure.
It's because of my BeePhobia I go insane with he Garlic when I make my Pasta sauce.
shareI gathered the gist of the scene, but I was unaware of the context behind the use of the Sacred Waffer. Dracula knows that he's lost, so all he can really do at that point is vent and try to get under Van Helsing's skin over the methods he employeed. I thought it was about using a sacred icon as an instrument of conflict. I had no idea that Van Helsing was not allowed to use it or that it could not be used for such purposes as portrayed.
As for the conversation at hand, what is King Angstyr's problem? "If you hate Jesus and are 100% proud of it..." I don't know if he's trolling or venting, but that signature and his posts in this topic are pretty messed up. I can't fault him for having his own views, but antagonistic signatures like that are an eyesore no matter which side of a belief or an issue a person is on. And yes, I'm sure some conscientious individual will be quick to remind me that he has a right to say it. He does, but then such inflammatory remarks also invite a rebuttle and a person has a right to that as well.
''As for the conversation at hand, what is King Angstyr's problem? "If you hate Jesus and are 100% proud of it..." I don't know if he's trolling or venting, but that signature and his posts in this topic are pretty messed up.''
I am getting a little sick of explaining my signature, but I will anyway; not that I have to justify it to you on anybody (I think the fact that Christianity has been one of the main causes of evil in the world speaks for itself anyway). You have probably noticed that there is a common signature that reads, ''If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!''. I think it is pretty fair that I should have a reverse signature that spoofs this. Don't you?
In truth, I do not hate Jesus Christ per se, but only because he never actually existed. If he did exist, I'd find the old religious terrorist as detestable as any hate preacher that has ever existed.
My post in this topic are messed up? Uhuh, yeah right. In other words you are just offended because I dared to have a half-joking signature about your pathetic and illogical deity. You should probably drop this Christianity lark and start living in the real world, chum.
''He does, but then such inflammatory remarks also invite a rebuttle and a person has a right to that as well.''
I am not even going to dignify this piece of nonsense with much of a response.
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!
The idea of a symbol holding such power is an inherently Unchristian concept, Biblical Christianity is against such Pagan ideas.
"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"
I know that but there are a lot of Catholics in Eastern Europe and Catholicism has a lot of faith in the value of religious symbols, whether contrary to the bible or not.
I think beng confronted with the cross caused his human side to cry out sacrilige in proclomation of himself. He eas decliring that HE was sacrolige.
shareI think beng confronted with the cross caused his human side to cry out sacrilige in proclomation of himself. He eas decliring that HE was sacrolige.
Is he reviewing the film?
shareReligious symbols like the cross originally had no effect on vampires. Stoker was the one who invented that, if I'm not mistaken.
MarYah haw Yeshua Meshikha!
http://mightcontainspoilers.wordpress.com