No, none of those books were published before 1920. It should be fairly obvious, though, that this isn’t in any way a bar to their subject matter covering folklore from any period in recorded human history. In fact, that’s generally something which historians and classicists tend to rely on. For example, if I wanted to read a book on religious beliefs during the American Civil War then I wouldn’t in any way be restricted to those published before 1865.

Either way, if you really do have interest in the topic then that might be a good place to start.

If another historian is questioning your statements, and you haven't got a contemporary account, you need something pretty strong to back it up. When I ask for a pre-1920s reference, and the response is a 21st century reference, with a list of references going back to the 1970s, that doesn't exactly count as an answer to my question. I suppose I could go back and check all the references from those books, and then check the references of their references... but frankly, I don't see why I should. I asked if you had any references, and it's clear that you don't. I'll consider my question answered.

If you don't want to bother checking if you're right or not, it's hardly that important you have to be bickering over it, now is it?

Additionally, it is not enough to back up your own claims to actually win an arguement. You'll also have to prove the other one's point to be wrong. And I don't see how you can do that by not going over the references he pointed at.

I would consider your question still unanswered.

I'm not trying to win an argument, and I'm not trying to prove him wrong. Sorry that I'm not willing to read half a dozen books in toto on the off-chance that they might actually contain the answer to my question. I'm also not willing to read all the book each of those book reference because some of them might have the answer. I asked a question, and the response was nopt only an answer in the negative, it only referenced other negative answers as well. So the answer I received is: "No, I have no references to back up my claim." The fact that it's followed with "Maybe if you look hard enough, you might one, here's a starting part which could help... maybe" changes that not at all. Sorry.

However, if you consider the question unanswered, then you shouldn't be hassling me about it, ytou should be hassling him for not answering my question.

If, by any chance, if I would say I had a reference to back up my claim (theoratical claim, that is), would you assume that I had read it or would you consider me lying about it?

As far as I can tell, Vorrioch has references that may back up his claim and I have not seen any indication of him admitting not to have read them. As such, I can only assume that you're guessing that he has not read those references himself. Even if you are proven right at a later date, there is no way for you to say that he does not have any references to back up his claim at this moment.

Therefor, your answer has still not made an appearance as far as I can see.

Vorrioch also pointed at articles at Athens. Are they not good enough for you? As far as I can tell, Vorrioch has plenty of references to back up his claim.

If you said you had a reference to back up your claim, but didn't show it, I would assume you full of one brand of manure or another. If you told me that you didn't have any to hand (which he did say, in fact), but that there were some places where I could go look and might find something that more or less backs your assertion, I'd say that it's your own responsibility to back your assertions. Trying to shift the burden of proof onto me only tells me that you know you cannot support what you're saying.

As I've said already before - the earliest instance of sunlight destroying a vampire I've ever heard of is "Nosferatu." So far, no one has ever been able to show me an earlier, and I've encountered quite a lot of earlier instances of vampires being only mildly inconvenienced by sunlight, or not being bothered by it at all. All it takes to convince me that I am mistaken in my assessment that the idea originated with that film is one actual instance of a story in which a vampire is killed by sunlight prior to the 1920s and unconnected with the film in question. I think that's perfectly reasonable, don't you?

Now, I freely admit, I'm not terribly interested in vampires specifically. I am, however, interested in history and literature, and there's quite a lot of places where vampires enter into those interests, so while I'm nothing like an expert in the area of vampires, I like to think I have rather more than a passing familiarity. So let's not have comments of the "go read something, here's some extremely general starting points" variety, shall we? I asked a specific question about a specific point of contention. The only answers I can imagine are either "Yes, this was written in 1634 and the vampire is killed by sunlight" or something of that nature, or "no, I have no specific references."

If there's a third option, I'd love to hear it.

If you don't claim to be an expert, I would have thought you would be more open to the suggestion that there is a pre-1920s reference to vampires burning in sunlight, even pre-Stoker. That you are not open to the possibility (and I say you are not because you appear to dismiss any mention of it without proper references) tells me that you are a very stubborn person.

Aside from one movie and some people you know (and don't say everyone you know because I doubt they have all seen it), do you have any scholarly citation to backup your claim that there is no reference to vampires burning up in the sun earlier than the 1920s?

Rystefn, when you asked me for a reference in the first place, what exactly were you looking for?

I’ve provided you with a link to an online magazine article. Have you actually glanced over it yet, or are you still too distracted by the domain title? (Which, incidentally doesn’t have anything to do with video games.)

I’ve also suggested that if you’d prefer a book reference then the four books referenced in that article in support of its content might be a good place to start. Apparently this isn’t good enough either as it would require you to actually go out and read them.

If you’re on Athens (which most colleges and universities subscribe to) then I’m happy to do another quick search and see if I can find an academic article which reiterates the same point.

So, give me a hint what sort of reference you’re asking for here. Do you actually have any interest in finding out more about this topic or are you just intending this as a wind-up?

For the record, it’s extremely unlikely that either you or I would ever have the chance to personally read a source to the effect of “Yes, this was written in 1634 and the vampire is killed by sunlight". If you’ve ever spent any time in a historical archive (which I personally have, while writing my dissertation last summer) then you’d realise that anything that old -and which anyone has any interest in preserving - would inevitably be locked away somewhere inaccessible to anyone without a Doctorate or Ph.D in History. And even if I were able to get to it I certainly wouldn’t be able to post it for you online, so again you’d only have my word that it existed in the first place. Which apparently wouldn’t be anywhere close to good enough on the back of your last few posts.

What I can post, and have been trying to for the last page, are references to books and articles which will in turn reference people who actually have undergone this sort of research. Or you could use Athens and hopefully skip the middle step.

Skari,
I am open to the possibility. If I wasn't, why would I explain to you that the possibility is there, and I'd like to see it if you have something that says otherwise? I'm not dismissive of the entire concept. I'm dismissive of unfounded claims.

Second - I don't need everyone I know to have seen the movie for everyone I know to not have any knowledge of a prior instance, so I stand by my statement. No one I know has any knowledge of a prior instance of sunlight killing vampires - or, at the very least, if they do have such knowledge, none have ever seen fit to share it with me. Also, let me make this clear - I do not claim there are NO references to vampires burning up in sunlight prior to the 1920s. That's knowledge no human being can ever have. Period. I claim that the earliest instance of sunlight killing a vampire I've ever heard of is the film "Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens." I therefore cunclude that this is the origin of the meme. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, feel free to share.

Vorrioch,
When I asked you for a reference, I was looking for a reference. A specific instance of a vampire being killed by sunlight prior to the 1920s. I told you already that I read the article and could find nothing of the sort therein. I then invited you to point out one if I was missing it. You then pointed out several references to books from the 1970s, which is either a staggering coincidence, or you read the post already.

You try to say that the boooks from the '70s might be a good place to start, but I'm looking for a place to start. I've started. I'm asking for a specific reference, not a reference to a reference to a reference that may or may not actually have evidence that your claim is correct. YThat's your responsibility, not mine.

I say again - Give me an actual instance of a story wherein a vampire is killed by suinlight that predates the film, "Nosferatu." Any other answer is essentially "I don't have one."

For the record, You don't need an original copy to point me to a book. I don't have an original copy of Dracula, but I can show that in it, the vampire is not harmed by sunlight. I don't have an original copy Don Quixote (which, by the way, was published 30 years before the date of the hypothetical source), but I can point you to it as a reference, can I not?

What you can post, and have been posting, are reference to references which may or may not even have the answer. You don't even know yourself if they can back up your claim, but you try to tell me to read them just in case they do. That's not how this works.

One last time: Do you have a reference to back up your claim?

this is getting ridiculous. It's all on perspective, like trying to argue which type of zombie is better than the other. Honestly guys just drop it before this "discussion" turns ugly.

Old school shambling zombies > New school running zombies

lets not go there right now

Agreed Grugg. Something about hordes of slowly moving undead is much more frightening then running bullets of rotting flesh...it adds suspense...

The worst are the ones that jump from the new Day of the Dead. But I digress.

Indeed...leave the jumping to other scary critters. Zombies are supposed to be to classic to mess up, but somehow, people never fail. Well, this is getting off the subject.