Having reported this week on a couple of sightings of the infamous “Highgate Vampire”, the entity said to haunt the environs of Highgate Cemetery in London, and one in particular where the witness states his belief, or rather disbelief, that what he encountered was a “vampire”, it got me to thinking. Where do we draw the line betwixt the twain? Historically, vampires are more akin to the modern zombie. They were corporeal, and yet there are accounts even in centuries past of these rotting revenants doing spectral things. And the vampire of Hollywood and pop culture likewise displays such insubstantiality, turning into mist, for example. Must an entity be at least part of the time corporeal to qualify as a “vampire”?
A better qualifier would be the parasitic nature of a vampire. Must it drink blood to (ahem) count? The historic vampire didn’t always consume blood. Sometimes it feasted upon the “life force” or energy of living victims instead. Is a “psychic” vampire any less vampiric? Doesn’t Colin Robinson qualify as a vampire? But then ghosts are sometimes alleged to siphon energy from electrical devices, and sometimes even from human beings. When that happens, haven’t they stopped being ghosts and started being vampires? Regardless of the physical nature, or lack thereof, of the entity allegedly sighted at Highgate Cemetery, I have no problem calling it the Highgate Vampire. Is it a vampire akin to the ones we see in the movies? Doubtful. But it might just share some of the characteristics.