The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

The Iliad and Odyssey were both written in the archaic time period of approximately 700 BC, give or take a decade or two.

I'd like to open this thread for discussion about the underworld ghosts who drink blood in book XI of the Odyssey.

Here is a link to excerpted relevant passages that I've posted on my journal for convenience, but I encourage you to read it in its complete context when you can.

Odyssey Blood

I'd like to focus this thread on a discussion between the similarities and differences between vampirism and these ghosts. For the purposes of discussion, I offer the following broad definition of vampire:

Beings defined as "vampires" in one form or another, take sustenance or vitality from living creatures.

Of particular interest should be the blood's power to return some powers of life to the dead, and also, their overpowering thirst and draw to the blood, even in what to me is the touching figure of Odysseus' mother.

Of further interest might be your take on these creatures. Are they monsters, or sympathetic characters? Why?

in this case i see the blood as a summons/sacrifice to comune with a specific spirit. the drinking of the blood giving him the energy to speak. as was stated, his mother didn't speak to him because the blood was not for her.

Yes, that is stated in the text...but do you see similarities here to vampirism?

Do you have any feeling toward the creatures?

And for that matter, isn't the age of the text interesting...especially considering there is probably a long oral history preceding even this?

yes there are similarities, the ghosts need to drink the blood for the energy to communicate properly and interact with the living.

as for feelings, i have a great pitty for them. they all must have had some need to connect with the living world to be drawn to the blood at that time. the way his mother just sat there not looking at him. she obviously had manythings she wanted to say to him but couldn't with out the blood. it is truelly sad.

as for the age of the text i have always found the iliad and odyssey fasinating. many of the consepts and beliefs put forth at such an early era knowing that alot of it must come from previous oral tradition is staggering. they are one of the reasons i chose ancient philosophy for a major.

These are very interesting passages, and underlines that vampires would not be the only creature, undead or not, thirsty for blood of the living.

The Greek were very interested in the future, and the Gods plans for them, and clairvoyants are found throughout greek mythology, mostly of supernatural descent, or bastardised by a deity and human union. But who could be closer to the Gods than the dead?

It is interesting that Odysseus keeps the blade handy. Obviously, the dead crave blood, but are deterred from drinking of him simply from the sword. From some of the lines, one can reason that the dead are lifeless and weak, and only regain some strength from drinking blood.
Fortunately, it seems, the desparation for blood diminishes as they regain some strength.
This could obviously be one of the origins for the Vampire concept, if it is not referencing to already established myth. Hard to tell now.

It reminds me of a legend I know, but have forgotten the origin of; I believe it was a very ancient story told to instill morality in the young, like Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf, only this time to advise against disturbing the dead.
A "likbør" is a ghostly apparition of a funeral procession in Norse legend. This procession would appear out in the wilderness, and if one dared to look in the casket, one could see what person would die at some later time. But if one was not careful, the ghostly undead carrying the casket would tear the skin clean from the curious victim and consume it. The victim would then be forced to join the procession, and help carry the casket.

And with that sympathy, it's not such a great step to think that within that greek perspective, we too would crave that offered blood when we died and populated the underworld, suggesting that the vampiric similarities were well known and accepted in this era.

Wow, I've never heard that myth, CTyler. It's vivid and interesting especially here where rules also apply to Odysseus as he guards that blood. He does even threaten to run the ghosts through with his sword. He has to make sure that Tiresias drinks first. The ghosts follow the rules as in your myth, as long as the person does his part.

In the text, he cannot embrace his mother's ghost, even after she gets to drink...even the blood has limited power.

There have been many real cases over time of people sacrificing animals and humans to summon spirits, ghosts and demons. I'm sure the reasons and beliefs behind doing this have varied by the practitioners of this sort of thing.

While some may believe these entities are drawn to the blood for it's life force to communicate almost wouldn't make sense because that blood would now be dead and the energy rapidly escaping the lifeless body. Perhaps they are drawn to a fresh spirit newly ascending into the otherworld.

As for the similarities between that occurance and vampires... I have read that certain psychic vampires and magicians who learn to take energy from people believe that when most people die there energy disperses into the great void little by little until there isn't enough left to hold a single thought from the once living being. They believe that when people die they fall into a state of imagination where they see there heaven or hell and become trapped in this fantasy until there energy is expended and used up. To combat this the vampires and magicians resist the urge to fall into such a fantasy when they die and they immediately search for the nearest source of energy to keep there "soul" alive and hence become immortal until they can reincarnate or whatever there end purpose be.

That being said it is very possible that such entities could be vampires or learned magicians who still take and consume to live on. But I would be skeptical as to why they would be attracted to dead energy if that were the case. I would think an event that had potential of raising a great amount of energy would be more ideal for attracting such entities rather than a lifeless corpse.

"They believe that when people die they fall into a state of imagination where they see there heaven or hell and become trapped in this fantasy until there energy is expended and used up."

LiquidSaint, did you ever see the movie Jacob's Ladder? It is an exploration into just that idea. And a quite disturbing one, at that.
I highly recommend it, if you haven't.

Very interesting response, especially the vampire resisting the loss of his energy in exchange for fantasy. I rather like the notion of choice...of being able to cling on and choose to seek energy replenishment over an insincere fantasy. Thank you for sharing that!

And yet, to your other points, in Odyssey, when Odysseus tries to interact with his mother, she fades from him. She may have been drawn to him, but it was the blood she wanted. He holds her off until Tiresias drinks first.

It seems that as soon as the blood is shed, the ghosts come...how would this be any different from any other tale where the blood is removed from the dead or dying body?

Oh! I saw Jacob's Ladder years ago. It was VERY disturbing. I'm going to have to rent it again and look at it with this in mind.

CTyler, I have not seen that movie but I will be looking into it. That idea has always fascinated me. Thank you for the recommendation ;)=

And Joli, I agree there are many tales of sacrifice where such entities are after the blood. I'm simply trying to find some fact and truth behind this because it's a very real practice. And such a practice doesn't add up to me when were talking about entities made up of supposedly pure energy. What could they really benefit from lifeless blood? Especially if were looking for a similarity between that and vampirism. Whereas a ghost or demon may feed off of chaos or death itself, a Vampire is usually looking for "life" over death to replenish itself. I just don't see how dead blood in a non fictional sense would benefit such a being.

In the text, it seems that Homer is suggesting that this blood, which though from an animal, is "fresh," does just that...provides some restorative measure, though limited. Now, this will correspond more to the vampires closer to our own myths, such as Dracula or Lestat than to living and breathing "vampires" under that broader definition.

What energy do you believe blood to provide to the living vampire? And how would that blood be more filled with energy than this blood shed from a live animal slain only as its blood poured forth? Is that so different from the myth of energy and restorative powers as the vampire of legend drains his victim until the victim dies?

I must be missing your distinction. It's not as though he's carried it for days and then offered it.

Well, physically, blood is corrupted the instant it is exposed to the outside of the body. Clotting immediately begins. Bacteria in the air attaches to it.
Blood is almost like an organ itself, it is that complex.

Not sure about energies and such though..

Boy, Tyler, you know how to make a girl hungry!

You could always use a straw...

*nudge, nudge*

Ha! You'll get the thread closed, wicked one! Behave!

Poor Homer...thank god he wasn't in an online thread!

To me, dead blood is just that...dead. I don't think it takes days for it to loose it's life force.

As for stories like Lestat's I believe it was made quite clear for the vampires in Anne Rice's books to not drink dead blood. I've only seen the movies so I can't say for sure but I would assume there might be more to that. And to never take the last drop as that would draw death into themselves or something like that.

I'm not at all saying I know any of this for sure. I'm simply stating my skepticism over something already dead taking something else thats dead as being beneficial to them. I know your stating that the flow of blood from a sacrificed being is an instant reaction to such entities and they feed from it as fresh as it can be at that point but in my opinion it's still dead and would have nothing to offer them. Just like food such as vegetables...once they are picked from the garden they start loosing properties that are beneficial to us. Using this idea for a sacrifice being recently "picked from the garden" I can see your point more clearly as it still has some properties of life in it. I would just wonder what in the blood it is there after and why there wouldn't be more suitable ways of getting it just as a vampire usually goes a for the hunt of living beings rather than feasting on something dead.

In "Armand," Marius teaches gentleness in killing, because he suffers the worst pain, knowing that he dies.

I do remember your reference, though, but in her own chronicles, Rice references draining a victim to death. And in the reference you make, I'm not convinced it had to do with "dead blood" so much as to the death of the heart posing some danger I cannot recall.

Some very interesting thoughts here. The ancient Greeks were already making medical discoveries when the books were written so the importance of blood to life would have been well known among the learned men of the time. Also given the importance they placed on their lineage seeking advice from the dead would be a boon for them. Just makes sense to feed the dead the blood for them to "live" again but only long enough for them to get what they needed. That does make it seem a type of vampirism. Blood equals life but only as long as it can live outside the body of a living creature. Then it's power is lost and the hunt for more is on again. I had never considered this before even though I read the works many years ago. I wonder how they might actually have influenced the later stories of vampirism that we know today.

Excellent point. There is evidence of very complex cranial surgeries taking place in Greece as early as 654 BC. By the 300's BC and afterward, in the Hellenistic period, Greek doctors worked out a logical system for understanding disease. The Hippocratic Writings map out the humors of the body: blood, black bile, yellow bile, and phlegm.

It was all about keeping the humors in balance. Here are a few fun tidbits on their views about blood: If you had too much blood, that would give you a fever. So your medical treatment should be to reduce the amount of blood in your body. Greek doctors did this by cutting your arm until blood ran out. This was supposed to help bring down your fever. Or they put leeches on your arm to suck the extra blood out. They did this so often that doctors were sometimes called "leeches". And they thought it was such a good idea that doctors were still letting blood about 150 years ago!

Joli that's so true, I remember reading about leeches used like that when I was younger and I was sickened by it. But there are some exploring using leeches again for some illnesses I think it had something to do with the anticoagulant they secrete mixing in the bloodstream. I saw a medical report where they were in a modern hospital putting leeches on a person's body.

I know that I found it interesting because Homer predates the earliest vampire references in print. And because Homer probably only wrote down what was already an oral epic around for generations, it bears consideration.

How long has mankind referenced a bloodthirst in their own stories about themselves? Why does this theme permeate literature seemingly since the earliest tales, even predating writing itself?