May 26

The Occult Origins of Bram Stoker's Dracula

(Affiliate disclosure: Some links on this blog may earn us a small commission at no cost to you. Every bit helps keep the lantern lit.)

The popular mythology surrounding Bram Stoker’s Dracula—published on May 26, 1897, by Archibald Constable and Company in London, bound in yellow cloth with red lettering at six shillings—almost happened by accident.

Much like the origin of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, it began with a nightmare—following a late supper of dressed crab that didn’t quite sit well with the author’s digestion. Of course, this story—first told by Stoker’s son Noel—is debated, and largely anecdotal. The truth? Dracula was the product of the most systematic and deliberate occult research program undertaken by any Victorian novelist. When Aleister Crowley first read the finished novel, he declared it “splendidly well-documented” and noted that Stoker had gotten his occult “facts and their legal and magical surroundings perfectly correct.”

How’s that for feedback?

The Golden Dawn Next Door

Stoker’s working notes—more than a hundred manuscript pages, now held at the Rosenbach Museum and Library in Philadelphia—show a first dated entry of March 8, 1890. He spent the next seven years compiling folklore, consulting scholars, reading grimoires, borrowing books from the London Library, and assembling a novel whose architecture was, from the very beginning, the architecture of a magical system. The question is how Stoker knew what he knew. As it turns out, more than he ever let on:

On May 26, 1897, the day Dracula reached bookshops, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was nine years old. Only two months earlier, the Golden Dawn’s founding co-chief, William Wynn Westcott, was driven out of his day job serving as a coroner for the Crown; he resigned from all official positions in the Golden Dawn after magical papers bearing his name were discovered in a hansom cab and the Home Office delivered a curt warning: it “would not do for a Coroner of the Crown” to be known as a practitioner of ceremonial magic. (Westcott's resignation memo is dated March 1897. Within three years, the Order would detonate in the Mathers-Crowley “Battle of Blythe Road” feud of April 1900, meaning Dracula arrived at the exact moment of its maximum charged instability.)

Was Bram Stoker a member of the Golden Dawn? No surviving members’ roll includes his name. And yet, he stood directly at the Order’s social and intellectual edges in ways that are documented and fascinating. His most concrete connection was John W. Brodie-Innes—an Edinburgh lawyer, initiated into the Golden Dawn in 1890 and elevated to Adeptus Minor in 1893 before finally making it to Imperator of the Amen-Ra Temple in Edinburgh. He and Stoker were close friends and fellow members of the Arts Club in London. When Brodie-Innes published his own supernatural novel, The Devil's Mistress, in 1915—a fictional treatment of the Scottish witch Isabel Goudie—he dedicated it “To the Memory of My Dear Friend, the Author of Dracula, to Whose Help and Encouragement I Owe More Than I Am at Present at Liberty to State.” That tantalizing final clause has fueled a century of speculation: five letters from Brodie-Innes to Stoker survive in the University of Leeds archive (the Amen-Ra Temple’s records were lost during the 1900-01 schism).

And then there’s Pamela Colman Smith—“Pixie” to her friends, and previous subject of this very blog: the same artist who illustrated every one of the 78 cards in the Rider-Waite-Smith Tarot. While not widely acknowledged for her immortal Tarot work during her lifetime, she also illustrated Stoker’s final novel, The Lair of the White Worm, in 1911, both published by William Rider and Son—coincidentally, that era’s leading occult publisher. So … Stoker, Smith, and A.E. Waite were all Rider authors in the same period. Finally, Constance Wilde—Oscar’s wife and an early Golden Dawn initiate—moved in the same Dublin-London circles; Stoker had famously married Wilde’s former fiancée, Florence Balcombe. Florence Farr—actress and Mathers’ chief lieutenant within the Order, who ran the Sphere Group from 1896—was a Lyceum-circle actress whose orbit overlapped with Stoker’s.

This is the world in which Dracula was written—not adjacent to the Victorian occult revival but, quite literally, inside it.

A Devil in the Details

On August 8 1890, Stoker borrowed a slim 1820 volume by the British consul William Wilkinson from the Whitby Subscription Library: An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia/ In a footnote on page nineteen, he found a sentence that proved the ultimate game-changer for his then-work-in-progress:

“DRACULA in Wallachian language means DEVIL. Wallachians were accustomed to give it as a surname to any person who rendered himself conspicuous either by courage, cruel actions, or cunning.”

Stoker immediately updated his work noted, crossing out “Count Wampyr” and, unaware of the cultural significance of the revision, wrote in its place “Count Dracula.”

But that also means that the historical Vlad III Ȟepåș—the fifteenth-century Wallachian voivode who impaled his enemies in forests outside Târgovişte and whose name meant “son of the dragon”—is not the simple origin of Stoker’s villain that popular mythology claims. Trualy, Stoker borrowed the name and the footnote and almost nothing else. The rest of his Count came from Emily Gerard’s 1885 essay “Transylvanian Superstitions” (which also provided Stoke with the word nosferatu, the lore of St George’s Eve, and the Scholomance—the underground school in the Carpathians where the Devil personally teaches ten pupils the secrets of weather-magic, retaining the tenth as his fee); from Sabine Baring-Gould’s Book of Were-Wolves (which supplied Dracula’s physical description—the “hairs in the centre of the palm,” the meeting eyebrows, the pointed ears); and from Henry Irving himself. (Indeed, Aleister Crowley wasn’t joking when he said Stoker had done his homework.)

Not coincidentally, Stoker served as business manager of Henry Irving’s Lyceum Theatre for twenty-seven years. Irving’s signature role from the mid-1880s onward was as Mephistopheles in the Lyceum’s spectacular production of Faust—tall, gaunt, predatory, dressed in scarlet, and framed by limelight and pyrotechnics. Dracula’s “aquiline” nose, his “eyes like cinders of glowing red from out the marble face,” and his aristocratic command and hypnotic dominion over lesser wills—all carry influence from Irving’s stage prowess. Later, Stoker even hoped Irving would one day play the Count in a theatrical production. However, Irving’s feedback once he’d read the play at its May 18, 1897 copyright reading wasn’t exactly as Stoker had hoped; “Dreadful!” was the actor’s exact word…

Blood and Nemeses

The Theosophy that saturated Stoker’s London treated blood not as a physiological fluid but as a magical one.

In her classic treatise, Theosophical Glossary, Helena Blavatsky defined vampirism as “the involuntary transmission of a portion of one's vitality, or life-essence, by a kind of occult osmosis”—a process she located in the blood itself, which she identified with kama (desire) “penetrated by Prâna.” When Prâna leaves the blood, she wrote, “it congeals”—thus crafting the exact metaphysics upon which Stoker later built his legendary monster. The novel’s blood transfusions—Lucy receiving the vital essence of four men in succession—horrify not because of clinical risk but because they are quasi-sexual magical unions. Renfield’s refrain, “The blood is the life,” quotes Deuteronomy 12:23—a verse the Hebrew tradition reads as a prohibition, which Stoker inverts into a vampiric creed. Rudolf Steiner would shortly deliver his celebrated 1906 Berlin lecture arguing that “blood is the expression of the I, or ego”—and that "whoever would master a man, must first master that man's blood.” And by then, Bram Stoker had already built a novel around exactly this proposition.

But a believable—if not fantastical—methodology isn’t quite enough for a great villain; every force deserves a worthy nemesis. For that, Stoker created the brilliant and somewhat bizarre Professor Abraham Van Helsing—the novel’s occult practitioner in everything but name. His arsenal is openly syncretic: from Catholic sacramental theology, the consecrated Host and the crucifix; from Transylvanian folk magic, the garlic wreaths and the sharpened stake; from proto-occult science, hypnotic trance used as a remote-viewing technique to track Dracula across Europe. In fact, Van Helsing’s use of a mirror to demonstrate Dracula’s inability to cast a reflection is a piece of Hermetic symbolism: in Renaissance magical theory, the mirror reflects the soul, and what has no soul casts no image. The threshold law—Dracula cannot enter unbidden—echoes the magical principle of consent and the inviolability of ritual boundary. Van Helsing’s use of crumbled Eucharist to "sterilize" Dracula’s boxes of Transylvanian earth is sympathetic magic in reverse, profaning the soil that grounds the vampire’s power.

To Stoker, Van Helsing defined faith—not from any one particular religion, but in a higher power that represented the good, if there be evil. In one of the novel’s most remarkable sentences, as “that faculty which enables us to believe things which we know to be untrue.” That’s not Christianity; that’s gnosis.

A Blurb from the Beast

Although Stoker and Aleister Crowley never formally met, in Magick Without Tears, Chapter LXVI, devoted entirely to vampires, Crowley offered a decidedly authoritative verdict: “Bram Stoker’s Dracula and its kindred. This is a splendidly well-documented book, by the way; he got his ‘facts’ and their legal and magical surroundings, perfectly correct.”

Here, Crowley was not being metaphorical. He insisted with complete seriousness that vampiric phenomena were real, that the evidence for them was “as strong as for pretty well anything else in the world,” and that the O.T.O.’s Eighth Degree contained a “mighty volume of theory and practice” on the subject. (His own quarrel with Mathers in 1900 famously involved each accusing the other of sending vampiric thought-forms; Moina Mathers blamed her husband’s 1918 death on Crowley’s psychic attack.) Dion Fortune, in Psychic Self-Defense (1930), took Crowley’s reading further, reframing vampirism as energetic parasitism—“the person who is vampirised, being depleted of vitality, is a psychic vacuum, himself absorbing from anyone he comes across”—and making it the founding concept of a practical system of magical protection that remains in use today.

Stoker died April 20, 1912, never witnessing the timeless tale that his novel would become. He never knew Crowley would praise it as “perfectly correct,” or that the Rider company would use the same artist who illustrated his last novel to produce the most influential Tarot deck in history. He never knew that his creation would go on to inspire over a hundred feature films, as well as radio, television, and unofficial sequel novels, comic books, Halloween costumes—and a breakfast cereal.

He never knew that his novel’s heavily-researched occult metaphysics would become the vocabulary of a living tradition of magical practice that still exists over a century following his death.

(Every day, Modern Occultist News will present "This Day in Occult History" and will dive into the birthdays, rituals, breakthroughs, and crucial moments that shaped today's many esoteric traditions. From the Hermetic revival to Witchcraft, from Crowley to cyberspace, we'll bring the best stories and latest trends to today's own modern occultists everywhere.)

Modern Occultist