Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 164.107.223.217 (talk) at 14:58, 31 May 2007 (→PICTURE of Bathory, ...what do you think?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Coven Membership

The reference stating that Elizabeth Bathory was in a coven sounds absurd. Witches didn't organize themselves like that in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. The reference saying this is from the 1940s and seems to have a sensationalistic title. Has anyone investigated it? 71.182.123.174 00:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It appears as though someone found a dusty old book from grandma's attic and took its content a bit too seriously. The reason so much nonsense about this case pervades is that most of what we have to go on reflects astounding ignorance of Central European history rather than any facts. Nothing published in a book before McNally's Dracula Was a Woman should be considered a credible source, and even that book is incomplete and speculative.Shield2 23:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bloodbath"

The "bloodbath" section of this article is terrible, but I'm not sure whether it should be edited or deleted altogether. Most of it is speculation or repetition of things already mentioned in the article, and it seems to have been written by someone who takes her guilt (and the existence of witches) as fact. --nichie 22:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important part in this article. Most of the stories I have heard were about the bloodbaths. This section should have more information in it. Without this section, most of her story is not there. --Chriss 23:55, 5 July 2006

I respectfully disagree in part and agree in part. I agree with the above contention that the details of Countess Bathory's torture needs to be corrected, however what may suprise you is the level of mental dise

I say leave it, maybe find some citations? John Doe or Jane Doe 12:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC) No luck so far with creditable sorces most pages and recorces I've found so far are, fiction...sorry I'll keep looking though, unfortunaly speculation dosn't count here only facts John Doe or Jane Doe 15:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the key problem so far is, that historical accounts of torture are mixed with literary accounts.

The former are based on trial testimonies which are preserved and in part reprinted, e.g. by Farin. And only the literary sources contain all the bloodbathing. This is stated correctly in the article, with reference to McNally. Now as this bloodbathing happens to be almost all EB was known for in the 18th and 19th century, I think it has to be included as what it is - fiction. There are sources as important as the Brothers Grimm that can be quoted here.

At first I didn`t want to tackle this "EB in fiction" problem before I have access to my sources, so I can list representative narratives. But now that there is such a lifely discussion going on, I think I will come forward with a proposal for that section asap, can`t get much worse, can it...?

And I wholeheartedly agree with John/Jane Doe on the importance of verifyiability, I think this is the key to turn this into a good article.--Sam195 04:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done. see below

Authenticity? Guilt?

Perhaps the question of her guilt should be more seriously examined. The opening lines of the article seem to assume that she is guilty, while the body of the text offers little more than a paragraph stating that she may have been innocent. The "legends" section is ridiculous and simply repeats uncontested rumours. One of my very good friends is a direct descendent of Erzsebet and I have not only heard drastically different accounts (i.e. that she was accused of these crimes in order to remove her as a threat to the Habsburgs), I have read actual historical documents concerning her trial, execution, life, etc. This article is not nearly as rigorous as it should be.--Ajcarriere 17:08, 22 July 2006

Nobody knows of her direct bloodline and how would you know if your friend was a direct descendent of her? I highly doubt that you could know that for sure, though the trial did have alot of political motives it isnt entirely discounted that she did commit these awful crimes and many "historical documents" do go in favor that she did infact commit some horrendous acts. While she may not of had bloodbaths or whatever she did indulge in torture often, and she wasnt executed, just sentenced to life imprisonment. -Jwhyte1 10:00, 31 July 2006

According to her own diary she killed at least 650 girls. Perhaps Ajcarriere is correct in his/her assumptions that Báthory's trial was politically motivated (her husband had loaned the government of the day a considerable sum of money to aid its war with Turkey, and by finding her guilty (her husband was dead by this time) the State was able to confiscate her property, including the loan) but I respectfully suggest that her guilt has never really been in question. She wasn't executed, by the way; she was walled up in a tower in her own castle and fed daily. She died there ten years later. Her favourite method of murder was to strip her victims naked, push them into the snow, and pour buckets of cold water over them. An excellent reference for her life and activities is Raymond T. McNally's book Dracula Was A Woman: In Search Of The Blood Countess Of Transylvania, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1983, ISBN 0070456712. This article needs some serious work. Wocky 07:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, the article needs much work (and I tagged it as such long ago, unfortunately every time I come back it's not really improved). But as a matter of fact, there have indeed been serious doubts about her guilt raised by modern historians. McNally's book shouldn't be taken at face value - it's popular history with a sensationalist bent. The truth of the matter is that if Bram Stoker hadn't popularized a Bulgarian myth as a Magyar with a Romanian name, few people would be giving this story any more consideration than for any other 16th century witchcraft trial. --BluePlatypus 03:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If serious modern historians raised doubts about her guilt, I would be interested to hear their arguments (BluePlatypus, could you give us a reference?). As for the "truth of the matter", legends and fairytales about E.B. are much older than Bram Stoker`s Dracula, suggesting that she always has been a fascinating historical/literary figure of her own right. And when was the trial clasified a "witchcraft trial"? As for Ajcarriere, that the Bathory family might hold drastically different accounts is hardly surprising, nor is it a valid argument. Unless the primary sources (that`s what you meant? I envy you!) you studied tell differently, that is, offer facts yet unknown. Speaking of primary sources, since when is the contends of "her personal diary" known, Wocky? Speaking of political motivation, didn`t her family benefit from her not being excecuted as murderer, in which case her fortune would have been seized? Is McNally suggesting otherwise in his book? cf 8) of this page.--Sam195 04:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"If serious modern historians raised doubts about her guilt, I would be interested to hear their arguments ". Here is the article , in hungarian. My English isn't good enouph to translate it. It's the same article by Szádeczky-Kardoss Irma that is already referenced here, but the link is dead. There is a book too: "Nagy László: A rossz hírű Báthoryak, Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1984, ISBN 9630923084" --87.97.37.5 22:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

well, don`t worry about your English then, here are enough people who would take care of that. Or anybody else who knows that book? --Sam195 11:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Torture" section plagiarized?

This section bears remarkable similarities to parts of the text at http://www.abacom.com/~jkrause/bathory.html.

• True, text the author himself calls "creative nonfiction" and "fiction" in his disclaimer. Not a valid source for anything, isn`t it? Taken together, doesn`t that qualify the corresponding paragraph to be deleted? (I`m new to Wiki, could anybody else comment?) --Sam195 05:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Village of Čachtice

The name of the village in Hungarian is Csejte, see . This is correct in the Čachtice Castle article.

Plagiarism and/or storytelling?

This article reads very much like a vignette out of some novelty book of famous vampires. The way in which facts are presented is not only POV-ridden but goal-driven; the author is clearly trying to evoke delicious horror and explicitly points out irony in the subject's life and fate. I'm not sure of the best way to clean this up, or indeed the best template to apply (I don't see a "this article may be plagiarized" template), so I'm putting up the Noncompliant tag and letting someone in the know handle it.

Half the article focuses on the legends and trashy stories about her while the other half does a good job putting her real motives and the real motives for punishing her in perspective relative to the political situations in Transylvania and Royal Hungary at the time. I am not sure if it is anything more than a conspiracy theory to suggest it was Basta who killed her husband. More likely he died in battle with the Turks. But besides that and the part about her fondling her victims' genitilia, this is not a bad article. Not much is really known about this case, and most of it is supposition and speculation based on her life and times. As much as a fan as I am of McNally and Florescu's work there is yet to be a book written about this bizarre and fascinating caseShield2 06:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

genealogy

What was her relationship to the king of Poland and various princes of Transylvania? She seems to be of an age to be a daughter of Christopher Báthory, but was she? Or was she more distantly related? john k 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That family tree is unusual because it is formatted backwards. George and Anna were her parents, and it reads from Erzsebet to her anscestors, not her descendants. Christopher Bathory was her uncle, as was King Stephen Bathory of Poland. Her parents were cousinsShield2 07:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Backwards? No, it's a perfectly reasonable way to show a family tree. - Nunh-huh 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose. But I could see how John Kenney was confused about it and others might be as well. It looks like a good family tree to me thoughShield2 05:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC) It is backwards, in that readers of English expect things to begin in the left and proceed to the right, along the direction of reading. E.g.: English-using comics and scientific graphs. It should be expected that many would be confused. Smajie 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It is backwards, in that readers of English expect things to begin in the left and proceed to the right, along the direction of reading. E.g.: English-using comics and scientific graphs. This family tree, however, proceeds chronologically in the opposite direction. It should be expected that many would be confused. Smajie 22:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just fine anyone with half a brain can figure out that two people have a child not the otherway around John Doe or Jane Doe 17:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, sorry, but have you really made an honest effort? The Báthory family are high nobility and their genealogy is extremely well documented and not very hard to find. Get the names correct and consistent. It's written "Báthory", with an accent on the 'a' and a 'y' at the end. The "-y" ending implies nobility. You've also dropped most accents, and switch between Hungarian and English versions of names. Plus more subtle inconsistencies like using the variant "Drágfi" instead of "Drágffy" but "Bánffy" instead of "Bánfi". (Which also have the Serbo-Croatian versions "Dragović" and "Banović" respectively) Also "Warday" is German spelling of "Várday" (or "Várdai"). I have doubts about the credibility of your source here: Why assume they can keep their facts straight when they can't keep the names in order? Don't rely on random websites when there are plenty of better alternatives. --BluePlatypus 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Her parents weren't cousins. The family tree can be found here. --87.97.37.5 22:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Something I Thought I Heard About Her.

I thought I read somewhere, that actually she was a medicine women with advanced techniques, and she was only killed because people thought her treatments were some sort of evil torture. Has anybody else heard that? Where did I hear that? Did I hear that on this site?--Mullon 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's one theory proposed by a Hungarian revisionist. From what I have seen about this case, it is not a very likely one. There's always some nut who comes along and says the most foul, guilty-as-sin criminal in the world was framed. Still, many people say the "Blood Countess" was unfairly imprisoned by the Habsburgs. She did not get much of a trial at all. This is one of the most bizarre cases in history. My view is that the stories about her bathing in blood her likely spread to cover up their own complicity and inaction for many years. As for her real motives, that is still a mystery. You really have to look at what was going on in her time (i.e. the Ottoman Wars, and to make matters worse Hungary still had a fuedal system during the Renaissance). I tend to think she really was what we'd call a psychopath, but not like the kind she is commonly portrayed as. More like one who seemed normal and perhaps even welcome for a time in a brutal and cutthroat environment until even the people around her had finally had enough, like a mobster who's more interested in having people "whacked" than making money.Shield2 03:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is awful

To begin with, the biggest paragraph in the opening section is dedicated to the bloodbath legend without marking it as a legend. To claim that this originates from testimonies of the Bathory trial is just wrong. And what is that body count of 1,612? - seems like the summation of all existing estimates, at best. The highest number I am aware of is a runaway 400, mentioned in one testimony, while all the others suggest "only" dozens of victims. I`m really surprised about how awful that article is, because in the literature section, there is a reference to Michael Farins 2003 book "Heroine des Grauens". It`s an excellent book I happen to have my bookshelf. Unlike popular history or "true crime" writing, this book is a vast collection of sources, both historical and fictional (that is, 18th and 19th century literature most of the legends can be traced back to). And as far as I remember, Farin refrains from own speculation and keeps to scientific standards. At the moment I am far away from my bookshelf, but I will see what I can do about this article, using that book and the references therein. Just one thing to be taken account of is that E.B. is a historical as well as a literary figure (I mean, different from contemporary popular culture cited in the article). The legends section could be easily converted into a "E.B. in literature and myth" section, or something alike. This can be done properly, quoting valid sources. Wouldn`t that be a way to clean this mess up?--Sam195 04:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Some Questions

1. Was any evidence other than confessions produced at the trial and, if so, what was it?

2. Why was Countess Bathory not tried? Were members of the Hungarian aristocracy immune from prosecution for murder at the time?

3. If any important aspect of the case was political, does anyone know what, if anything, Hungarian historians of the period have to say about the issues? Norvo 23:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Norvo, unfortunately at the moment I can only tell you that from my memory - as soon as I have checked it out, I will put it in the article, with the according references.

If I remember correctly...

1) ...that lady was caught with her pants down. Dead bodys all over the place, burried in graves too shallow or just dumped in some ditches, a surviving victim found by Thurzo`s party, dying soon after... sounds almost too good to be true, but that`s the primary sources. Unless someone finds a historian who doubts it (not that I`m aware of any), we don`t have the authority to do so in the article. Anybody who wants to make that point should come up with valid references.

2) I was surprised to read that in the article, I thought she WAS tried, but only spared the death penalty - for the very same political reasons stated in the article (last paragraph of "life"). Otherwise, why would she have been locked up for the rest of her life? Again, I have to check that out, but I thought that records of her testimony in the trial were handed over to the family, and they got lost over the centuries. Too bad, would have been interesting...

3) Interesting point, hope anybody will find about that. It will depend on the question, whether from the historian`s point of view, she ever was more than a mere historical curiosity or a black spot on an important noble family`s record. The facts the article seems to get right show, that she was investigated (or tried - we will see...) DESPITE her family`s clout, after complaints over her wrongdoings could not be ignored any longer, but in the end the family had their way, cf. 2).

Another (technical) question of my own:

- that stupid part about the fondling of genitalia - can`t we just remove it? Or move it here? Is some sort of consensus needed to do so? (sorry, again, I`m new here). The following sentence even suggests (accidentaly, no doubt) that THIS would be "one of the most enduring parts of Báthory's legend". Instead of fixing that statement I`d suggest to remove the former sentence completely, because the "citation needed" here seems to be nothing but a poor excuse for making a totally unfounded statement.--Sam195 12:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam. From what I've read there seems to be some confusion as to whether EB herself was tried and convicted of the murders or whether she was imprisoned on some other basis - perhaps some form of 'protective custody' or imprisoned while awaiting trial - perhaps a trial that the authorities hoped to avoid. Did she ever appear in any court of law, for example and if so when, where and with what result(s)? What you write in (2) suggests she was tried, convicted - and then her death sentence was commuted? It would also be very useful to have definite information on the question of aristocratic immunity in Hungary at the time.

Martin von Schwartner in his somewhat oddly entitled book on the Hungarian constitution, Statistik des Kõnigreichs Ungern. Ein Versuch, zweyter und dritter Theil, zweyte Ausgabe, Ofen 1811, p.152, writes at some length about immense importance in the Hungarian constitution of preserving the immunity of nobles. In fact, he remarks - and it I quote in translation: 'Even the liberty of the proud and free Briton is not more firmly secured than the personal safety of the Hungarian nobleman'. At that time (1811) there were enormous difficulties even arresting a Hungarian aristo, unless charged with treason or a handful of other crimes, but these did NOT include murder. Any noble accused had to appear without delay before an aristorcratic judge of at least the same rank. Moreover, commoners were not allowed to give evidence against nobles. Obviously, the position may have changed between 1611 and 1811, but the whole thing points to amazing privileges for the nobility and to all kinds of legal obstacles. Norvo 14:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. The article states 'It is alleged that Elizabeth started to kill young women between the years 1585 and 1610'. If she herself had been tried, I'd have expected the trial to have either narrowed this long timespan or for there to be much information on why this couldn't be done. After all, she wouldn't have been tried by a jury but by a panel of atistocratic judges using an inquisitorial system. On the other hand if the only people tried were her alleged accomplices then each would presumably have been tried for the period when he/she was an alleged accomplice. Norvo 15:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I really hate that I can`t offer more than speculations at the moment... The intervention of her family (if verifiable, but it is mentioned quite consistently) wouldn`t it suggest that conviction and execution were at least possible, if not imminent?

We will see if it is merely a confusion or if indeed two (or more) different versions are believed true by historians (in which case both had to be included in the article). First: EB investigated, tried, (sentenced?) but not executed, locked up, spending rest of life writing letters pointing to growing insanity. Second (unless an editor of the article made it up himself...) EB put under house arrest, investigated in absentia, defending herself in letters, (sentenced??), locked up.

The time frame given in the article seems to represent a nowadays reconstruction of events. Maybe it would be expecting too much from a court of the closing middle ages to establish a time frame, track a "criminal career" or investigate into events 20 years back (only guessing here...)--Sam195 02:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The article itself is untrustworthy. According to many accounts there was a huge investigation, and some claim that over 200 witnesses were questioned. EB's (alleged) accomplices were executed. Of your two conjectures, most accounts seem to point to the second or something like it. I don't think I've come across any account that expressly claims that EB herself was tried. After all, the raid on her castle took place at the end of December 1610 and she died in August 1614. It's not unknown for people to spend that length of time 'awaiting trial', especially if the authorities were seeking to avoid a trial altogether, or if there were legal obstacles to a trial that first had to be overcome, such as aristocratic immunity. (It would be useful to know what the constitutional position was). Norvo 03:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that interesting discussion, I was not aware of that situation. That will probably make two versions then. At least I think I will be able to present references pointing to the first one. Could you (or anybody else, of course) take care of verifying and presenting the other version, so we can assure balance? Finding out about the constitutional circumstances of her time would be a straightforward, and, no doubt, interesting approach. But by linking it to EB I think we had to be very careful not to end up doing original research. I think my first priority will be to give that article some more structure, and of course tackle that dime novel style "legend" section, which (I believe) is the biggest flaw of this article. Unfortunately my contribution will have to wait for a few more weeks.--Sam195 06:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. I take that back. The "Investigation of her actions"-section is awful, too. And the only reference is a joke.

The question of the fondling...I have read that somwhere else and will do my best to find the cititaon, but if you want I would have no problem with you moving it here, though I am not the original writer of this article...it just caught my eye as I am currently visiting the Czech Republic and plan to see Slovakia as well... John Doe or Jane Doe 15:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Were members of the Hungarian aristocracy immune from prosecution for murder at the time?" Yes. A noble women can be prosecuted at the time only if she kills the husband, parents or child etc. Also close relatives. --87.97.37.5 22:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

NO. There were other noblewomen accused and TRIED for similar crimes (killing and torturing their maids) and pardoned by the king.

Elements pending verification

I believe it in the best interest of this articles quality to place unverified elements here. Those with reference only to private webpages shouldn`t have been in the article in the first place. I think this is the case for some more elements in the article, but I will limit myself to three elements I believe to be most problematic.

While interrogating Turks, her husband at one time employed articulated claw-like pincers of silver which, when fastened to a whip, would tear and rip the flesh to such an obscene degree that even he, a cruel man himself, soon abandoned the apparatus in disgust and left it at the castle. Báthory's aunt, a known bisexual and sadist, had introduced her to the practice of flagellation (enacted upon others), and she equipped herself with her husband's silver claws for use on Slavic debtors and other victims. She preferred to whip her subjects on the front of their nude bodies rather than their backs, so that the wounds would be more severe and so that she could watch their faces contort in agony and horror at their fate.

Báthory used other methods of torture as well, often as punishments for servants who incurred her displeasure. Sticking pins under the fingernails of maids; having a maid stripped, covering her in honey, and leaving her outside to be bitten and stung to death by insects; or having a maid stripped, taking her outside in the worst parts of winter, and dousing the unfortunate maid in cold water until she froze to death were among the tortures rumored to have taken place at her castle. She and her servants also beat and starved her victims. Other legends mention Báthory's use of the iron maiden, but this is not in the testimony of the interrogated servants. Some witnesses described spiked cages with drains in the bottom; victims were placed into the cages and prodded at with red-hot pokers until they impaled themselves on the spikes, thus providing a blood shower for Báthory. Also described was an orb-shaped cage lined with spikes that victims were placed into and the cage was then hoised up on a pulley and rocked like a pendulum, thus ensuring that the victim's flesh was shredded. Still, evidence of these spiked cages is scant.

Obviously, all of this has to be verified, parts may be plagiarized (cf above). Another reason for putting it here is, that some elements (freezing to death, starving, biting) CAN in fact be verified as historical by trial records, therefore they don`t belong to the legends/literature section but to the "life" section or to an improved "investigation" section.

It is also said that before killing her victims the countess would fondle her victims' genitalia as a way of preparing them for death.

Citation is needed indeed.

Her diaries, if they exist, may shed light on her motives but have not been published. They are said to be in Hungary's national archives.

I appologize to the person who allready improved that part, but I believe it still belongs here. It is true that their existance is dubious, but we would have to find a published source, stating that their existence is dubious. This reference is a private webpage whose author admits that he doesn`t know himself. By the way, I am thinking about how to ask that national archive without annoying them. I imagine they got more than one nutcase every day inquiring about it. Could any Hungarian out there help us, maybe this information is accesible on the national archives webpage?--Sam195 07:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is another one...

Because her eventual punishment was politically motivated, some have questioned whether she was guilty at all.

I`m not saying they didn't. Just find a published source that does so. --Sam195 13:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(1,612 in all)

won't be that many. There will be several body counts in the end: those believed true by historians (will be ranging from 60 and 180, or whatever you find) plus the 650 or 670 mentioned by one witness in the trial.

Number of victims. In the trial János Újvari says 35,Dorottya Szentesi says 30,Katalin Beniczki says 50, Ilona Jó can't give a number (L.Nagy).--87.97.35.157 18:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• The Straight Dope on Erzsébet Báthory

1. feautures EB only among other, 2. mixes facts and fiction, 3. is completely nuts (vampires are real, or something like that...)--Sam195 18:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

would not be considered acceptable in most developed countries by today's standards, since it...

Redundant, or even misleading. A 1600s court can only be judged by 1600s standard. Today's courts would accept circumstancial evidence, while back then confessions were needed for a verdict. Therefore, flawed as it may be, torture made perfect sense in jurisdiction--Sam195 04:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In the latest History Channel documentary about the history of vampires, which aired on October 31st 2006, Bathory was described as having been lesbian, having sexual affairs with her victims, drinking their blood while they were still alive, and killing them after she became bored with them.

Sorry, but a Halloween tv special can hardly be considered a valid source, (even if it weren't as flawed as this one), it's not even published in a sense that anybody could check it, nor is it in any way revied or stating it's sources. --Sam195 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

new section: EB in folklore and literature

Could native speakers please have a look at the new section? There should still be many problems of grammar and style. If so, please don`t waste time discussing them, but go ahead and change them as you please. (Actually the whole article could benefit from that)

Please let me briefly comment on my changes:

– Verifiablility: I know that`s a problem at the moment, especially after my moving unverified elements to the talkpage... All the parts I inserted could be roughly referenced to Michael Farin's book "Heroine des Grauens", but I don`t want to do that quick and dirty. Actually anybody with access to this book (or probably to McNally's book) could add some of the references.

– Future of that section: I will add representative stories as references, in order to illustrate the statements I have given there. Again, everybody with access to those sources mentioned above can do that as well. Hopefully one day this section will contain a list of all recorded stories.

– Subdivision: I think it will be useful to later divide that section into "tales" as opposed to "interpretations", placing folklore and morale stories in the former categorie, while the latter contains modern, well, interpretations, such as McNally's theory or narratives pointing to sadism or lesbianism (or, if necessary, to innocence accused, or whatever interpretations editors will dig out).--Sam195 08:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The section about torture with silver pincers/claws has been plagiarized. For what it's worth, this is one of the few online sources that mentions the issue of aristocratic immunity (towards the end). Norvo 00:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A majority of internet sources states indeed that the trial against her didn`t take place, so that version should be found at least in some book (to be honest, I`m not really sure what Farin or the sources quoted by him got to say about that). Well, anybody veryfying any of those statements would improve this article a lot.--Sam195 12:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Help! (technical/layout question)

I was trying to insert footnotes and ran into problems,

1) there is no "notes and references" section yet! Does a "references and further reading" section, as it exists now, even make sense? References would be numbered, further reading would be just listed?

2) when I tried to create a footnote, the whole article following it would vanish... could somebody give me a link to a WP Manual explaining how it's done?

3) if someone wants to create a reference section, here would be an example reference:

in the "EB in folklore..." section, in "EB and the vampire myth", the final statement "...refuted by other authors." Should be referenced to:

Miller, Elizabeth: Dracula - Sense and Nonsense. Desert Island Books 2006. ISBN: 190532815X

Thank you very much--Sam195 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and see if I can answer your questions:

1. No, I don't think the section "references and further reading" makes sense. If a book is useful as a reference it will automatically be useful as further reading as well, so the section should propably be renamed to either "References" or "Further reading" (or split in two).
2. This would happen if you forgot to put a closing </ref> tag after the <ref>. Here's an example of a footnote; press edit to see the markup codes, I'm using. The footnote manual with all the details is at Misplaced Pages:Footnotes.
3. To create the notes section, simply use a <references/> tag, like this:

1. Miller, Elizabeth: Dracula - Sense and Nonsense. Desert Island Books 2006. ISBN: 190532815X

If any of this needs further clarification, feel free to ask. Hemmingsen 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that answers my questions indeed! --Sam195 05:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Motives

section as it was:

Elizabeth was born in a brutal environment in which her family often used violence to maintain their power (e.g. the Transylvanian ruler Zsigmond Báthory who liked to have his retainers killed). Alternatively, inbreeding is sometimes wrongly believed to have caused various psychotic disorders that the family was rumored to have. McNally and Radu Florescu imply that she learned techniques of torture from her husband, the "Black Beg", or Karabeg in Turkish. Some writers claim the Báthorys were brutal individuals even for the time, but others accuse such writers of selling fiction at any cost and slandering a family that achieved great things for Hungary.

Her crimes, arrest, and imprisonment can be seen in the context of a financial wartime power struggle she and her family eventually lost to the Habsburgs. The Báthory family's influence had declined in its base, Transylvania, after their involvement in the Long War with the Turks and subsequent betrayal at the hands of their allies. After her husband's death, the Emperor had refused to pay debts owed to the late "Black Beg". Elizabeth's relative Gabriel Báthory (listed as a brother, cousin, or nephew depending on the source) was involved in anti-Habsburg intrigue following the Long War and she was said to have been linked to these activities.

Two thirds don't deal with motives at all, parts have been mentioned earlier, important aspects missing, information in parts not verified, or quoting private web pages,...

Actually motives are a topic that should be dealt with, but this had to be done in a proper way. Same goes for the historical context, in a reasonable extent. --Sam195 15:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is relevant because it deals with the Habsburgs' motives for punishing her. She was never given a trial, so it would be POV to assume they did not have their own agenda. That is not to say she was innocent, but no serious historian has ever looked at this case without admitting those who punished her had other motivations besides seeing justice done.Shield2 00:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Wheatcroft is just one example of many historians who consider Matthias II one of the worst rulers the Habsburg dynasty ever produced. I am not saying Elizabeth Bathory was innocent of mass murder, but she was a victim of a politically motivated sham trial and a smear campaign against her family (who may or may not have deserved it, certainly they were no angels but whether they were all bad is another question).Shield2 04:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a place for encyclopedic articles, rather than essay-like discussion. Please see the WP:NPOV page and also WP:NOT. Andrew Wheatcroft is a highly regarded historian and any allegations he makes may be worth adding to the article (with references), but please be careful to maintain a neutral point of view. Phrases like "just one example of many historians" etc definitely come under the category of weasel words. Moreover, terms like "smear campaign" are emotive. Incidentally, when you say "it would be POV to assume they did not have their own agenda" - no, it wouldn't. It would be POV to state "They had no agenda", but everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty! If you want to prove them guilty, you need facts and references. -- TinaSparkle 11:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree - with both of you. Those things are worth being mentioned, if verified, but I disagree with the way you started doing this, and with the location within the article.

I rather suggest we create a "historical background" section, where we could briefly mention:

• the war and her husbands role,
• the importance and influence of the Báthory family
• the power struggle with Matthias II

That can be dealt with in very few sentences, it would help to further structure the article, because these bits of information are spread over the article so far. And refraining from POV vocabulary like "betrayal" - I am troubled a bit by the language you used so far.

I'm not so sure any more a "motive"-section is needed, there is not much relevant information at all, and it can easily be added to the literature section. I might include her being mentioned in Psychopathia Sexualis as soon as I find my copy. --Sam195 18:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not mean to be POV, I am simply pointing out that she was never actually convicted of a crime in a court of law, let alone a fair trial. And also, that she and her family were involved in a power struggle with the Habsburg crown following a costly war. What was wrong with my link to the source claiming Matthias II owed Nadasdy a debt? The BBC site has no POV agenda about this case. I'm not here to say she's my hero or anything of the sort, but the given motive that she was a serial killer has no credibility at all.Shield2 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Consider this:

• She was never given a trial
• While it does seem authentic, the testimony of her accomplices is hasty because it was extracted through torture. The details are vague and incomplete.
• It is, however, the only thing close to a detailed and reliable documentation of her crimes we have to go on today.
• None of the witnesses ever mentioned her actually killing anybody to kill them, she seemed to brutally mistreat her victims and just let them die as if they brought it on themselves with their own weakness. It is almost certain that she tortured and starved many girls and was responsible for many deaths, but there is no evidence of any clearly sexually motivated serial killings. Her treatment of her victims seems more gulag-like to me.
• Sabine Baring-Gould was the first widley read writer to spread the legends about her bathing in blood, and a lot of the today's stories about her originate from Valentine Penrose's poorly researched trash novel The Bloody Countess. Neither of these sources are based on any actual testimony.
• As I've mentioned, her family has in a post-war power struggle with the Habsburgs, and Matthias II was controversial at best.
• Thurzo also had a lot to gain by seizing her property.

The questions about her motives and those of the rulers who brought her to "justice" remain unanswered, and will continue to remain so until someone examines her as a figure of her times and not as a figure of the times we are in now. Perhaps the legends, rumors, and flat out lies about her are so perversely appealing in this day and age that people just don't care to get to the bottom of the truth. Or maybe it's a matter of people imposing their views of modern "science" on this case. Personally I've never been a fan of so-called historians trying to apply Freudian methods to centuries-old historical figures, but then again I've never been a fan of Freudian methods at all. Maybe someday someone will come up with a plausible and historically valid motive. Until then, it seems Elizabeth Bathory is what whatever we make her.Shield2 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am not sure you have read the article entirely. It leaves no doubt about the nature of those legends, they are traced right back to their 18th century origin. After all this article is getting to the bottom of the truth, by limiting itself to things documented and widely accepted by historians. Even claims made by those "popular history" biographers are given very limited attention. Speculations about her motives, Freudian or else, are part of the historical reception of the case, and they are never treated as fact in the article, if included at all.

Let me briefly address the other issues you have raised:

• The essay on the bbc website is by some anonymous author not citing his/her sources, and it is not published in a sense that would make it a valid source itself (peer reviewed, publisher...). And by suggesting that those circumstances are directly responsible for her behaviour, you make a claim that has to be verified - the bbc essay did not even say so. And I'm sure for the validity of Matthias' debt there can be found a real source.
• This article has to represent historical (read: scientific) mainstream. If you think her not being a sexually or whatever motivated serial killer represents that mainstream, you have to come up with sources. Same is true for the interpretation and evaluation of witness accounts, what you suggest considering would be original research. It is just not relevant what you or I think about it, as long as it isn't published in a respectable source.
• The different interests and power struggle are mentioned. More than once. It could be done in a more central way, in a "historical background" section. Your input could be helpful there. But I still think that controversy surrounding Matthias II belongs to the Matthias II article. --Sam195 11:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I admit I was probably overstepping my bounds by making a claim about her true motives, but I was correct in saying that no one has ever proven what her true motives were and that her being a serial killer is pure speculation. As for my claim that Matthias II owed her husband, it was in the first article on her there was in the Crime Library by Denise Noe, which was far more detailed and better researched than the current one but sufferred from an annoying feminist POV. I can't find it, but I'll look elsewhere for this fact. As it is, her historical background is no more and no less of a proven factor than being a serial killer. None of the crimes that are actually documented prove she was a serial killer, although they do not necessarily disprove such an allegation either. You may be right that it would probably take original research to prove she had other motives and was at least somewhat motivated by what was going on around her, but it wouldn't be wrong to point out that allegations and assumptions of her being a serial killer have never been proven.Shield2 23:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that she was involved in battles against muslims ("Turks")? Her husband was killed by muslims, and genocidal battles were going on all around this part of Europe (the "bleeding edge" of Islam). Wars between muslims and infidels are always extremely bloody, and that might explain the lack of freudian or psychopathic proofs. And, of course, Christians never want to talk about it afterward, especially if Christians were actually involved in the slaughter of muslims. Hoserjoe 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we're in serious danger of getting into the territory of original research here. Please bear in mind that we have to keep this article within the confines of what has already been written and published on Elizabeth Báthory in reliable sources. -- TinaSparkle 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry. This is the "Talk" segment, and I'm just doing some blue-sky speculation. It's fair to speculate on "motives" within the talk section on the off chance that someone has uncovered some hard information Hoserjoe 07:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed split

At the moment, this page is very long. I feel that readers who come here looking for information on the historical figure Elizabeth Bathory will not necessarily want to wade through exhaustive and often vandalised lists of her appearances as a fictional character in folklore, literature, video boardgames, Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics, Cradle of Filth albums, and internet-published slashfiction by goth fantasists. These manifestations of the fictional EB are completely irrelevant to the life and true story of the historical EB. Moreover, these bloated lists will keep growing forever, and it's getting kind of tedious removing stuff from them when people add their own dreadful self-published novels and the song about bathing in blood they posted on their MySpaces. All of this tends to detract from, rather than add to, the quite well-researched and informative sections on EB the real person.

I propose that there be two articles: one about the historical figure EB, under the present title, and one entitled Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture (unless anyone can think of a better title), to put the present literature, folklore and popular culture sections in. If there are no objections, I'll do this next week. -- TinaSparkle 14:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I also find those growing lists of irrelevant information annoying. Only I would prefer to split off only the popular culture section and keep the section above in the main article, for several reasons:

• It's reasonably short and not likely to grow.
• readers looking for E.B. are likely to have heard about the bloodbath or related myths.
• this reception has a quite long history itself and belongs to her. There is not much historical information on the real person, so research has always been a separation of fact from fiction. I feel it would be alright if the article reflects that.

--Sam195 13:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Sam195. I've now split the article. I agree with you that plenty of people coming here will be interested in the myths, and as such I have kept some of the information from the section you mention in the main article (cut down a little to avoid going into too much detail). The full version is retained in the new article. I've moved some of the detail, simply on the basis that I don't want to make a value-judgement: to leave literature and folklore in the main article, while relegating music, film etc to a subsidiary, could be seen as a bit offensive. Of course please do move more bits back, or whatever, if you think I've left anything important out of the main piece. -- TinaSparkle 09:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Anastasia Báthory

I can't find the source of this illegitimate daughter. I think it comes from any fiction literature. It should be moved to the fiction section.--ResetGomb 18:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I haven't read about that in any book either. Delete it altogether! It would be beyond the scope of this article to list any existing misinformation about her. --Sam195 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Crimelibrary.com mentions that at age 14 she was impregnated by a local peasant. It does not give the baby's name nor any info on who/how/where it was raised. And although there are many references cited on that site, I have no clue which if any of those references they got this info from.

Just an idea. It might refer to an old misconception cleared very early. One 17th century German biographer investigated such claims and even found some church records pointing to empregnation (and, not sure about that, abortion) - and he could show that the Elizabeth Bathory mentioned there was definitely not the one in question here. That might explain the mentioning in crimelibrary.com, but not the daughter Anastasia here. I think I will take her out of the article until somebody comes along with a source. --Sam195 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nagy and similar sources

Rather than adding to above discussions (that are all about much older versions of the article), let's start this here.

I have removed some edits for several reasons:

• This article has to represent historical mainstream. Nagy and his kind represent a minority view, so it can only be included as such. Other authors have rebutted his claims, and at least two respectable biographers write he is crap. Removing such quotes and adding "convincingly" to Nagy's arguments gives a wrong impression about that mainstream.
• Editors seem to confuse the article with a talk page.
• Editors have removed perfectly verified and undisputed facts that did not fit their argumentation.

I see the problem, those chosing to believe those sources will find the article wrong and misguided, and feel they have to correct it. But this is not the point of any wiki article, an encyclopedic article can not install "the truth" but only present what is held true by a variety of published sources. I recomend you to check out the guidelines. And there is little point arguing the claims of these authors vs those of others. It is just not relevant what you or I think about it. Nagy doesn't have to convince you or me, but his fellow historians, which according to Farin and McNally he failed doing. --Sam195 08:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edits

Nadasdy took on her last name because of her status.

What does it mean?

It is said that he also was viloent with his wife.

Source ?

Her diary was found with a list of over 600 women that she had slain.

Where is the diary?

--ResetGomb 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Diablo 2

Is the Countess, from Diablo2:Act 1, based on Elizabeth Báthory, and if so, should any mention be made? Vampus 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the fictional legend from the game and The Countess character are inspired by Elizabeth Bathory. The Countess is mentioned in the Elizabeth Bathory in Popular Culture article, which is linked to in this article. A reference to a specific piece of her in popular culture isn't needed in the main article. 65.28.160.239 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

For clarity and order (appearance) I have divided the list of further reading into English, German, Hungarian, and Slovak texts that are fairly recent and not too difficult to obtain. I have also alphabetized these texts by author. The previous listing of further readings was a bit jumbled together. I have not deleted books that were listed by previous users. I have added a few more to the list that represent both a Hungarian and Slovakian p.o.v. on this topic.

I must mention that a couple of the texts are actually fictitious accounts of Elizabeth Báthory and should not be viewed as being historical biographies, e.g. Gia Bathory Al Babel, and Andrei Codrescu. Perhaps these two books should be removed and tranferred to the article on Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture?

The inclusion of additional Hungarian and Slovak texts, though not accessible to most in English, gives the list of sources greater depth and scope since Elizabeth Báthory was a Hungarian who spent much of her life in what is now Slovakia. Therefore, inclusion of references from those two cultures/countries is relevant.--Gyula 23:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

slovak nationalism

. Definietly not needed. Use prper that time names. --195.56.131.242 19:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read and follow WP:NCGN while editing articles on Misplaced Pages. Tankred 19:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these apply, the modern official name or the modern local historical name should be used, respectively. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects. - I've read it many times, but you not, just reverting and linking a WP policy, wich eventually proves that you're vandalizing pages. Vince17:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks and read the whole policy page. You will find that any discussion should occur on the talk page of the locality in question (Cachtice in this case) and there is a list of required evidence you should provide if you believe that there is any "widely accepted historical English name" of Cachtice. Otherwise, the modern official name will be used. Tankred 18:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quite annoying and boring with this continuous asking of "oh really? oh really?" what you answer for yourself immediately with "no". Why asking, if you're not intrested in the answer? Countless times proved to me, as now again, that you're not intrested in sources. If you check the two english speaking external links, you'll find out whether Csejte (older form Csejthe) or Cahtice (sorry, I don't have slovak keyboard) is used in (popular) english (sites). You know, I'm wondering whether you'll be ever intrested in facts rather than reverting me at sight. Ad hominems are only good to move you into that way, and prevent you to be caught again lying that you read, what you obviously did't. --Vince 09:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

People, people. Calm down and stop it with the personal attacks. This is only a very minor issue of nomenclature. No angry mastodons: please assume good faith, etc. If there's still an issue here, please set out your arguments straightforwardly without insulting each other, and we'll go for a consensus verdict. Thank you. -- TinaSparkle 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comment

The supposedly Germanic-Norse rock band "Bathory" is named after her.

I have deleted this unsigned comment from the top of this page and placed it here for reference. PLEASE NOTE that such observations belong in the article Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture. Not on this talk page, and not in this article. Thank you. -- TinaSparkle 19:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

elizabeth Bathory

elizabeth Bathory was a hungarian contess who, murderd 600- 700 young woman. Why? because she was drived by her absession with youth and wanting to stay young forever. she thought the blood would revitlize her. So, she fooled girls into coming to her castle for finishing school. once they were their she had many ways of torture and murder. she would kill them bath with their dead bodyies in a tub of blood. She would drink it and she would bite her servant girls when she would made them watch. Then she went to far killing the royal daughters when she was finally stopped she couldn't of been killed because she was royalty. but she could of been put under house arest so she was locked in one room in her castle until she died. was she caray? mently ill? or just a vampiress? we shall never know for sure?

Diary

In her diary there is documentation of the torture 610 women of noble and peasant lineage alike whose blood she later bathed in

• I must ask again: Where is this diary?--ResetGomb 07:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted that addition - it's completely unsupported, and as far as I know there is no diary. -- TinaSparkle 07:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

PICTURE of Bathory, ...what do you think?

The Hungarian Misplaced Pages page has a picture of her that is somewhat larger and more distinct. Shouldn't we add that picture here as well? I don't know much about editing but here's the link to the Hungarian version of this article: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.2.86.87 (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, please add it. --164.107.223.217 14:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class biography pages