Dark Sentiments – Day 14
Posted By Randy on October 14, 2010
Erzsébet (Elizabeth) Bathory was an infamous Hungarian noblewoman generally held to have been responsible for the torture and murder of at least 600 young women, and for bathing or showering in their blood as a means of retaining her youthful vigour and beauty. A variety of period portraits are claimed to have been of her, and each bears some resemblance to the others, but one thing is consistent – she was known to be one of the most beautiful women in Hungary; well educated and fluent in several languages.
In keeping with the modern need to equate evil with the supernatural, it has been erroneously reported that Erzsébet Bathory either was, or became, a vampire, and that she is also known as “Lady Dracula”. Well, I often explain to people that, if you are an intelligent person who prefers to behave as though you are an idiot, then for all practical purposes you are an idiot and the world will both see you and treat you as such until you prove yourself otherwise. Similarly, if you define a vampire as a creature requiring blood for its survival, and a person believes and embraces the belief that they are, in fact, such a creature, then it could be argued that the ingestion of the blood is a moot point and only the fact that they are a consumer matters. However you slice it, history says that Erzsébet Bathory believed bathing in the blood of young women would keep her young, and it is for this reason that she came to be referred to as the Blood Countess. As for the “Lady Dracula” title, whoever is responsible for that little bit of revisionist history is cordially invited to bite me, and enjoy my loving delivery of the silver bullet I have waiting for them when they come to take me up on my offer.
Erzsébet was born on the seventh day of August, 1560 and grew up in turbulent times. From an early age she was prone to violent seizures and sudden fits of anger. In 1575, at the age of 15, and in keeping with the style of her times, Erzsébet was married off to 26 year old Count Ferenc Nadasdy. He was a professional soldier who was often away for long periods of time, but it was he who allegedly introduced Erzsébet to the joys of inflicting torment.
All the stories point to young females being the target of what today would be considered atrocities but were, at the time, no surprise at all unless taken to excess. Before leaving her in control of the household, Erzsébet’s husband taught her some entertaining ways of punishing serving girls who attracted her ire. For example, in winter a young woman would be tied naked outside and water poured over her until her skin froze. A summer alternative involved a similarly naked and tied woman, and honey, and insects, and time. Lots of time.
Erzsébet’s husband died in 1604. After that, she really got started.
Erzsébet’s epiphany is said to have come on the day one of her female servants pulled her hair while brushing it, resulting in a beating that drew blood, some of which splashed onto Erzsébet’s hand. The story further goes that Erzsébet noticed the blood almost instantly restored a youthful tightening and a more healthy glow to her skin. The die was cast.
Erzsébet did not act alone. She enlisted the aid of a variety of servants and associates about some of whom very little is known. In the course of her reign of terror, she also grew progressively more perverse and creative in the tortures she devised for her victims. With the help of her confederates, she acquired her livestock, warehoused and tortured them, sometimes for weeks or even months. She had their bodies drained into a bathtub in which she bathed. She had an “iron maiden” style housing devised with blades that when closed on its living contents would permit anyone who stood below to enjoy a blood shower.
As time and disappearances went on, it became progressively more difficult to replace her household staff, and it’s said that Erzsébet began to prey on lesser members of her own class, in at least one case blaming the death on suicide. But this was a slippery slope in a time when nobles could, for the most part, do what they wanted with their minions. Complaints began to mount, and things became impossible to ignore.
An investigation was launched in the summer of 1610 that resulted in a trial the following year. Motivated by the allegations that Erzsébet had facilitated or directly caused the violent deaths of at least 600 young women? Not exactly. To be accurate, her acts were used against her as the catalyst for avoiding repayment of a substantial loan her late husband had made to the King. She had also been left a substantial inheritance of land, all of which would be forfeit if she were found to be guilty.
Erzsébet was only charged with 80 counts because on entering her home only that many dead women were found. It is alleged that her dungeon contained a number of the nearly dead, with bodies pierced, slashed, burned, and bitten; each with her own story to tell.
Erzsébet refused to cooperate. There were two trials, the last of which saw her personal journal admitted as evidence. Allegedly in her own hand writing, it contained details of her deeds, and named over 600 victims.
According to one chronicler:
“At this trial Johannes Ujvary, major-domo, testified that about 37 unmarried girls has been killed, six of whom he had personally recruited to work at the castle. The trial revealed that most of the girls were tortured for weeks or even months. They were cut with scissors, pricked with pins, even prodded with burning irons onto short spikes in a cage hung from the ceiling to provide Bathory with a “blood shower”. Sometimes the two witches tortured these girls, or the Countess did it herself. Elizabeth’s old nurse testified that about 40 girls had been tortured and killed. In fact, Elizabeth killed 612 women — and in her diary, she documented their deaths. A complete transcript of the trial was made at the time and it survives today in Hungary. Of the people involved in these killings, all but Countess Bathory and the two witches were beheaded and cremated. Due to her nobility, Elizabeth was not allowed by law to be executed. The two accomplices had their fingers torn out and were burned alive. The court never convicted Countess Elizabeth of any crime, however she was put under house arrest. She was sentenced to life imprisonment in her torture chamber and stonemasons were brought to wall up the windows and doors of the room with the Countess inside. They left a small hole through which food could be passed. King Mátyás II demanded the death penalty for Elizabeth but because of her cousin, the prime minister, he agreed to an indefinitely delayed sentence, which really meant solitary confinement for life.”
And so it was decreed that Erzsébet Bathory was walled up in her own chamber of horrors, with an opening to the outside world only large enough to receive her meals. On 21 August 1614 , after three and a half years of imprisonment, she was found dead by one of her jailers who, it is said, described her as still one of the most beautiful women in Hungary. Or perhaps he was misquoted and actually said she was one of the most beautiful still women in Hungary. The visual acuity of the jailer has never been documented.

In his book “Countess Dracula”, Tony Thorne gives a slightly different account of this story. According to his research the accusations against Elisabeth were greatly exaggerated. Though not exactly mild mannered, she was no more cruel to her servants and subjects than it was common for Eastern European nobility at that time. She was, however fiercly independent, extremely wealthy and after the death of her husband in control of a vast estate. Thorne claims – and presents impressive evidence for it – that the trial was based on evidence fabricated by her enemies to rob her of her wealth and power.
Thank you Kevin. A lot of what I read and otherwise absorbed in the course of preparing this article was contradictory and, in some cases, all about the shock value, but a lot carried over with enough consistency to indicate a kernel of that highly fluid thing we laughingly call “truth”. I agree with you that a setup by powerful enemies is absolutely not out of the question and, in the end, the kind of evil born of simple greed is a lot more likely to be at the root of things than a demented serial killer maintaining her youth through black magick rituals and sadosexual acts of torture.
Allegedly, Erzsébet initially insisted that her victims be given Christian burials until local clergy refused to participate any further. She is also alleged to have enjoyed the complicity of a number of trusted servants and associates. Even in a time when people considered bear bating, torture, and executions to be spectator sports, the kind of things Erzsébet is claimed to have done to so many women over a period of years reminds me of the adage that history is written by the victor.
Was it all made up by covetous rivals? Did she enjoy the help of so many people for so long out of their fearing the consequences of selling her out? Were they “appeasers” of the sort Winston Churchill identified as feeding an alligator in hopes that it will eat him last? Were they complicit at all or were they simply collateral damage trotted out to support trumped up charges? Whatever the truth, it’s a ripping yarn.
Thanks again for your comment.
Agreed. I also like the Grand Guignol type story much better although considering the way the world works I would not really be surprised if it turned out to be a smokescreen to justify what was really motivated by plain greed. But ist’t it strange how such a story develops a life of its own over the centuries, fact being obscured by rumours, fiction slowly replacing documented history, events once real become the focus of fantasies and projections?
And movies. Let’s not forget movies.
Agreed again! Although I still opt for scepticism concerning historical authenticity I am grateful for the cinematic interpretations of the Countess with their dark erotic undertones. In fact your blog inspired me to dig into my DVD collection and rewatch Harry Kümmel’s “Sisters of Darkness”, that artsy Belgian movie from the 70’s, featuring Delphine Seyrig (of “Last Year in Marienbad” fame) as Countess Bathory. I also remember a cheap pulp horror novel I stumbled across as a teenager. It probably was of dubious literary quality and I guess I bought it because it showed a nude chick on the cover but the story about a reincarnated Erzsebet haunting the crypts and cellars beneath modern day Vienna inspired not only a lifelong love for that city but also an intense fascination with horror.
By the way, I really like your blog..
Thanks for your kind comments and I’m glad to keep you coming back for more!
In a future article I’ll be exploring the mixing of sex and violence in film and literature. There’s no denying it’s a winning combination, but the audience reaction to it is interestingly individual. Some enjoy slasher films – “horror” of the torture porn variety that represent what amounts to a snuff film they feel safe watching because they know it isn’t real.
The best treatment of any film blending of sex with dark sentiments comes out of Europe, and once in a while out of a North American independent production company. When big money lays its hand on the genre you get movies like Exit to Eden, Body of Evidence, and Basic Instinct. Entertaining and all, but the darker side of sexuality always seems to be portrayed as the province of the crazed.Hollywood lacks the ability to address subjects such as those portrayed in, say, the “Beauty” series from the exquisite Anne Rice.