The use of the phrase “human vampyre” came only a couple of months after the release of Polidori’s “The Vampyre”. Used in a court case in Cork, Ireland in 1819, it generated a lot of praise from international audiences, especially the United States. Appearing in various East Coast newspapers, such as Pennsylvania's Lancaster Intelligencer, the court transcripts received great interest due to Counsellor Charles Phillips’ extravagant monologues. Phillips was a well-educated man with immense skill in oration, assisted by his further interest in poetry and prose, maybe even those of his contemporaries. He would become well known due to his unorthodox defenses that acquitted many with his pursued references (more information listed here).

The use of the “human vampyre” is an interesting one for its time in the spectrum of literary vampire history. Pointedly because of the distinction of “human” in the vampire’s classification. Creating a restriction of vampires and their traits or abilities between divisions. This brings up the question of what are the classifications of vampires. What marks a distinction between one and another, or is it the result of a victim’s casualty that defines them?

In Phillips’ court case, the murderer is specifically mentioned as “human” to the killing, abuse, and manipulation of two women. Describing the man as being perfidious, adulterous, and irreligious but topped with, “betraying and destroying” while “wheedling the family” for selfish gain. Taking advantage of others through deception and stealing the trust between people. On top of that, this was during a time in Europe when religion was the name and title of every person. Even going as far as religion being the reason for vampires (vampire burials video). As such, denouncing all religions would have been a sign of betrayal to family, community, and the social ladder. Taking special consideration to be physically disruptive to the lives of others. Whether this be through chaotic conversation or billowing destructiveness. The “human” aspect contains a high effort of physicality. Thus, the “human” version of a vampire is defined by such and similar terms. These terms would dismiss the general human social values and empathy of an individual toward anyone unwilling to follow the person’s gratified selfishness.

But there are also emotional vampires, vampires that, for personal gain, dwindle and manipulate the emotional capacity of their victims. A psychological concept that has been studied and built on for years. Most prominently understood as the power gained over another person through the corruption of internal social boundaries. A concept that ties hand in hand with humanity and its social interactions. Becoming innately human and part of human nature. But emotional vampirism does not require physical destruction to be draining of someone. The emotional draining can be actively pursued and altered to conform to each person’s unique boundaries. Forcing others to question themselves and their values. In other words, torturing someone through destructive immaterial choices. The end goal is to acquire self-righteousness and evoke fear (more on psychological emotional vampirism).

On the other hand, some vampires are seen as supernatural, having natures that resemble that of humans. But the abilities they possess separate them from the idea of a “human,” outside that of human potential. This is the primary way of discussing the vampires through literature. Showing elements of the “human” and emotional vampire. Dracula is a perfect case of all three with his deceitfulness tied to the elusive transformations and the carnage ensued on retaliators. His supernatural feats morphed to fit into the relationship of complex vampire identities. Eveline’s Visitant marks a strong emotional tie as Eveline’s health decays through conversation with a phantom-like man who questions her life. Eliciting the subtleness of the supernatural tendencies of vampires in literature. Showing the complications of classifying where and how a vampire fits into a category. That one is not all, and all is not one.