Infamous Lady: The True Story of Countess Erzsébet Báthory

by Craft, Kimberly

  According to a servant of Pál Nádasdy who wrote a historical chronicle of Csejthe, Erzsébet was buried at the church in Csejthe (some say in a crypt beneath the church, while others claim the local cemetery), on November 25th. It is said, however, that the residents soon began to complain that the “Infamous Lady” was lying under holy ground and demanded that she be removed. Erzsébet’s remains were supposedly taken back to the Báthory family estate in 1617. Where she lies today, however, is something of a mystery: in his book, Trencin, Trnava, J. Branecky reported that on July 7, 1938, the crypt at the Csejthe church was opened but that the Countess’ grave was not found. It is also claimed that in 1995, the Báthory family crypts at Nyírbátor were also opened. No remains of the Countess were found at that site, either. Other commentators claim that she is buried in the Lamosz Cemetery in Budapest, although there does not yet appear to be any credibility to this assertion or the existence of the site itself.

  20

  A GLIMPSE INTO THE COUNTESS’ PERSONALITY

  As a result of Hungary’s decision to declare Countess Báthory “legally dead,” as though she had never existed, no archives exist for the Báthory family, and it is likely that significant correspondence, personal items, portraits, and information regarding intimate details have been lost forever, whether forgotten, pilfered, or destroyed. Experts have nonetheless attempted to piece together more information on her character and personality, particularly from analyses of her handwriting.

  We do have her signature on the Last Will and Testament. Graphologist Klára Ácsová rendered the following opinion on it: “Partially due to her decadent nature, but also as a result of sexual dissatisfaction, sadism overcame her more and more. Her sadism might have originated in unfulfilled love because she was forced to marry somebody other than whom she loved. This broke her and initiated increasing cravings for revenge in her. She was mischievous, dangerous and harmful to her surroundings. We can equate her with Lucrezia Borgia, but Erzsébet Báthory was more realistic and deliberate. According to her handwriting, she was not schizophrenic or mad, as some of her biographers say.”

  It is possible, however, the Ácsová’s opinion was skewed. She was given only a rather poor reproduction of the original signature to study and did not have access to the entire document. Also, she knew to whom the signature belonged, and this might have clouded her objectivity. Of interest, Ácsová would be asked to render a second opinion, this time under more controlled circumstances, and her opinion changed as a result.

  Specifically, Hungarian judge Irma Szádeczky-Kardos ordered a second graphological test done for a comprehensive study. This time, the entire will document was used. To ensure impartiality, all names, dates and significant data were blacked out of the text so that the expert had no idea whose handwriting was under analysis. Ácsová was called a second time to render an opinion. Unaware that the will belonged to Erzsébet Báthory, Ácsová’s study revealed this time that the writer had a “strong, determined and self-confident personality, with a logical mind and manly character.” These qualities resulted from a strict and cold upbringing. The writer was realistic, critical, hated resistance, and stood high above others. She was not so much loved as respected – not due to her cruelty but rather for her uncompromising attitudes, strictness and frequent humiliation of others. She required order in everything. The handwriting does not reveal any signs of sadism or sexual deviation, and does not reveal any signs of pathology except for occasional bouts of hysteria. However, the signature, coming right before she died and during her internment, bears signs of schizophrenia.

  The graphologist was repeatedly asked whether she found indicators of sadism or other sexual deviation, since her second report conflicted with the first. Of interest, Ácsová consistently replied in the negative.

  Tomáš Gugenberger carried out another graphological analysis on two of the Countess’ personal letters. However, he was told beforehand that he would be analyzing the characteristics of a serial killer. This may have influenced his opinion, unfortunately. In any case, his findings on the personality and character of Erzsébet Báthory differ from Ácsová’s.

  According to Gugenberger, the Countess did have some good qualities: she was religious, generous and dignified. Dignity, in fact, seemed to be very important for her. She could also be optimistic, on occasion. However, she had a number of weaknesses: “self-contented, impatient, emotional, egocentric, distrustful, insensate, irritable, impulsive, unpredictable, indecisive and guileful. Her intellectual abilities were poor and she was controlled by strong sexual desire, cruelty and self-indulgence.”

  Gugenberger based his findings on a letter written in 1606 by the Countess to György Thurzó’s wife, Erzsébet Czobor. Gugenberger also analyzed a second letter written in 1610. By that time, he identified “a tendency for criminality, cruelty, whimsicality, unstableness and perversity joined, and all these features determined her sadism. Also a mental disorder appeared.”

  21

  POSTSCRIPT

  In the end, as with every sensational murder trial, we are often left with the questions, ‘Did they really do it?, and, ‘Why did they do it?’

  We know that, were Countess Báthory to be tried under the existing criminal legal system in the United States, she would undoubtedly be acquitted for the simple fact that she was denied various Constitutional rights—most especially, the right to representation and the chance to face her accusers in court. In her own time, however, such was not the case: no such rights were guaranteed, even for the nobility.

  There were, however, various inconsistencies, even in her own time, that merited attention. The King’s legal advisors admitted to certain procedural errors that occurred, including the premature public knowledge generated by the inquest before its completion. And even the royal notaries conceded that much of the testimony against the Countess included little more than hearsay.

  We are still not absolutely certain that she was caught in the act: along with the sitting judicial council of the time, two hundred years after the trial, Fr. László Turóczi made the claim that Countess Báthory was caught red-handed, thus immortalizing the tradition. However, we have yet to find actual documentation from the period to verify this. Thurzó and the men who followed him into Csejthe Manor on the evening of the raid never testified to having caught the Countess in the act; Thurzó never made that assertion in answer to his wife’s question as to whether or not the Countess was personally guilty; and even the King’s Chamber cryptically wrote that the Countess had been caught in the act only “so to speak.”

  This author believes that it would have been impossible for the Countess to continue protesting her innocence or making the kind of bold statements to the clergy and nobility that she did, after the raid, had she actually been caught red-handed that night.

  On the other hand, this author does not believe that she was innocent, either. The testimony from her accomplices and most trusted staff is too clear and consistent to deny. Hundreds died—whether by her hand or through her staff—and she most certainly knew what her accomplices were doing even if she did not commit all of the deeds herself. It is doubtful, however, that she killed over 600—even the King, Palatine and court system of her own time gave no credence to this incredible number submitted by a mere child. Likely, the numbers submitted by her accomplices were most accurate: they had nothing to lose at that point and knew her secret activities best.

  In the end, we wonder why she did it—how someone as brilliant, poised, and wealthy as Countess Báthory could spend her free time tormenting and murdering the small and innocent. And yet, we wonder that about all serial killers. Many seem to start out the same: inflicting small acts of cruelty upon those weaker than themselves—animals, perhaps, or young children—gradually increasing in intensity until the killer can no longer control the urge. Like an addiction, the desire for power, or the murderous rage that explodes, simply cannot be helped—or stopped—no matter the consequences.

 
; We know that Countess Báthory was receiving advice, warnings, and even urgings from her personal staff to stop what she was doing—yet she still refused, fully assured that she was above the law of her day. In that sense, she must have believed that she was the law. And yet, a pathology clearly existed. Likely, she was brutalized as a child and as a young wife: it is common that one who victimizes others was frequently a victim, as well. Witnesses claimed that the Countess could not eat or drink if she did not kill a victim first, and that she even wrapped herself in nettles, allowing her maidens to look upon her and touch her in that state. The fact that her girls—victims who, for the most part, ranged in age from 10 to 14—were repeatedly stripped naked, made to tend to her in a state of undress, and then forced to suffer heinous punishments for the least infraction indicates an extreme sexual disorder.

  In the end, the Countess had convinced even herself that, somehow, she was innocent of any wrongdoing and insisted on this with a fervent, almost righteous indignation. At the same time she was making charitable donations to help the poor and needy, she was also torturing and murdering children—perhaps the most needy of all. Yet she had no hesitation blaming this brutality on her hand-picked servants, going so far as to say that she herself was afraid of what they were doing and, in essence, somehow helpless to stop them. Again, the complexity of her case—and the depths of her disorder—make her a figure of fascinating study. Over time, hopefully, we will come to better understand her personality—and her disorder—or history will inevitably repeat itself.

  As for the people who figured prominently in the Countess’ life, we can say the following:

  Her cousin Gabór Báthory, Prince of Transylvania and the man whom she hoped would rescue her from prison, was murdered on October 18, 1613, by his own men, roughly one year before she died.

  Daughter Anna died on August 13, 1615. She had no children.

  In December 1615, Palatine György Thurzó died. His wife, Erzsébet Czobor, famous for pilfering Countess Báthory’s jewelry, would later die in poverty.

  On March 9, 1616, 18-year-old son Pál Nadasdy divided the goods at Csejthe and Beckov between himself and György Drugeth de Homonnay. On August 3, 1620, Pál Nádasdy was betrothed to Judith Revay. On December 15, 1621, their first son, György, was born. On January 14, 1623, their second son, Ferenc, was born, followed by numerous other children. In 1671, Ferenc would be executed for treason by the Hapsburgs.

  There was a survivor from Castle Csejthe, a young girl named Anna who was rescued on the night of the raid. She was taken to the nearby town of Újhely and treated there by the town barber (surgeon), Thomas. Anna was then taken back to the home of her widowed mother. Anna’s hand had been cut into pieces; on her back, pieces had been cut out on both sides of her shoulders; on her buttocks, flesh had also been cut out on both sides. She was bedridden for over two months. The local records indicate that, “Because of this treatment, she received 56 guilders and 15 pounds of wheat, guaranteed by the Üjhely measure, from the Administrator of Csejthe by command of the illustrious Lord Palatine. After her recovery, she and her mother were given a small farm in Csejthe as free property.”

  APPENDIX

  LETTERS, TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS, DEPOSITIONS, AND DOCUMENTS (LISTED CHRONOLOGICALLY), INCLUDING PORTRAITS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

  EMPEROR’S LETTER TO THE HUNGARIAN COURT CHAMBER IN VIENNA APRIL 26, 1575

  We have respectfully asked Ferenc Nádasdy, after he proposed marriage to the late Count Gyorgy Bathory’s daughter Elizabeth Bathory--to be joyfully celebrated on Sunday the 8th, in the coming month of May at Varanno—to know that it is our delight and desire to send our wedding envoy delegation. And (we) graciously granted, in accord with his obedient request, an order for a master craftsman to build a decorative credenza. We commend their mercy that they receive a silver-overlaid goblet or a picher and basin valued at 200 Thaler to be brought to them instead of our appearance at their wedding, the delivery of which is to be ordered. In addition, we graciously want you to know that the Roman Empress, our amiable, beloved spouse, thought Nádasdy should also receive a goblet worth 100 Thaler, and we desire to allocate the money for that. So we have also graciously granted that our amiable, beloved sons, Rudolph, King of Hungary, and Archduke Ernst of Austria, should also provide cups worth 150 Thaler, as well as have the credenza inscribed, and issue this gracious command: Your choice will certainly be honored, whether they bring the serving cups with them and herewith order them, or you have the craftsman make them in a style similar to our Spanish Court (as otherwise will not pay for it). This indicates our gracious will and opinion. Prague, 26 April 1575.

  THURZÓ’S LETTER TO ANDRÁS OF KERESZTÚR

  MARCH 5, 1610

  Count György Thurzó of Bethlenfalva, Palatine of the Kingdom of Hungary, Judge of Kumans and Arva, and also governor of the same counties under His Majesty, Mátyás II, by the grace of God King of Hungary, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, etc., Councilor and Governor of Hungary, etc.

  To the laudable councilor, András of Keresztúr, Notary of the aforementioned Holy Kingdom, hail and greetings. You know that we have heard at various times credible and serious allegations regarding the generous and famous Lady Erzsébet Báthory, widow of the late, illustrious and famous Lord Ferenc Nádasdy; that, namely, this woman Erzsébet Báthory, disregarding her reverence for God and the people, cruelly murdered one-knows-not-how-many girls and virgins and other women in her Gynaecaeum in various ways, and that it was incumbent upon us equally by the will of said Royal Majesty, as well as by virtue of said laws and regulations of the Kingdom Hungary, as Palatine of the same Kingdom of Hungary, appointed on the basis of our office and our inherent authority as Palatine under the laws of the Kingdom, against the aforementioned violence and unbearably severe crimes. However, according to law and to proceed against said Lady Erzsébet Báthory, and to be able to speak of a proper judgment when it should be necessary and possibly obtained, we wish to proceed in the above manner according to the law of the Kingdom and ask you to make inquiries of reliable witnesses. We therefore send you with serious intent and by virtue of our authority as Palatine, and give you binding instructions and strict commands as soon as you receive this letter, over all and every individual, including ecclesiastical dignitaries and aristocrats as well as nobles and other people of both sexes, of whatever origin they may be, from the counties of Bratislava, Nitra, Trencén and Bars, all of which is covered by our commission, after their appointment and summons for questions on the above, regarding the killings perpetrated on girls and women by said Lady Erzsébet Báthory, to the fullest, most reliable and pure truth to be known and discovered: from the spiritual leaders in the purity of their conscience, and by those nobles and other ordinary, honest people of both sexes in their faith in God and, above all, the Royal Majesty and their sacred duty of fidelity to the Crown. (In addition, under the power of our authority as Palatine, with serious and strict intent, we add the following -- under threat of a strict penalty of 16 marks, the heavy weight of which shall be relentlessly pursued from the affected, as this shall be a general decree -- that they indeed may not have the nerve to deviate in any way from the pure truth in their responses to the questions.) And after a thorough investigation of this evidence, you should send to us our customary and necessary letter report, so that justice may be done. Given at Bratislava, on the 5th day of the month of March, the year of the Lord 1610.

  THURZÓ’S LETTER TO MÓZES CZIRÁKY

  MARCH 5, 1610

  We, Count György Thurzó of Bethlenfalva, Palatine of the Kingdom of Hungary, Judge of Kumans and Arva, and perpetual governor of the same county (Arva), a confidential councilor of the holy Prince and Lord, Lord Mátyás, by the grace of God elected Roman Emperor, at all times and of several kingdoms the King of Germania, Hungary, Bohemia, etc., Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, etc., and governor of Hungary.

  We give the following with this well-known text, so that all may benefit. By the good prompting of the Ho
ly, Imperial and Royal Majesty, our lenient Lord, through special mandates and extensive writings containing interviews, confessions and statements about the cruel and outrageous acts of sacrilege apparently committed by the noble and illustrious Lady Erzsébet Báthory, the widow of the former Lord Ferenc Nádasdy, etc., issued under the seals and handwritten signatures of certain loyal nobleman who gave public notice and all of whom are known to you, having been reported equally, we desire to and must assign under our Palatinal Seal and Handwritten Signature:

  That the first report of the honorable Mózes Cziráky, our Deputy Notary, in the form of a book, together with our judicial seal, reaffirms as follows:

  We, Count György Thurzó of Bethlenfalva, Palatine of the Kingdom of Hungary, Judge of Kumans and Arva, and also governor of the same counties and Council to the Holy Prince and Lord, Lord Mátyás II, by the grace of God King of Hungary, appointed king of Bohemia, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, and Governor of Hungary.

  We submit and publish this, our report, for the advantage of all; that the honorable Master Mózes Cziráky, our Deputy Notary, under our orders summarized these reports and handed them over, which were written on unsealed paper and then attached at the inner edge with our secret and valid seal, with our Deputy Notary adding the following text to it: