Welcome to our New Forums!

Our forums have been upgraded and expanded!

Satanic Personalities Section: A Community Project [JG Karnonnos + Update]

All articles about Hypatia, Solon, Emperor Julian and Giordano Bruno are good. We will refurbish them with more hieratic information, biographical info and other things. There are certain things about Julian unknown and inaccessible just via the histories. He was not just a 'regular' person. Solon is also of a very elevated importance.

I would like to write something about artists like Da Vinci or Botticelli. Botticelli was influenced a lot by the Platonic Academy, which wanted to bring back to Italy the ideas of the Ancient Past. I could write something about that too, even if I'm not 100% sure it is something good or something corrupted.
One thing I don't understand is, should I do my research and then post everything in this thread? Or should I send it to JG Karnonnos? I need a guideline.
You can either post it in the thread or send it to me via conversation when it is completed.
 
All articles about Hypatia, Solon, Emperor Julian and Giordano Bruno are good. We will refurbish them with more hieratic information, biographical info and other things. There are certain things about Julian unknown and inaccessible just via the histories. He was not just a 'regular' person. Solon is also of a very elevated importance.


You can either post it in the thread or send it to me via conversation when it is completed.
Thanks, Guardian! Yes, I felt like I did not do Emperor Julian enough Justice, so any high level contribution would be great. Furthermore, he has "a lot" of information that would be relevant for a more detailed page, but I was a bit overwhelmed—I hope I didn't disappoint The Emperor.

Looking forward to the high level stuff 👌
 
All articles about Hypatia, Solon, Emperor Julian and Giordano Bruno are good. We will refurbish them with more hieratic information, biographical info and other things. There are certain things about Julian unknown and inaccessible just via the histories. He was not just a 'regular' person. Solon is also of a very elevated importance.


You can either post it in the thread or send it to me via conversation when it is completed.
Okay, thank you!
 
Dear Master Cobra

¿Could someone please send me (send us) the list you already have compiled? ¿Could you please let me (let us) know how many of these Heroes already have a page written? ¿Could you also let me (us) know, if you need Spanish translation of some of these pages? I want to participate! I used to do translations into Spanish for JoS back in 2014 to 2016, I may have some time now to help with these. I know my internet connect is not as good as many others here, but still, I'd like to give my support. I can also translate from Spanish into English.

Thank you!
 
Dietrich Eckart

1729191396987.png


Dietrich Eckart was born in Neumarkt, Bavaria on the 23rd of March, 1868.

The death of Eckart's mother in 1878, when he was only 10 years old, was an event that heavily affected him and made him rebellious against various forms of authority, most notably his father and the various schools he went to as a teenager.

In his early 20's, Eckart started cultivating his interest in literature and spirituality. In 1891, he decided to start writing poems and playwrights. He moved to Berlin in 1899, where he wrote a number of plays. In 1913, after 14 years of living in Berlin, he moved to Munich. Adolf Hitler, who at the time had no association with Eckart, also moved to Munich in 1913 from Vienna.

Dietrich Eckart, along with Gottfried Feder, Anton Drexler, and Karl Harrer, founded the DAP (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) in January of 1919. The DAP was later rebranded into the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly referred to as the "Nazi Party").

All four founders of the DAP were members of the Thule Society (from the Greek "Θούλη"), a Völkisch/Pagan occult group which denied both Abrahamism and communism. Its central ideas were Paganism/Satanism, anti-communism, anti-semitism, and Germanic racialism. There were also references to the "Holy Grail", not as a christian symbol, but rather as a metaphor for the Solar Chakra, where the elixir of life is stored.

The "Holy Grail" (Solar 666 Chakra) is also seen in Satanas's second Sigil:
1729194760272.png


Adolf Hitler, who soon became the leader of the NSDAP, was mentored by Dietrich Eckart. It is also stated that Eckart was a Dedicated Satanist. Many prominent members of the Third Reich were also members of the Thule Society, including Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's deputy in the NSDAP Rudolf Hess, as well as Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring.

Eckart's most notable work is "Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin", where he exposes christianity and communism as vehicles for Jewish world domination.

In 1923, on his deathbed, Eckart stated the following:
"Follow Hitler! He will dance, but it is I who have called the tune."

Part of Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" was dedicated to Eckart.
 
Dietrich Eckart

View attachment 4369

Dietrich Eckart was born in Neumarkt, Bavaria on the 23rd of March, 1868.

The death of Eckart's mother in 1878, when he was only 10 years old, was an event that heavily affected him and made him rebellious against various forms of authority, most notably his father and the various schools he went to as a teenager.

In his early 20's, Eckart started cultivating his interest in literature and spirituality. In 1891, he decided to start writing poems and playwrights. He moved to Berlin in 1899, where he wrote a number of plays. In 1913, after 14 years of living in Berlin, he moved to Munich. Adolf Hitler, who at the time had no association with Eckart, also moved to Munich in 1913 from Vienna.

Dietrich Eckart, along with Gottfried Feder, Anton Drexler, and Karl Harrer, founded the DAP (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) in January of 1919. The DAP was later rebranded into the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly referred to as the "Nazi Party").

All four founders of the DAP were members of the Thule Society (from the Greek "Θούλη"), a Völkisch/Pagan occult group which denied both Abrahamism and communism. Its central ideas were Paganism/Satanism, anti-communism, anti-semitism, and Germanic racialism. There were also references to the "Holy Grail", not as a christian symbol, but rather as a metaphor for the Solar Chakra, where the elixir of life is stored.

The "Holy Grail" (Solar 666 Chakra) is also seen in Satanas's second Sigil:
View attachment 4370

Adolf Hitler, who soon became the leader of the NSDAP, was mentored by Dietrich Eckart. It is also stated that Eckart was a Dedicated Satanist. Many prominent members of the Third Reich were also members of the Thule Society, including Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's deputy in the NSDAP Rudolf Hess, as well as Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring.

Eckart's most notable work is "Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin", where he exposes christianity and communism as vehicles for Jewish world domination.

In 1923, on his deathbed, Eckart stated the following:
"Follow Hitler! He will dance, but it is I who have called the tune."

Part of Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" was dedicated to Eckart.

I feel that the name "Dietrich" is of a huge importance.

First, we have Fuhrer Dietrich in history who cultivated his interest in literature and spirituality, and then, we have our esteemed HPS Maxine Dietrich who played an immense role in publishing knowledge to all of us and had a very high degree in education, as well as Mensa university.

May the name of Dietrich be blessed and honored 🎖
 

Enheduanna​

Daughter or Sargon of Akkad the King of Sumeria, Enheduanna was appointed by her father as High Priestess of Inanna she composed a variety of hymns and prayers to all the Anunnaki but of course most notably Inanna to whom she wrote the Exaltation of Inanna, Lady of Heaven and Inanna and Ebih as well as a wide variety of temple hymns, she is in fact the oldest known author in human civilization, much of her life remains mysterious due to the sheer amount of time that has passed and the incredible amount of destruction the world had experienced however we know that she remained the High Priestess of Inanna throughout her life including when a usurper to the city of Ur usurped the throne of her Father's Grandson called Naram-Sin, as you can see Enheduanna was clearly extremely long lived as not only was she still High Priestess at the time but she had enough vitality to openly refuse to acknowledge the usurpers power leading to her exile from the city during which she performed a great act of Theurgy to Inanna known as the Nin me šara after which Naram-Sin successfully brought the usurpers to their knees not just in the city of Ur but across his entire empire after which the remainder of reign was stable and prosperous.

Enheduanna has no known date of death nor any description of her death has ever been found, it seems likely to me that she ascended the realm of the Gods whom she had spent her entire life serving along with her having served her people to such an extent that even the usurper would not dare to lay a hand on her and thus was forced to resort to a short lived exile for the High Priestess.
 
Was the military statesman Horatio Nelson in the occult?

This is just a guess and I have not been able to find any information that directly suggests he was involved in Freemasonry or the occult.
But I find it very curious that after coming into contact with some people who seem to have been involved his life changed radically: he left his Christian wife and his relationship with the model and dancer Emma Hamilton was compared in that time to Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra.

The most interesting part is that just after his death this painting called Apotheosis of Nelson was painted in which he is depicted with the Gods.

1024px-Apotheosis_of_Nelson.jpg
 
I am disappointed I could not have studied and contributed more, especially about Imhotep and Hypatia. I understand that it is late, and this may not provide much, but this is what I have found from the figure who I studied: Florence Nightingale. She was a peculiar woman, her logic and abstract thinking was well-founded, but her reasoning always led back to her Xian beliefs. I am going to be quoting directly from her book Notes on Nursing: What it is and What it is Not, so this may be a rather lengthy post.

Underlying Occult Messages
Right at the beginning, Nightingale proposes that disease is a reparative process, "an effort of nature and to remedy a process of poisoning or decay" and compares it to Mont Blanc. This book was written during the Romantic Era, so the comparison isn't all that surprising. If accepted as a general principle, it is immdiately met with instances that prove the contrary, so too would the claim that all climates of earth are made to be habitable by man. "Will the top of Mont Blanc ever be made habitable? Our answer would be, it will be many thousands of years before we have reached the bottom of Mont Blanc in making the earth healthy. Wait till we have reached the bottom before we discuss the top". This could be her way of implying "As Above, So Below", as is what I initially thought.

Preceeding this statement, Nightingale crticizes the Roman Catholic Church. They see no point in there being a nurse, if it does not meet their needs or serves them in any way that is not "religious". Nurses need no vow, no special accomodations, however, a nun or priest will see much of these. "But is a "vow" necessary to convince us that the true spirit for learning any art, most especially an art of charity, alright, is not a disgust to everything or something else? Do we really place the love of our kind (and of nursing, as one branch of it) so low as this?"

General Findings
While this is more so applied to the health of an individual, she emphasizes clean and fresh air. Air that is not cold or polluted and is well ventilated. "...keep the air breathed by her patient as pure as the air without." We know the effects of breathing in filthy air and what this does to a person's lungs. What about a sick person's lungs? She advised to open the windows, day and night (an idea that was argued against at the time).

She also makes a point to highlight, that although there are many things that ought to be done for the health of a patient, this does not necessarily mean that the nurse must be the one to go about it. In fact, she says it is favorable that the nurse not be at the bedside at all times. It is better to teach others how to care for patients so the same care is given when you are not present. "To look to all these things yourself does not mean to do them yourself. If you do it, it is by so much the better, certainly, than if it were not done at all. But can you not ensure that it is done when not done by yourself? Can you ensure that it is not undone when your back is turned? The former only implies that just what you can do with your own hands is done. The latter that what ought to be done is always done."

Although discussed breifly, it is something I want to include. "If you believed in and observed the laws for preserving the health of houses, and which, by the way, are laws, as implicitly as you believe in the popular opinion, for it is nothing more than an opinion, don't you think that upon the whole your child would be more likely to escape (disease) altogether?" Laws are something that she emphasizes. Granted it is viewed through the lens of a Xian, it is still applied rather well in this context. She is referring to parents whom all too often would listen to a popular rather than medical opinion. It was believed that every child must have measles, hooping-cough or scarlet fever, yet no one questioned if there were ways to prevent this. It was simply accepted as fact. Nightingale is trying to convey that if we all adhered to these laws of health, then there would be no need to anticipate an ill child.

This must be mentioned again, but in different way; in regards to not always being present. Nightingale says, "You ought to go, we will suppose. Health or duty requires it. Then say so to the patint openly." She mentions how this will in fact stregthen the relationship with the patient, as he is not anxiously waiting for the nurse's return. Reports of suicides are included, as a result of the nurse "not being there". She finds it incredible that this is true, but even more so that it is accepted as sufficient reason. Yes, the person in charge was not present, but this is not the issue. No provision was made to supply the absence. "When the sun is under a total eclipse or during his nightly absence, we light candles." So, then, what must be done? Not for the nurse or whomever is in charge to always be present, but for their absence to be properly replaced. Dependency cannot be allowed to manifest, especially in these situations with the sick. "...let whoever is in charge keep this simple question in her head (not, how can I always do this right thing myself, but) how can I provide for this right thing to be always done?"

I am particularly drawn to this part. "Let your doubt be to yourself, your decision to them." What is said to a patient must have already been decided in the nurse's mind. No hesitation can be in her voice, or it will instill fear and confusion. It is up to the nurse to be professional and collected when speaking, carrying out assessments, or oftentimes sharing final moments with a patient before their death. This does not necessarily have to applied only to nursing or the medical profession. I am sure many members of JoS who have taken on more responsibilities have had this feeling before. Being apart of the Clergy is a rewarding experience, I am sure. It comes with leadership and pride, as it should. The work of the Clergy and the Guardians is astounding. I have appreciated HP Hooded Cobra for always giving us a black and white answer, no hesitation, only the truth but with an uplifting theme. Does the positivity change the truth? No. In fact it gives us more motivation to do what we must. This is what makes a leader.

Here, Nightingale refers to the physical effects on patients for want of nature. "People say the effect is only on the mind. It is no such thing. The effect is on the body, too. Little as we know about the way in which we are affected by form, by color and light, we do know this; that they have an actual physical effect." She also correctly draws attention to how we truly take these things for granted. Those who are of perfect health, may see the sun shine through their window and while they may enjoy it for that moment, they will not go outdoors and genuinely appreciate it. Perhaps by duty to family or occupation or simple laziness, those in health do not tend to think much of these things while they have them. It is only when they can no longer stand on their own feet to venture in the woods, feel the sun's warmth and see the greenery of the earth, that they come to regret. It is unknown if she is aware of the spiritual effect of the sun, as it gives vitality, physical strength and endurance. Perhaps by these patients facing towards the sun, they are reveling in some of its energy. Flowers and light, particularly sunlight, is what a patient longs for especially when confined to a hospital for months or even years. "The sun is not only a painter but a sculptor. Where there is sun there is thought."

The next part I'd like to share is about those who care a bit too much for the sick. As I mentioned, positivity is not a bad thing, however, in this context, it is. "I would appeal most seriously to all friends, visitors, and attendants of the sick to leave off this practice of attempting to 'cheer' the sick by making light of their danger and by exaggerating their probabilities of recovery." One can certainly see the issue here. This is similar to the blind faith that xians have. Nightingale even goes on to say how many times she has had to hear a patient being told things like, "I hope that it will please god yet to give you twenty years". "How often we see at the end of biographies or of cases recorded in medical papers, 'after a long illness A. died rather suddenly', or, 'unexpectedly both to himself and others'. 'Unexpectedly' to others, perhaps, who did not see, becauuse they did not look; but by no means 'unexpectedly to himself'. There was every reason to expect that A. would die, and he knew it; but he found it useless to insist upon his own knowledge to his friends." In chronic cases, this adds insult to injury. That person may never be able to walk again, yet friends and family just love to "pray" that he will. They are in fact praying for his downfall. Nightingale insists that this patient needs a balance. Not to be filled with useless hopes nor just with the admitting issue. It is alright to tell him what is the matter, but while you're at it, don't you think it right to tell him something pleasant? This does not mean filling him with hopes for a future that may very well not happen. But perhaps about his family visiting while he slept or the lovely weather.

Next, is the need for observation. “They boldly assert that there was nothing to observe, not that their observation was at fault.” This can be applied to so many situations, not only observation. How many times have people made a mistake or an intentionally wrong action, and instead of admitting their fault, they blame others or find some way to not take responsibility? What ought to be done, is for that person to recognize that a mistake was made and reflect on how to improve. As SS, we strive to go beyond even this. We don’t only reflect on our actions but also on ourselves. What are these issues that are leading us to repeat these behaviors and how can we change these for the better?

Conclusion

I truly loved reading Nightingale's book, it confirmed to me that being a nurse is my true calling. Applying our Ethics and approach to life to the medical profession is an amazing opportunity. As I learn more about the human body and the nursing profession, I see so many parallels to Spiritual Satanism. It proves to me the truth of what we are all about: life. My studies are still not as in-depth as I’d like, but with time, I am sure that I can help a lot of people. I would hate for my time and energy put into this area of study to be wasted. I have grown so much, yet the sky is the limit. I am proud to be here, partaking in the most important movement for humanity. We are a community that seeks to better ourselves and the world around us, and that begins from within. May we move ever forward and may the Gods bless each of our steps.
 
THE PAGAN WORKS OF SANDRO BOTTICELLI

Sandro Botticelli was born in Florence in 1445 and he is remembered as one of the leading painters of the Florentine Renaissance. He was a prolific painter, including portraits, religious works, and subjects with allegorical-mythological themes.
Although a work of art's beauty may transcend time, it is not possible to analyze and understand it without considering the historical and cultural period in which it was created.
Renaissance Italy was divided into many states, some of which had great political power such as the Republic of Venice, the Republic of Florence, the Papal State, and the Kingdom of Naples. In the Republic of Florence, where Botticelli lived and worked, one of the most important families was the Medici family for whom the painter created several works. The most important protagonist of that period was Lorenzo de' Medici, known as Lorenzo il Magnifico (the Magnificent), who became lord of Florence in 1469 and brought the Florentine Renaissance into its most brilliant period.​

At the time, the artist rarely decided himself what to depict, but the subject of the works was decided by his patron, a local lord, a powerful family or the Church, and those same works were not always shown to everyone but served to decorate churches, private chapels, the mansions of lords or served as gifts to other powerful families to celebrate marriages or political agreements. For example, the aforementioned Lorenzo de' Medici implemented a policy of cultural exchange with other Italian powers, and Botticelli, along with other artists, left for Rome to create frescoes for the Sistine Chapel. In fact, the Church of the time was no different from the other powers and their courts with all the political intrigues and illegitimate children, it had a very strong political and cultural clout and above all clearly visible, overt, and therefore it was to be treated like all other kingdoms by the other Italian kingdoms.

Lorenzo was a great diplomat and surrounded himself with a large group of diverse men who shaped the thinking of the time. With this group of artists and philosophers, Lorenzo revived the Neoplatonic Academy, which had come into being several decades earlier following the first Latin translations of Plato. According to the Neoplatonists during ancient times there was a single and true wisdom, or religion, common to every age and place ranging from Pythagoras to Socrates, to Plato, to Aristotle, and so on given to humanity by God himself.
Botticelli lived fully in this cultural period and was its voice bearer. His two most famous works are the Primavera (the Spring) and La Nascita di Venere (the Birth of Venus). Although they were painted about five years apart these two paintings are to be analyzed together. Not only because they are thought to have been exhibited side by side at Villa di Castello, but also because they both depict Venus, known to us as Astarte. For the Neo-Platonists, the goddess Venus had a central symbolism in their thinking: she represented love and beauty, through which humanity could rise from the material realm to the spiritual one.

La Primavera (The Spring), 1480

1732551319588.png

La Primavera is the first painting with a mythological character that Botticelli painted and is imbued with allegorical meanings. It was created for Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici, cousin of Lorenzo the Magnificent, and this painting's affiliation with the de' Medici family is made clear by the setting in which the scene takes place, namely an orange grove laden with fruit. Oranges were one of the symbols of the family. There are many mythological figures in the painting, and the scene should be read from right to left, so a story begins to unfold whose meaning can be interpreted in one way thanks to Neoplatonic philosophy.
Venus stands in the center of the painting. Behind her is drawn a myrtle, her sacred plant, and above her is her son Cupid, god of love. Both are symbolic of the love that drives humanity to betterment.
The three figures on the right interpret a myth. The blue-skinned god Zephyrus embraces the nymph Clori who has flowers sprouting from her mouth, transforming her into Flora, the very representation of spring and here the third figure in this scene; a woman whose dress is richly decorated with flowers. They thus represent an earthly and not spiritual humanity, but it's not wrong because it is the source of life (Flora).
This human act is mediated by the figure of Venus and is transformed into the dance of the three Graces. In this picture, the three Graces embody three concepts of Neoplatonism: beauty, chastity (understood differently than today), and desire. From above Venus, Cupid is about to shoot his arrow at them, a symbol of change. The three Graces are engaged in a dance that depicts the basic principle of love, according to Seneca, that is, giving, receiving, and returning, which filtered through the Neoplatonic perspective means that God gives, the soul receives, awakens and returns to him, that is, reaches out to a spiritual world. Just replace the word “God” with Satan and this picture immediately becomes an important allegory for the journey our soul takes.
Finally, there is Mercury, the leftmost and loneliest figure in the painting. He is looking upward and is chasing away clouds with his caduceus, creating a clear sky of soul awareness. He is the messenger of the gods and also one of the transporters of souls to the afterlife. So Mercury transports the soul, now transformed, out of the picture and upward.
This then is a painting about the journey that the human soul undertakes aided by the love and beauty of Venus to move from the sensual love and materiality of Zephyr, Chloris and Flora to the spiritual values of the dance of the three Graces and then to ultimate enlightenment with Mercury.

La Nascita di Venere (Birth of Venus), 1485

1732551359231.png


This painting also depicts Venus, but in a different form than the previous painting. Here she is naked and it's one of the first times a human figure is depicted naked without a trace of shame. Previously it was allowed only to Eve and only because it was connected to the feeling of shame felt by her. Venus, on the other hand, has a relaxed attitude, barely and delicately covering herself, and has become the perfect idea of female beauty in the art world.
The painting follows the mythological story in which Venus is born already an adult woman and reaches the island of Cyprus aboard a shell, propelled by the wind Zephyrus, in the pose of the Venus Pudica typical of Hellenistic sculptures.
Zephyrus, as in the previous painting, is depicted with blue skin and embraced by the nymph Clori. On the other side is a nymph, or the goddess Flora, who hands Venus a cloak to protect her from the weather.
Venus here is an allegory based on the Neoplatonic concept of love as the life-giving and life-moving energy of the natural world, and her birth from water and nudity have a spiritual, non-sensual character that is meant to celebrate true beauty. Botticelli shared the classical idea that beauty was the sole purpose of art.
Neoplatonists followed the thought of Plato who divided Venus into two figures: the celestial Venus and the terrestrial Venus. The former represented love as an intellectual feeling, while the latter represented a more physical love. However, physical beauty was a way to attain spiritual beauty, and for the Neoplatonists, it was the way love is manifested in the earthly world.
One cannot be sure which Venus is which in the Spring and the Birth.
Because of her nakedness, it is thought that the Venus of the Birth is the spiritual one whose beauty inspired those who looked at her to spiritual elevation, while the Venus of the Spring is the more earthly one.
Here, too, the commission of the Medici family is emphasized by the presence of an orange grove in the background.

Pallade e il Centauro (Pallas and the Centaur), 1482-84

1732551417943.png


This is another painting closely related to the Neoplatonic philosophy of the time. The woman is Pallas or the goddess Minerva, goddess of wisdom and reason, armed and dressed in a gown that features a decoration of intertwined rings, another symbol of the Medici family.
The goddess admonitively clutches the tufts of hair of a centaur, a symbol of a half-human, half-beast man. This centaur, following Plato's philosophy, becomes the bearer of humanity in perpetual conflict between its lowest and highest instincts, matter and the divine. It is man's task to rise from material life to true spirituality. With her hand and presence Minerva, the reason, helps and guides humanity on this path and keeps it in check, for it's easy to indulge in the passions and irrationality present in humanity and lose the way.

Venere e Marte (Venus and Mars), 1482-83

1732551850752.png


This work was probably commissioned by the Vespucci family, another important Italian family, given the presence of wasps in the upper left-hand corner (wasps = vespe in Italian), for a wedding given the form that frames it as an espalier, a type of painting intended for the antechamber in the house of the bride and groom.
We find Venus again, watching the god Mars abandoned in deep sleep while around them little satyrs play with the god's weapons. For the Neoplatonists, there was a harmony of opposites represented by the dualism of Venus and Mars, Love and War, in which, however, Venus had the superiority as a symbol of love and concord that keeps hatred and discord in check.
Having been a painting dedicated to a wedding it can also be seen as an augury towards the bride where the woman represents a force that succeeds in pacifying man's warlike energies while maintaining a state of balance, an interpretation aided by the symmetry of the scene.
The scene itself, is light and cheerful; historical sources describe Botticelli as a man who loved jokes.

These were the only paintings with mythological and spiritual themes that Botticelli created that we know of, and the motivation must be sought in the changes that came at the end of the century.
A friar arrived in Florence, Girolamo Savonarola, a strong preacher who railed against the corruption of customs, vanity, and vices he saw and called for a return to a time of strong and repressive religiosity. Neoplatonism, with its love of pagan times and philosophies, also ended up in his crosshairs. Taking advantage of a period of uncertainty because Lorenzo de' Medici's death in 1492, the discovery of America, and Charles VIII's descent into Italy, Savonarola seized power in Florence and established a theocratic regime. The period of splendor came to an end. Savonarola organized bonfires of vanities in which he burned everything he considered sinful seized from Florentine homes. Clothes, makeup, jewelry, books, musical instruments, and works of art.
Botticelli himself was deeply affected by the sermons he had heard from the friar, and a deep disturbance and sense of guilt arose in him that led him to a crisis and to disavow what he had created, returning to works of a religious character, though more somber and rigid than the previous ones he painted.
On February 7, 1497, Savonarola lit the largest bonfire of vanities in which Botticelli and other artists burned some of their works that were not in line with the thinking that had been established. After this bonfire, however, Savonarola lost acceptance from both the common people and the Church, which he strongly criticized. He was excommunicated and a year later was burned at the stake in the same spot as the bonfire of the vanities.
Botticelli continued to work for several years, but gradually his fame began to wane. His last painting was in 1501. He died in 1510 alone and in poverty.
 
@Karnonnos [JG]

Hello, has anyone already dealt or will deal with the reinassance hero, Gemistus Plethon?


What about the mathematician and astronomer/astrologer Girolamo Cardano and his father, Fazio? Fazio was also a friend of Leonardo Da Vinci. Girolamo had some innate siddhi that he refers to as the Cardano wonders, including the innate ability to go into a trance. He wrote a commendation for Nero, although he was hated for allegedly burning Christians.
If you think it might be interesting I can do some more in-depth research on him directly from his writings whose language I understand and which are digitized.

In the meantime I feel like quoting some passages from the article Fazio and His Demons

When Cardano published the horoscope of his father in his De exemplis centum geniturarum (1547), he duly noted Fazio’s « knowledge of occult disciplines ». According to Girolamo, his father had « such a great expertise in necromancy that he surpassed everyone in our time ». Most of all, people knew that « he had a familiar spirit, something that, in a naive way, he himself would admit ». 3 This is confirmed by Girolamo, who tells us how Fazio relied a great deal on the services of his personal demon. Only in cases of extreme gravity would he resort to the more orthodox help of saints. Girolamo tells the story of when, at the age of eight, ill with dysentery and fever, he was on the
brink of death, and his father turned to St Jerome for help rather than to his familiar spirit, as was his want in cases like these.
Revisiting the episode in his autobiography (written in 1575), Cardano writes that he « steadfastly refrained from investigating » this tainted relationship. 4
It is important to remember that the time when Cardano was recollecting these childhood memories was after the tragic experience of his imprisonment in 1570, very likely to have occurred because of his unwise meddling with divinatory topics and practices. It comes as no surprise, then, that he felt the need to specify how, unlike his father, he had not indulged in such activities as predicting the future and entertaining the company of demons. In fact, we know that not only did Cardano investigate demonic matters ; he, too, had his own familiar spirit. 5
 
Authors Note:

I believe an author’s note is appropriate for this Satanic Personality, for it is here, and in the subsequent introduction, that I make clear the contents of this writing. The reason being is that a “large” amount of Damascius’ work has been preserved, such as his chief treatise, Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles, among others. Therefore, the following essay does not concern itself with his Neoplatonic works more than it concerns itself with his life as a Satanic personality dedicated to the Truth. Although, in time, and with the assistance of the JOS clergy and guardians, I would be elated to expand his personality based on his surviving philosophical works.
Note. This is cited according Chicago Biblio-Notes, but it doesn't show that except for bibliography.

Δαμάσκιος

Damascius (ca. 462 – 538 CE) was a Neoplatonic philosopher, often referred to as the “last of the Athenian Neoplatonists.” He dedicated much of his life to preserving and reestablishing Neoplatonism and Pagan philosophical traditions, especially during a time when Christianity was rising in prominence. Beginning with his study in Rhetoric and ultimately transitioning into Philosophy, Damascius became a central figure in defending the intellectual and spiritual heritage of the ancient world. As the final philosopher in the “Golden Chain” of Neoplatonic thinkers following Iamblichus (traditionally), he sought to carry the torch of Neoplatonic illumination in an increasingly Christianized world. This work will explore Damascius' origins and character, his intellectual career despite consistent persecution, his philosophical accomplishments, and the lasting impact of his teachings on spiritual academia.

Damascius, as his name suggests, was born in Damascus in the early 460s. At that time, Damascus was a flourishing and sophisticated metropolis, situated just off the Mediterranean in the eastern desert. The city blended Aramaic, Nabatean, and Hellenic traditions, which were reflected in Damascius himself—his desire for intellectual freedom, his attachment to his Aramaic homeland where he eventually settled, and his proficiency in Platonism. In his 20s, Damascius left his home for Alexandria, where he studied rhetoric at the renowned school of Horapollo, an exclusive institution for both Christian and Pagan alike. During his time there, Damascius encountered many philosophers, one of whom being his future mentor, Isidore, who was already impressing his students with his spiritual gifts.

In the early 480s, tensions between Pagans and Christians within the school began to escalate, particularly following the revolt of Illus against Emperor Zeno (484–488) and the perceived religious scandal involving the Lady Isis (Astarte), as seen by the Christians. This conflict led to Christians committing grave sacrilege against Lady Isis, followed by an anti-Pagan campaign that eventually attracted an imperial envoy from Constantinople, Nicomedes, to investigate the school for its Paganism. Horapolla was arrested, tortured, and forced to convert to Christianity; it is after this that Damascius and Isidore decided to leave for Athens, where religious freedom appeared to be flourishing.

Damascius and Isidore journeyed for a total of eight months, and it was during this time that Damascius fully embraced the philosophical tradition, abandoning rhetoric. About twenty-five years later, Damascius reflected on his past views of rhetoric in his “Philosophical History,” saying: “How pernicious an activity rhetoric was, focusing all my attention on the mouth and the tongue, and turning away from the soul and the blissful, divine lessons that purify…” Damascius’ conversion was caused by a variety of experiences. One notable stop was in the town of Bostra, where they were welcomed by the Aristotelian philosopher Dorus, who showed them many of the holy sites in Hauran. Among these was the waters of the Styx in the Upper Yarmuk Valley, which filled Damascius with religious awe. Furthermore, Damascius witnessed Isidore convert Dorus to Plato’s lofty wisdom. Eventually, Dorus abandoned his residence and set off with the two men on their travels.

Adding further credibility to Damascius' decision to pursue philosophy, the three men arrived in Aphrodisias, where they were greeted by Asclepiodotus, Isidore's former mentor. Asclepiodotus took them on numerous excursions around Aphrodisias and even as far as Hierapolis. The three often returned with tales of miraculous experiences. After further Pagan pilgrimages through Ephesus, Samos, and Piraeus, Damascius and his companions finally arrived in Athens. Upon being accepted as a student at the Academy in Athens—then a leading Neoplatonic center—Damascius quickly rose to prominence and assumed the Platonic succession as leader of the school (diadoche) around 515 (maybe as early as 500).

Damascius, during his role as diadoche, completely reformed the academy on an institutional and scholastic level. The reformations were inspired by a desire for the Academy (which had been deteriorating for several years) to return to its founders’ teachings, Plato, and its second founder Iamblichus. In time, he assembled the greatest philosophers from all over the Hellenic world and wished for philosophy to be imparted to the best few, and for the worship of the holy for all. Athens was again, the theological and philosophical hub, and its influence was so dramatic that in 529, an imperial decree by Emperor Justinian demanded the immediate suspension of all Pagan activity.

Though Damascius was no stranger to Christian persecution, he recognized that it was necessary to relocate. Along with six other philosophers, he made his way to Ctesiphon, hoping that the Persian king, Khosrow (Chosroes), would be more tolerant of the old ways. Indeed, Khosrow accepted these wise men, but it soon became clear to Damascius that Ctesiphon was not the ideal refuge they had hoped for. The philosophers then decided to travel to Harran, but not before Damascius persuaded the Persian king to include a clause in the "Eternal Peace" treaty with Justinian, granting them religious freedom for the rest of their lives. Harran, protected by Persian authority, is thought to have been where Damascius and the others may have re-established the Academy, especially considering evidence of its pagan climate that persisted until the 9th or 11th century. It was in Harran (debated), in his homeland of Syria, where Damascius died, living comfortably until the end of his days.

Now that a brief description of his life from start to finish has been shown, it is necessary to go further into detail the character of Demascius, specifically referencing his major work, The Philosophical History.

This work is unique in that it serves a triple function: history, philosophy, and idealism. It delves into a wide range of topics and, much like Plato’s Republic, seeks to define the ideal philosopher with respect to its tripartite nature. Damascius not only offers historical accounts of various philosophers and events, but also provides critiques of his predecessors, particularly those of Proclus. He criticizes many of the men he encountered in his life or knew about. For instance, he writes:

I have chanced upon some who are outwardly splendid philosophers in the multitude of views treasured in their rich memory; in the wondrous quickness of their crafty syllogisms; in constant assest of their extraordinary power of perception; yet inside, in things of the soul, they are poverty stricken and lacking in true knowledge.

Likewise, Simplicius remarks,

Ascelpiodotus, the best of Proclus’ pupils, and our Damascius. The first delighted in new ideas because of his extraordinary intelligence; as for Damascius, he did not hesitate to oppose many of Proclus’ doctrines because of his taste for hard work and also his appreciation of Iamblichus’ theories.

As mentioned earlier, when Damascius became the diadochus (successor), he reformed the Academy. Part of this reformation included his refutation of Proclus' interpretation, which Damascius believed overlooked the true Platonic doctrine. Thus, he took on the responsibility, as the spiritual heir, to rehabilitate the authentic teachings of Iamblichus.

Damascius, unsurprisingly, harbored a deep disdain for Christianity and its followers. He was especially critical of those who converted to Christianity, viewing them as having abandoned the true philosophical path. He held in high regard those who, even under the threat of torture, remained steadfast in their beliefs, such as his own son, who "was beaten with rods but did not utter a word." Similarly, Damascius expressed a similarly harsh sentiment toward a philosophical hermit who was unwilling to fight, viewing such passivity as a weakness:

Men tend to bestow the name of virtue on a life of inactivity, but I do not agree with this view. For the virtue which engages in the midst of public life through political activity and discourses fortifies the soul and strengthens through exercise what is healthy and perfect, while the impure and false element that lurks in human lives is fully exposed and more easily set on the road to improvement. And indeed politics offers great possibilities for doing what is good and useful; also for courage and firmness. That is why the learned, who sit in their corner and philosophise at length and in a grand manner about justice and moderation, utterly disgrace themselves if they are compelled to take some action. Thus bereft of action, all discourse appears vain and empty.

Clearly, Damascius was not merely a man of theory, but also of action. This is evident in his attitude on how even spiritual men should conduct themselves.

All things considered, Damascius was a unique and influential figure in the history of philosophy, earning the title of “The Last Athenian Neoplatonic Philosopher.” He remained steadfast in his commitment to what he believed to be the true and holy, serving as a model for future philosophers, much as he looked to Plato and Iamblichus for inspiration. Some of his works have survived to this day, preserving his philosophical insights. Despite facing the rising tide of religious and intellectual challenges, he persevered and left a lasting impact on the course of history. May his legacy continue to be remembered and respected for generations to come.

Bibliography

Athanassiadi, Polymnia, DAMASCIUS THE PHILOSOPHICAL HISTORY. Apamea Cultural Association, 1999.

Athanasiadi, Polymnia, Persecution and Response in Late Paganism: The Evidence of Damascius. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1993.

Damascius, Problems and Solutions Concerning First Principles, trans. Sara Ahbel-Rappe. Oxford University Press, 2010.
 
Introduction:

Vlad Dracula evokes many different impressions: vampires, eerie forests, and isolated mountain castles. However, Vlad is often misunderstood, with many slanderous depictions overshadowing his true historical impact. Some, such as Guardian Alexandros Iowno and Guardian Karnonnos, have occasionally shed light on the truth behind this enigmatic figure. While history tends to portray Vlad as a devout Christian, he was deeply involved in the occult and maintained direct communication with Zeus Satya and his Daemons. Vlad is said to have possessed a Satanic Grimoire and was known to "summon our Daemons for war."

This connection to these forces is reflected in his historical battles against the Turks. Mysteriously, Turkish forces often succumbed to the plague, and despite being vastly outnumbered, Vlad’s forces succeeded through devastating tactics and the use of fear—most notably, the “forest of impaled Turks.”

To better understand Vlad Dracula, the following sections will first explore his name, early life, and rise to power. Next, his rule, conflict with the Ottomans, relationship with the Church, and death will be examined. Finally, selected primary writings will be reviewed, followed by a conclusion that assesses his legacy.

vlad.jpg


Contextual Remark:

The following article does not cover every historical detail relevant to the life of Vlad Dracula; however, it focuses on the key events for which he is most well-known. It is important to note that there were many political, social, and military dynamics at play during his life, and as a result, certain nuances—such as his relationship with his brothers or his diplomatic and military actions in other parts of Europe—are not addressed here. For those interested in delving deeper, the bibliography at the end includes two books that provide further information on the subject.

Name, Early Life, and Rise to Power

Vlad Dracula, born around 1428, was the son of Vlad Dracul, Prince of Wallachia. The name "Dracula" derives from his father's title, "Dracul," meaning "Dragon," reflecting his father's membership in the Order of the Dragon, a chivalric order established to protect Christendom from the Ottoman Empire. Vlad's surname, "Tepes," meaning "Impaler," stemmed from his notorious use of impalement as a form of punishment and psychological warfare—a method, however, not unique to him, as it was commonly used across Romania at the time.

Born in Sighișoara, Transylvania (now Romania), Vlad spent his early years in the principality of Wallachia, particularly after his father’s ascent to power in 1436. His formative years were likely spent preparing for his future role as prince, learning horsemanship, combat, politics, and other necessary skills. Vlad was a descendant of two reigning dynasties of the Romanian principalities, linking him to both his mother’s and father’s lineages. His life, however, would be marked by the political turmoil of the region, particularly due to Ottoman dominance.

At a young age, Vlad and his brother Radu were taken as hostages by the Ottomans to ensure their father’s compliance. Despite this, Vlad Dracul violated his agreement with the Ottomans in 1444/45, believing his sons were dead. However, the Ottomans did not harm the boys, and Vlad Dracul later renegotiated peace with the Ottomans. Unfortunately, he met his end in 1447 not at the hands of the Turks, but through an assassination orchestrated by John Hunyadi, following a lost battle. Vlad Dracul’s body was never found.

Despite their father’s death, Vlad and Radu, still prisoners, were later granted military positions within the Ottoman army. This period exposed Vlad to Ottoman military tactics and strategies, which he would use in future campaigns to resist Ottoman expansion. The Sultan saw Vlad and Radu as potential claimants to the Wallachian throne, individuals he believed he could control.

Vlad’s opportunity to seize the throne came in 1448 when John Hunyadi, the Governor of Transylvania (and his father’s murderer), and Vladislav II (his cousin), the Prince of Wallachia following Vlad II, organized an offensive against the Turks, which ultimately failed. During Vladislav II’s absence, Vlad led a Turkish force and invaded Wallachia, quickly seizing the throne at Târgoviște. Upon hearing of the usurpation, Vladislav II returned to Wallachia and forced Vlad to flee to Adrianople within the Ottoman Empire.

Little is known about the few months that Vlad ruled, but historians agree on two points: first, he punished the boyars (nobility) for their role in dethroning his father, often through impalement; and second, he sought peace with John Hunyadi, should the latter return to power. Additionally, in 1457, it is said that Vlad finished his revenge on the boyars who, along with the death of his father, buried his oldest brother, Mircea II, alive in a coup—the 200 responsible Boyars were impaled around the Wallachian capital, Târgoviște. Following his retreat into Ottoman lands, Vlad sought refuge in Moldavia, where he lived with his cousin Stephen the Great, although he eventually left after Stephen's father and his uncle, Bogdan II, in 1451, was assassinated. Vlad then moved to Transylvania, awaiting his chance to claim the Wallachian throne once again.

General Rule:

During his time in Transylvania and Moldavia, John Hunyadi made it difficult for Vlad to secure support for his claim to Wallachia. However, Vlad took advantage of the political turmoil, particularly the deteriorating relationship between Hunyadi and Vladislav II. Eventually, Hunyadi reconsidered Vlad’s claim and provided him with enough troops to retake the Wallachian throne. This alliance, though strange given Hunyadi had once been responsible for Vlad’s father’s death, was crucial for Vlad’s success.

Vlad then defeated Vladislav II, who was retaliating against Hunyadi, and killed him in Târgșor, a small town near Târgoviște. On July 3, 1456, Vlad ascended to the throne as Prince of Wallachia and assured his people that he would protect them from any Turkish attack. He replaced the old nobility and guards with new men that were loyal to him—often peasants and friends—and settled in to his reclaimed principality, politically, socially, and militarily. However, not long after Vlad’s ascension, the Saxons of Transylvania and the Hungarian government shifted their support away from him, seeking to install new princes. With his diplomatic skills, Vlad was able to quell this opposition, establishing relative peace in Wallachia for the year following 1457. In 1459/60, another pretender to the throne, Prince Basarab, emerged with support from the Saxons, again. Unlike his previous mercy toward the Saxons, Vlad made an example of those involved in the plot—he impaled 41 merchants and burned another 300 informers alive. One of the places this occurred was in Brasov, where he laid siege to, but not before recalling any of his own Wallachian people dwelling there.

Afterward, Vlad’s next challenge came in 1460 when Prince Dan, another pretender, crossed the mountains to take Wallachia. Dan was defeated, executed, and subjected to having his own funeral read to him while alive, serving as another lesson to any future claimants.

Conflict with the Ottomans and Final Days:

For three years, Vlad Dracula refused to pay tribute to the Ottoman Empire and denied their demand for children (Wallachian children) to be sent to the janissary corps. Sultan Mehmed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, aware of what the Wallachian prince was capable of, initially sought to remove him through cunning rather than military force. He sent an envoy, a Greek named Catavolinos, to meet with Dracula at Giurgiu, a key Danubian citadel and port, under the pretense of resolving a border issue. Dracula agreed to the meeting, bringing both the tribute and fifty children to deceive the Ottomans. However, he secretly brought an army with him, which, at his signal, surrounded the Ottoman detachment. The commander of the Ottoman forces, Hamza, the bey of Nicopolis, and the Greek envoy Catavolinos were captured. The prisoners were taken to Târgoviște, where a stake was prepared for each soldier, with Hamza and the Greek envoy receiving the highest stakes. Giurgiu fell to Dracula, and the area along the right bank of the Danube, from the mouth of Zimnicea, was pillaged and burned. Another Ottoman commander, Mehmed Pasha, narrowly escaped by fleeing.

In a letter sent to King Matthias of Hungary on February 11, 1462, Vlad Dracula claimed that 23,884 men had been slain during his campaign—he arrived at that figure by collecting their heads. After these events, even the Turks in Constantinople considered retreating, as they feared he would continue southward. In response, Sultan Mehmed II sent between 150,000 and 250,000 troops to the Danube. Vlad Dracula, with only around 20,000 men, engaged in guerrilla warfare at several strategically chosen locations, causing heavy losses for the Turks. One night, Vlad attacked the Turkish encampment itself, aiming to reach the Sultan and kill him. Under the cover of darkness and amidst the confusion of the surprise attack, the Romanians slaughtered an estimated 100,000 men before withdrawing with minimal losses. Victory seemed assured, as the Turkish forces, despite advancing on Târgoviște, were low on supplies due to the Wallachian tactic of scorched earth, and the Turkish army was also plagued by disease. It was during one of these battles in 1462, that Vlad impaled thousands of men and arranged them in forests and fields, serving as a deterrent to the advancing Turks.

Unfortunately, Vlad’s younger brother, Radu, loyal to the Ottoman Empire, was sent by the Sultan to defeat Dracula. Radu gained the support of the boyars, who abandoned Vlad in favor of Radu, forcing Vlad to retreat to Transylvania, where he awaited assistance from King Matthias. However, King Matthias did not support Vlad after reading forged letters that suggested Vlad was loyal to the Turks and plotting against Hungary. The King had him captured and imprisoned at Vișegrad, a fortress on the Danube north of Buda, where he remained for twelve years before later being moved to a house in Pest. He would remain there until he was called upon to fight, ultimately regaining his throne in 1476.
Sadly, Vlad's reign was short-lived. After regaining the throne, he ruled for only about a month before the Turks, along with Laiotă Basarab, attacked him. Lacking an army except for 200 personal guards, Vlad was defeated. All but ten of his guards were killed, and those who escaped fled. Historically, this marked the end of the reign and life of Dracula, the infamous ruler of Wallachia.

Death and the Church:

Although it is commonly said that Vlad Dracula died with his personal guard in Târgoviște, the exact location of his tomb remains unknown, much like that of Alexander the Great. Tradition holds that his remains were buried in the church of the Snagov Monastery, but no gravestone has survived. Excavations beneath the church failed to uncover a human skeleton, instead revealing only the bones of a horse and some prehistoric pottery. It was this peculiarity, among other things (some of which are simply slanderous), that Braim Stroker used as inspiration for his immortal character, Dracula. Additionally, with the fall of Constantinople, Vlad essentially controlled the church within his borders. He was known for building churches and monasteries, as well as appointing clergy to positions as he saw fit. While this gave the church a semblance of autonomy, in reality, it was state-controlled, similar to how Adolf Hitler manipulated the Christian religious institutions for his own purposes during his time.

Writings of and about Vlad Dracula:

A. Letter of Vlad III Dracula to Brașov, 31 October 1448.

31 October 1448, Târgoviște
Vlad Dracula, prince of Wallachia, to the officials of Brașov:

We give you news that Mr. Nicolae from Ocna of Sibiu writes to us and asks us to be so kind as to come to him until John [Hunyadi], the Royal Governor of Hungary, returns from the war. We are unable to do this because an emissary from Nicopolis came to us this past Tuesday [29 October] and said with great certainty that Murad, the Turkish Sultan, made war for three days against John [Hunyadi] the Governor, and that on the last day he [Hunyadi] formed a circle with his caravan, then the Sultan himself went down among the janissaries and they attacked this caravan, broke through the lines, and defeated and killed them. If we come now to him, the Turks could come and kill both you and us. Therefore, we ask you to have patience until we see what has happened to John [Hunyadi]. We don’t even know if he is alive. If he returns from the war, we will meet him and we will make peace with him. But if you will be our enemies now, and if something happens, you will have sinned and you will have to answer for it before God. Written at Târgoviște the day before All Saints’ Day [31 October] in the year of our Lord 1448.

Vlad, voievod of Wallachia, your brother in all.

To the officials of Brașov, our most loved brothers and friends.


Source: Nicolae Iorga, Scrisori de boieri, scrisori de domni, 3rd ed. (Vălenii-de-Munte, 1931), pp. 160-161. Iorga mistakenly attributes this letter to Vladislav II.

Vlad Dracula to Brașov, 10 September 1456:

…we cannot make peace with the Turks because they wish to pass through our country to attack and plunder you… This is why we have retained the Turkish messenger until you receive this news. You can judge for yourselves that when a man or a prince is strong and powerful, he can make peace as he wants to; but when he is weak, a stronger one will come and do what he wants to him… you should think about what we and ours deserve, in fairness and in honor, as there are some people who think badly of us and who are working against us. You should be enemies of such men as we are toward your enemies.
Extracts from the Chronicle of Laonikos Chalkokondyles concerning Vlad III Dracula:

…To Vlad [Dracula]… the Emperor [Sultan Mehmed II] granted the rule of Dacia [Wallachia], and with the help of the Emperor, Vlad, the son of Drăculea [Vlad II Dracul], invaded and took the throne. Soon after he began his rule he created a personal guard which he always kept by his side; after this, he sent for some of his boyars, one by one, whom be thought might be treasonous and plot to overthrow him, and he had them…impaled… To strengthen his power, he killed, in a short time, twenty thousand men [likely exaggerated] he surrounded himself with a number of distinguished and devoted soldiers and servants to whom he gave the money, wealth, and social positions of those he killed, so that in a short time he brought about a radical change, and this man completely altered the organization of Dacia.
Appendix V Extract from the Chronicle of Antonius Bonfinius:

He behaved with such harshness in this barbarous country that everyone could leave their things in safety, even in the middle of the forest.

There are numerous references to Vlad Dracula, including political letters written by him. However, many of these, particularly the German texts that have evolved into folklore, are so exaggerated that they aren't worth mentioning.

Conclusion:


Much of what has been written about Vlad Dracula teeters between fact and fiction. Heinous accusations, born out of political strife and jealous fear, have tarnished his legacy. While he was undoubtedly ruthless, it cannot be denied that without him, Europe could have been a much larger part of the Muslim world today. Forced to cooperate with the Ottomans in his early years, Vlad eventually seized the opportunity to nationalize Wallachia, seeking his countries independence, despite the ongoing internal struggles and the looming threat of the Ottoman Empire. He was a masterful ruler, relentlessly pursuing his birthright, and although history often overlooks this, his political acumen was unparalleled and he was very generous to his people, especially the peasant class. He was patient until necessity pushed him to act. During that era, Europe was far removed from ethical considerations, with treachery lurking around every corner. Yet he met each challenge with bravery and intelligence—leveraging superior military skill and psychological warfare to achieve his goals. In summary, Vlad Dracula stained his hands with blood only when forced to follow the laws of nature, and all of Europe is better for it.

Bibliography + Map:

DRACULA Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad the Impaler, edited by Kurt W. Treptow. Las Vegas: Histria Book, 2019.

Pallardy, R.. "Vlad the Impaler." Encyclopedia Britannica, February 5, 2025. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vlad-the-Impaler.

Treptow, Kurt W. Vlad III Dracula: The Life and Times of the Historical Dracula. Las Vegas: Histria Books, 2021.

Knowledgia. Story of Vlad The Impaler - All parts.

map.jpg
 
Ciriaco d'Ancona:
Ciriaco Pizzecolli, or de' Pizzicolli, known as Ciriaco d'Ancona (Ancona, July 31, 1391 - Cremona, 1452), was an Italian archaeologist, humanist, epigrapher and traveler. For his research of historical evidence, carried out in numerous Mediterranean countries in an effort to save them from oblivion and destruction, his contemporaries called him pater antiquitatis and he is considered today the father of archaeology.

His passion for classicism led him to declare publicly that he considered Mercury his protector. This stems from an event that happened at the beginning of this new series of travels: during an overnight stay in Fano, where he had been studying the Arch of Augustus, Ciriaco had a revelatory dream in which he found himself in the presence of Mercury; the god urged him to follow his vocation for the rediscovery of the past, without fearing conflict with the Christian faith. We know about this kind of vision because a few days later he wrote about it in a letter directed to his fellow citizen friend Pietro Bonarelli. Moreover, on the day after his departure from Delos, Cyriac composed a prayer of thanksgiving to Mercury for having found in that island rich evidences of classicism. Some contemporaries were scandalized by this worship of a Roman god, believing it to be heresy, and in derision dubbed Cyriac the “New Mercury” and accused him of paganism.

Rome

In 1431, Cyriac was still in Rome: Emperor Sigismund was in the eternal city to be crowned by Pope Eugene IV, and Cyriac was part of his retinue in order to urge his intervention in the defense of Constantinople, which was threatened by the Ottoman advance. Cyriac, in fact, who had spent much time in the capital of the Byzantine Empire, had admired the monuments and works of art of antiquity that still dotted the city and could not bear to have everything destroyed in the event of conquest by the Ottoman Turks, who now threatened it from close quarters, having taken over almost the entire empire. He therefore hoped that Emperor Sigismund could intervene militarily and avert the fall of Constantinople. Among other things, Cyriac had the opportunity to accompany the emperor on a tour of Rome's ancient monuments, guiding him through a city dotted with ruins, pastures and vineyards. He sharply criticized the custom that the Romans of his time had of obtaining limestone using the marbles of ancient monuments. His love of the evidence we now call “archaeological” led him, in 1433, to note bitterly:

“Those who today lead their lives within the walls of Rome, turn turpentically, obscenely, from day to day into white and impalpable ashes the marble, majestic and very elegant buildings scattered everywhere throughout the city, the famous statues and columns, in a vile, shameful and obscene manner, so that in a short time no image and no memory of them will remain for posterity.”

(Itinerarium)

It is significant that he does not use, to refer to the inhabitants of Rome contemporary with him, the name, almost sacred to him, of Romans.

Ciriaco was the first to mention the famous Belvedere Torso, which he saw in Cardinal Prospero Colonna's palace between 1432 and 1435, and to interpret in 1434 the remains of Villa Adriana as an imperial residence.

Egypt

In 1435 he traveled to Egypt. With permission to explore the country, issued to him by the Sultan of Cairo, he traveled up the course of the Nile during the flood and was able to admire one of the seven wonders of antiquity: the Pyramids, which were then used as stone quarries from which to extract materials for other constructions.

He was the first modern European to identify the pyramids, which were commonly believed to be the “granaries of Josephus,” and to bring news to Europe about these monuments, which he had found by being guided by the words of Herodotus. He spoke of the pyramids in his Commentarii and testified that they were the only wonder of the ancient world to have survived the passage of time.

Not satisfied with what he had discovered, Cyriac wrote that he would like to return again to the land of the pharaohs, to see Thebes, the mythical white elephants, and finally to find in the desert the famous sanctuary of Ammon, located in the middle of an oasis, which had been waiting to be rediscovered for centuries. About this passion for Egypt, the humanist Leonardo Aretino thus wrote, speaking of Cyriac:

“You will endure seas and winds, and the fury of storms, to accumulate the greatest riches, but you will not seek gems, nor gold from the color of the Sun. Like a thirsty man thou shalt seek lost antiquities, and pensively contemplate the wonders of the pyramids and read unknown writings resembling the figures of beasts...”

Athens

In 1436 Cyriac traveled to Greece. Here, shortly after his arrival in Athens, are the words with which he describes the spectacle of magnificent decadence that appeared before his eyes:
(LA)

“Athenas veni. Ubi primum ingentia moenia undique conlapsa antiquitate conspexi, ac intus, et extra per agros incredibilia ex marmore aedificia domosque, et sacra delubra diversasque rerum imagines, miraque fabre-factoris arte conspicuas, atque columnas immanes, sed omnia magnis undique convulsa ruinis.”

(EN)

“I reached Athens. I saw huge walls destroyed by time, and, both in the city and in the surrounding countryside, marble buildings of extraordinary beauty, houses, temples, and numerous statues executed by first-rate artists and grandiose columns, but all these things formed nothing but a vast heap of ruins.”

It should be kept in mind that other travelers from northern Europe (Jean de Courcy around 1420, Hartmann Schedel in 1493) described Athens as a “Gothic city.”

He was the first European to describe the Acropolis of Athens and to call it by its name, and not by the name of “fortress” or “palace of the dukes of Athens.”

He was also the first, guided by the words of Pausanias, to identify the Parthenon, about which he had read so many times in the ancient texts, at a time when it was thought to be only the major Marian church in Athens and which Cyriacus, first, called by its name and not by that of “St. Mary's Church,” as previous travelers had done. Thanks to him, Western Europe could have the first drawing of the famous temple of Athena Here is what he wrote after seeing the Parthenon:
(LA)

“...mirabile Palladis Divae marmoreum templum, divum quippe opus Phidiae LVIII sublime columnis magnitudinis p. 7 diametrum habens, ornatissimum undique, nobilissimis imaginibus in utriusque frontibus, atque parietibus insculptis, listis, et epistylijs mira fabresculptoris arte conspicitur.”

(EN)

“...the marvelous temple of the goddess Athena, the divine work of Phidias, with 58 sublime columns of such a size that they are seven palms in diameter. It is adorned all over with the noblest sculptures that ever the marvelous skill of a sculptor could depict, on both gables, walls, cornices, friezes, and epistyle.”

 

Al Jilwah: Chapter IV

"It is my desire that all my followers unite in a bond of unity, lest those who are without prevail against them." - Shaitan

Back
Top