*
When Nostradamus' deciphered prose began to be posted here, back
in 1998, the fact that its style was so unlike the meaningful
gobbledygook he had published in his poetry did not escape those
who were of the view that these texts were not by Nostradamus
BECAUSE they were so different.
*
Rather than acknowledging that an enciphered text (Nostradamus'
originals) had to be very different from the deciphered text they
were hiding, these otherwise rational people used that very fact
to deny that the original texts were enciphered. (Talk of
circular reasoning!)
*
One of the tools used for theses denials was to point to words
which Nostradamus had never used in his originals as an argument
that he could not have used them BECAUSE he had not used them.
(Circular reasoning, again!)
*
Which brings us to the deciphered version of quatrain II-100,
posted earlier.
*
Originally posted as:
*
Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
From: (Claude Latremouille)
Subject: Feb 21 to Peter
Message-ID: <EoqK6A.6xH.0.queen@torfree.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 15:54:09 GMT
*
[QUOTE]
*
Responding to Peter in:
From: (Peter Lemesurier)
Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
Subject: Re: Example of cryptic anagrams (II-100)
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 09:32:34 GMT
Reply-To:
References: <Eop72C.7ID.0.queen@torfree.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Message-ID: <34eea2c3.0@erebus.ndirect.co.uk>
Lines: 113
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.73.182.131
(Claude Latremouille) wrote:
An example of cryptic anagrams using II-100 [1555]:
To get from the original quatrain to the decrypted prose which
follows, one must apply the rules of the cryptic anagram, i.e.,
1. Each line is a distinct anagram.
2. Each word must not have more than one (1) letter missing.
3. The total of unused letters for each line must not vary by
more than one unit (plus or minus one) from the total of
missing letters.
Original quatrain II-100 from the 1555 edition:
Dedans les isles si horrible tumulte,
Rien on n'orra qu'vne bellique brigue,
Tant grand sera des predateurs l'insulte,
Qu'on se viendra ranger à la grand ligue.
Decrypted version of this quatrain by Claude Latrémouille:
L'Angleterre a des missiles d'Hitler
Qui guerroye bien encore vn An, car il
Veult tant déuaster la Digne Angleterre
Qui songe à invader sa Grande Allemagne.
And a not-too-elegant translation in modern English:
England has missiles from Hitler
Who still wages war for a Year, as he
Wants so much to ravage the Dignified England
Who thinks of invading his Grand Germany.
This is as close as I can make it.
[ my own snip ]
All very clever and interesting, Claude, but as Nostradamus never
uses either the word 'missile' or the word 'Allemagne' (so
spelt), and the style is totally unlike anything he ever wrote,
I'd have thought we have proof positive here that your proposed
anagrams aren't by Nostradamus.
The fact that the style and language aren't like your own doesn't
necessarily mean they're Nostradamus's. Or hadn't that occurred
to you? Curiously enough, when I do an angrammatised version of
something, it doesn't come out like MY style and language,
either!
--
Peter
THE WORDS
~~~~~~~~~
CLAUDE: Peter, every time I came upon an anagram which contained
a word (other than the name of a historical figure) which was not
used in the original poetry, or which was spelled differently in
the original poetry, I always asked myself: Am I the one creating
this word, or has this word been placed there by Nostradamus?
First, allow me to deal with the word 'missile'. Nostradamus
never uses that word in the original poetry.
When faced with such words, one has to select an option:
1. Either the word *could* have been used by Nostradamus in his
original poetry, but he simply did not use it because
a) he did not wish to use it for fear of reprisals;
b) his use of the word would reveal the prophecy which he
wished to keep secret for a time;
c) he uses some other word to mean the same thing;
d) he could not, or did not have to, use all the words of
his vocabulary in his poetry (in which case no
conclusion should be drawn from the absence of that
word),
2. Or the word *could not* have been used by Nostradamus in his
original poetry, because the word did not exist at all in his
days.
In the case of the word 'missile', in the sense of projectile,
the word did exist in Latin and in ancient French. So, he could
have used it in the original poetry. He did not.
In my view, even though when I found it in the anagram I did not
like it very much --as I knew very well what would be said about
the use of that word in the anagram... you see, I am not as crazy
as I look, Peter! :-) -- I decided that it was really there, and
it was placed there by Nostradamus. Why?
Although he also often uses "fusée", also spells "missile"
"missyle", uses the expression "grosse fusée" to designate an
I.C.B.M., I felt that his use of "missile" was not out of
character considering the context of the prophecy.
Second, the word "Allemagne". True, today in modern French, we
use the words "Espagne", or "Allemagne", while in the original
poetry, Nostradamus uses "Espaigne" (or even "Hespaigne") and
"Alemaigne". But he also uses Germanie, Peter, and Germanique,
and Germain(s).
So, if I may use the very argument which you make: Why would he
use at times "Germanie" and at other times "Alemaigne"? Did he
wish to be consistent, or did he wish to leave an unmistakeable
trace in his poetry that he could use more than one word to mean
the same thing?
My answer has to do (I know, I know, you won't like the answer)
with anagrams. When you make anagrams, if you want to say
something specific, you do not always have the choice of the
words you can use. Sometimes using "Alemaigne" would have been
more useful to Nostradamus in the making of his anagrams than
using "Germanie". So Nostradamus uses the word which suits him
best according to the circumstance. (Same thing with "fusée"
versus "missile" or "missyle")
And the second part of my answer (you will not like it either)
has to do with the simple fact that he was a prophet. If he had
(God knows how) the ability to know about the V-2 rockets surging
from Germany and France to hit England and The Netherlands, why
would he not also have the ability to know that these deadly
projectiles would also be called "missiles" and that the name of
one of the countries from which they would be launched would be
"Allemagne", just as Spain would eventually be called "Espagne"?
You have never answered that fundamental question Peter, even
though it has been asked countless times: If the anagrams contain
words like Napoléon Bonaparte, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler,
are you also going to say that - since these words did not exist
in Nostradamus' days - they are proof positive that Claude
Latrémouille placed them there, and that the anagrams are not by
Nostradamus?
Because if you do, you are denying that Nostradamus was a
prophet. That is where your logic leads to. You cannot have it
both ways: either he was, or he was not. Chose, Peter.
I have decided that he was.
THE STYLE
~~~~~~~~~
Back to your statement: "...and the style is totally unlike
anything he ever wrote, I'd have thought we have proof positive
here that your proposed anagrams aren't by Nostradamus."
And that is why it took me about a year to figure out that
Nostradamus was writing in perfect French in his anagrams,
whereas, before coming to that realization, I had constructed
lousy anagrams, as lousy as his poetry, thinking that his prose
would be as horrible as his poetry. It was not.
So, with respect to his original poetry, his decrypted prose is
indeed very unlike anything he ever wrote. His prose is much
better written than his original poetry, Peter. Which is another
reason why I hold the unshakeable view that he is the author of
the prose: he had to make a lousy poetry to construct in anagrams
that excellent prose. To me, that is proof positive that he wrote
both.
In case you are referring to his published prose, and are
comparing it to the prose found in anagrams, I have no comment.
You see, in this NewsGroup, I am the only person who has seen the
decrypted prose in its entirety. I am therefore - for the moment
- the only person who can make a valid comment on that question.
And since you cannot possibly reply to it because you have not
seen yet the entire decrypted text, it would be silly of me to
respond to the argument using the entire decrypted text which you
have not seen.
Now to your next paragraph: "The fact that the style and language
aren't like your own doesn't necessarily mean they're
Nostradamus's. Or hadn't that occurred to you? Curiously enough,
when I do an angrammatised version of something, it doesn't come
out like MY style and language, either!"
Here, you are doing to me what I am too honest to do to you,
namely mention something I have not seen. But I recognize that to
be "YOUR style".
My response to the first sentence: "The fact that the style and
language aren't like your own doesn't necessarily mean they're
Nostradamus's."
I conclude from the fact that the spelling, the vocabulary, the
style and the contents of the decrypted prose are not my own that
a) they are by someone else;
b) that someone else has most likely lived in the 16th
Century; and
c) the most likely candidate to the authorship of that
prose has to be Nostradamus, as he wrote the original
poetry which contains that prose.
Perhaps an argument which has escaped you (it had to, because I
had never made it yet!) is the fact that Nostradamus gives a few
biographical and bibliographical indications in his anagrams
which could only have come from him.
You see, he is as concerned as you are that his prose be seen to
be his, and not mine... even though he often laments that this is
precisely what will torture 3 000 000 people in Paris: the City
will say that I am a liar (the greatest fraud in this NewsGroup,
to quote our prickly friend), that the decrypted prose is by me
and not by Nostradamus, whose poetry is... a very unmentionable
confusion!
Nostre Brave Cité torturée a leu la
Iuste prose de Mon Cher La Trémouille,
La disant « Théorie Impossible ! », et mes
Uers ? « Très innommable confusion ! ».
*
[END OF QUOTE]
*
------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Claude Latrémouille % -- "Claude! There ain't no stinkin' -- %
Le 21 février 1998- % cryptic anagrams in them dang verses,- %
APNCL#0620 -------- % ya hear?!" (A chorus of a.p.n. voices) %
------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
*
That last deciphered sentence came from yet another quatrain. I
quoted it then, as it dealt precisely with the Parisian reaction
to the deciphered prose: '*Our* brave tortured city had *read*
the *correct* prose of my dear *La Trémouille*, calling it "an
impossible theory!", and my *poetry*? "A very unmentionable
confusion!"' (Asterisks between words no longer used or spelled
thus)
*
The original quatrain was that for August, published as part of
Nostradamus' Almanach for 1559, now lost. Chavigny (1594)
transcribed that quatrain thus:
*
--------- L'vrne trouuée, la cité tributaire, ----------------
--------- Champs diuisez, nouuelle tromperie, ----------------
--------- L'Hispan blessé, faim, peste militaire, ------------
--------- Moq. obstiné, confus, mal resuerie. ----------------
*
Have a nice day, folks!
*
Claude Latrémouille,
January 27, 2008,
http://web.ncf.ca/cj559
*
=== ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
.
|
