Just passing this along for anyone who may be interested in reading a review
of Peter's latest book, The Uknown Nostradamus, by Dr. Elmar R. Gruber. It's
quite lengthy, but very well worth the read, IMHO.

-Woods

Book Review: Peter Lemesurier's `The Unknown Nostradamus' (Hunt, 2003)


Ever since the seminal work of Pierre Brind'Amour, the critical
appraisal of the life and work of Nostradamus seems slowly to gain
ground among the still abounding uncritical literature about the
prophet. The most recent English publication of this much needed type
is Peter Lemesurier's _The Unknown Nostradamus_. Lemesurier writes in
a fluent style and manages to include a great deal of hard facts
about the latest issues discussed among scholars in the field without
burdening his book with scientific jargon. No doubt, this is a fine
piece of work, putting together a great number of sources used by the
prophet and original works by Nostradamus, so far not published in
English.


Mainly following Brind'Amour, Lemesurier presents the various sources
upon which Nostradamus has drawn for his own prophetic work. Much of
the mystery surrounding Nostradamus disappears, as it becomes
increasingly clear that he was not some kind of extraordinary psychic
or intellectual monolith. Nostradamus was part of the prophetic
tradition and like the prophets of all ages he took his inspiration
to a considerable degree from his predecessors.


Lemesurier provides an interesting hypothesis in regard to the
biography of Nostradamus by pointing out the ties between the prophet
and the engineer and architect Adam de Craponne. It is well possible,
as Lemesurier argues, that Nostradamus took a much stronger interest
in the endeavours of the visionary architect Craponne than is known.


A significant part of the book is made up by almost 100 pages of
appendices. In them Lemesurier presents translated sections of some
important works by Nostradamus, including several of his non-
prophetic texts, which show other aspects of Nostradamus's
personality than just his visionary and astrological interests. He
presents the translation of several chapters of the _Excellent et
moult utile Opuscule_ and sections from the _Orus Apollo_. The
examples from these passages provide an essential insight into the
range of thought of Nostradamus apart from his concern with prophetic
issues. In order to assess the supposed prophetic abilities of
Nostradamus, Lemesurier compares as an example Nostradamus's
predictions for July in the almanac for 1566 with the actual
historical events, only to reach the conclusion that the vague
wording of the prophet does not permit to correctly identify any
historic event in that year as having been undoubtedly predicted by
him.


Undoubtedly the letter to Bérard is a very important piece for
assessing Nostradamus's occult practices and we are indebted to
Lemesurier of making available an English translation. Unfortunately
the letter should have needed a detailed comment, as its true meaning
is almost impenetrable by the average reader unfamiliar with the
hidden allusions and crooked phrasing we find in it.


Yet another important contribution to further the understanding of
Nostradamus in the English speaking world provided by Lemesurier is
the translation of contemporary critical texts, like the pamphlet of
Hercule le François and the extracts from Videl's attack.


In appendix D Lemesurier offers many `specific borrowings' by
Nostradamus from earlier collections of prophecies. In this respect
Lemesurier is especial keen in showing that the _Mirabilis Liber_
(first published in 1522), a widely circulating compilation of
diverse prophecies, was one of the major sources for Nostradamus's
own predictions. There is no doubt that Nostradamus had a copy of
the Mirabilis Liber on his desk while working on his almanacs,
prognostications and the _Prophéties_, but I am afraid I think Peter
Lemesurier is stretching the argument too far. There certainly are
some specific borrowings from the Mirabilis Liber, notably some from
Lichtenberger's _Prognosticatio_ (which, of course, Nostradamus might
have read apart from the Mirabilis Liber, as it has seen an enormous
amount of reprints during Nostradamus's lifetime), and some from
Svonarola's _Compendium revelationum_. But the contents of a large
number of examples presented as sources for specific borrowings
indeed involve mainly general instances of catastrophes, like
droughts, fires, death and infirmities of men and animals, religious
discord, persecution of the Church, etc. which are integral parts of
the prophetic tradition found virtually in every prophecy throughout
the ages, and it is not possible to deduce that Nostradamus took all
of them from the Mirabilis Liber, as long as his expressions are not
close to the source to support this hypothesis.


No doubt, Lemesurier has provided an important basic work for the
reassessment of the life and work of Nostradamus especially with his
translations of indispensable original texts. This book adds a new
piece to the demystification and critical evaluation of Nostradamus,
promoted mainly by the publications of Pierre Brind'Amour. I must
mention my concern though, that after decades of naïve glorification
of the prophet, the pendulum seem to swings inappropriately into the
other direction. We have to be careful with the new critical stance
on the prophet, not to overdo the arguments. Taking the figure of
Nostradamus down from the tall pedestal on which his admirers had put
him during the past centuries, should not result in throwing him into
an abyss where he does not belong. There is a certain tendency
present in Lemesurier's book (certainly not a principle though) of
speaking disparagingly about the intellectual capacities of
Nostradamus against the background of his `plagiarism'. I think more
research is needed to find the appropriate place of Nostradamus in
history, which necessarily has to include the general way of dealing
with the perilous subject of prophecy in renaissance times, and the
importance of the prophetic tradition of basing itself on antecedents.


Let me finally add a few observations on special issues brought up by
Peter Lemesurier to which I disagree. I must stress though that these
are of minor importance and do not obscure my generally excellent
impression of his book.


Lemesurier argues, that Nostradamus might never have obtained his
doctorate in medicine (p. 25). Even if we do not have a written
record of Nostradamus obtaining his doctorate, it looks like he did
indeed receive it. In a quote from the Excellent et moult outile
Opuscule (p.25) Lemesurier makes it seem, as if Nostradamus was
referring to his years of wandering around to a time _after_ having
been expelled from the university of Montpellier in 1529. Indeed the
passage quoted concerns the period of time _prior_ to that date,
being 1521 to 1529 (the "eight years" in the citation), which becomes
clear from two sentences preceding the quote given by Lemesurier, in
which Nostradamus writes: `?Après avoir consumé la plus grand part de
mes jeunes ans, ô LECTEUR BENIVOLE, en la pharmaceutrie, & à la
cognoissance & perscrutation des simples par plusieurs terres & pays
depuis l'an 1521 jusques en l'an 1529, incessamment courant pour
entendre & savoir la source & origine des plantes & autres simples
concernans la fin de la faculté Iatrice?' Of course at this time he
had not attained "the summit of the supreme doctrine" and therefore
he decided to join the university to finish his studies. Moreover
from the Prognostication nouvelle of 1555 onwards Nostradamus signed
his almanacs and prognostications as `docteur en Medicine'. (Cf. in
this respect also the study of Robert Benazra `L'étudiant en médecine
Michel de Nostredame (1521-1533)' on CURA
[http://cura.free.fr/histo.html].


Concerning the astrological cycles in Nostradamus's work, Lemesurier
writes (p. 53) that `the `trigons' of planets repeat themselves every
240 years'. In fact not the trigons repeat themselves, but rather the
great conjunctions (of Jupiter and Saturn) occur in the same trigon
during a period of 240 years (as one thought then) before moving on
to the next trigon for another 240 years, which supposedly would
result in upheavals and great global transformations.


Nostradamus's prediction of the death of "two popes' announced in the
predictions of February 1554 (p.66) is indeed already the
interpretation of Chavigny in a marginal note to his manuscript
(_Recueil the présages prosaïques_), who is keen in associating the
présage in question with the deaths of Julius III in March 1555 and
Marcellus II only some weeks later. Nostradamus had only written
about the `death of several old prelates' (`Dans cette Lune la mort
de plusieurs Pontifes vieux'). The term `pontif' could designate a
priest, cardinal, a bishop or a `high priest' or pope for that
matter. Chavigny notes in the margin: `Not this year 1554, but in the
following year two popes died in less that three months time'. In
total contrast to this fact Nostradamus said in his predictions for
1555, that the pope would be `in total security' and that the reign
of his Holiness will last for long time. (Cf. Elmar R. Gruber,
Nostradamus, Scherz 2003, p. 413f.).


The 1566 editions supposedly by Pierre Rigaud were not published in
the 17th century (p. 143). Indeed they were printed between 1716 and
1731, most probably by François-Joseph Domerge at Avignon. The
portrait engraving found in only a few copies is signed by Louis
David and dated `Avignon 1716'. I can confirm this observation by
Ruzo and Chomarat from the copy in my own library carrying the
engraving, which comes from the famous collection of Hector Rigaux
(with his stamp).


The collapse of the Soviet Union successfully `predicted' by Vlaicu
Ionescu (p. 145) must indeed be regarded as a lucky hit, based on
Ionescu's hate for the Soviet regime. And in fact Ionescu not merely
predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, he `predicted' (all from
Nostradamus) that this would come by allied forced fighting against
the communist countries during a Third World War. So much for this
prophecy.


Dr Elmar R. Gruber

<<<