*
The debate about the enciphered nature of Nostradamus' poetry is
now more than ten years old. Here is how the issue was dealt with
in this NewsGroup back in December 1997:
*
Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
From: (Claude Latremouille)
Subject: In prose or not in prose...
Message-ID: <EKJ2v5.Hnv.0.queen@torfree.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 20:42:41 GMT
*
[QUOTE]
*
In prose or not in prose? That is the question...
Rather than quoting separately the various posts in different
threads which my previous article started, let me bring them
together here:
From: (Peter Lemesurier)
Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
Subject: Re: Some unanswered questions from Peter
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 10:25:47 GMT
Reply-To:
References: <EKHGJn.KK5.0.sheppard@torfree.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.74.254.78
Message-ID: <34829391.0@hades.ndirect.co.uk>
Lines: 253
(Claude Latremouille) wrote:
[ snip ]
Why would nobody else (that is, other than myself) suggest that
they were basically anagrammatical?
PETER: )Perhaps because there was no direct evidence that they
were?
TO WHICH I ADD
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, how could there have been direct (and clear) evidence that
they were, if Nostradamus intended to hide that fact? You can't
have your cake and eat it too. If he wanted to hide it... it was
hidden. Or is there something I am missing, here?
[ snip ]
The question, therefore, is why keep it a secret from everyone
alive in his days?
PETER: Either
(i) because it didn't really exist in the first place, or
CLAUDE: >Many reasons come to mind.
PETER: (ii) because
CLAUDE:
Wars of religion were becoming more
severe towards the end of his life. Religious wars mean
religious intolerance. Religious intolerance means persecution
for the slightest deviation from the accepted faith.
PETER: or both.
TO WHICH I REPLY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In theory, yes, I agree. But given that you had earlier agreed
"CLAUDE:
- that he resorted to a trick to hide his oracle from
potential damage by those who might benefit from the
suppression of the prophecy,
PETER: Agreed, since he himself said so"
CLAUDE: Then if you agree with that, why the theoretical
alternative (i) above?
[ snip ]
CLAUDE:
If he could not do that openly, ... [ referring here to an
hypothetical disclosure of the contents of his visions to the
Holy Inquisition ]
[...] reason alone commands that he must have hidden his
oracle.
PETER: If there was one.
CLAUDE: If there was one what ?
But, Peter, he did give us some
clues, after all. Only those who refuse to accept the idea that
the entire work is in anagrams refuse to see what he means when
he tells us, very vaguely I admit:
- that none of his quatrains should be interpreted (how
is that for killing 'The Nostradamus Industry'?);
PETER:`What are his exact words, Claude? I thought he merely said
that nobody COULD interpret them, not that they shouldn't . . .
CLAUDE: from the Letter to Henry in the 1568 edition
est difficile. Et pource , ô tres-humanissine Roy,
la plus part des quatrains prophetiques sont tel-
lement scabreux , que l'on n'y scauroit donner
voye ny moins aucuns interpreter , toutesfois
Peter, I agree that the verb "scauoir" (his spelling) could mean
what you suggest. But I also think that it could mean: most of
the prophetic quatrains are so scabrous, that one would be unable
to clarify them (or: give them an opening), nor interpret [any
of] them...
All this to say that, if they cannot be interpreted, one ought
not attempt to do that which cannot be done.
- that he worked out his quatrains obscurely; and
PETER: Does that have to mean anagrams, then?
CLAUDE: No, it does not have to mean that. But if you take the
three elements togather, i.e. (1) cannot be interpreted, (2)
worked them out obscurely, and (3) in prose, the conclusion MUST
BE: ANAGRAMS!
- that his prophecy is in prose.
PETER: I suspect that this statement is the nub of the problem,
and needs to be central to our discussion, Claude.
CLAUDE: I agree. Either they are in prose or they are not. If
they are anagrams in prose, then they are in prose. The anagrams
I have discovered are all in prose.
PETER: Personally, I assume that when he speaks of his 'other
prophecies in prose' (perhaps you'd care to quote the passage so
that everybody can see?) he is referring (a) to his other
prophecies (and not therefore to these ones!) which are (b) in
prose, rather than in verse.
This has IMO to mean that he is referring either to another set
of prose prophecies entirely, now lost (unlikely, in my view), or
to his Almanachs, which are the only prior ones known to us at
the time he wrote the Letter to Cesar, and the bulk of which are
indeed in prose ...
CLAUDE: from the letter to Caesar in the 1555 edition
à plain i'ay redigé par escript aux miennes au
tres propheties qui sont co[m]posées tout au lo[n]g,
*in soluta oratione*, limita[n]t les lieux,te[m]ps& le ter
me prefix que les humains apres venus, verro[n]t
cognoissant les auentures auenues infaillible
me[n]t,co[m]me auo[n]s noté par les autres, parla[n]t plus
claireme[n]t: no[n]obsta[n]t que sous nuée sero[n]t co[m]pri
ses les intellige[n]ces:*sed qua[n]do sub moue[n]da erit igno-
ra[n]tia*,le cas sera plus esclairci.Faisa[n]t fin mo[n] filz,
Note: the letters in [] are those not printed, but replaced with
an abbreviation mark in the 1555 original. The ** indicate
italics in the original.
Unfortunately, the crucial passage is in Latin! (What else would
you expect from Nostradamus?) If he wants to hide it, he has to
hide it. So... he does!
Yes, he alludes to 'other prophecies'. In the past (before the
anagrams) this expression was thought to refer a) to the Letter
to Henry (but that one is dated 1558, so a letter dated 1555
would hardly refer to a text yet to come); and b) as you say, to
the Almanachs, as they are (except for the quatrains included in
the Almanachs) in prose.
My suggestion is to say that he refers to his other prophecies,
i.e., those which are hidden *in soluta oratione*, i.e., in
prose.
But the most important part of this passage is his use of the
future in "le cas sera plus esclairci" (the matter shall become
clearer). To me, having now found the anagrams, this passage has
become crystal clear: when my prophecy in prose is found [via the
anagrams], the [present] ignorance shall be dissipated.
He announces something to happen in the future. Well, the future
is now upon us.
Since his prophecy is in poetry, not in prose, common sense
alone dictates that - if he worked out his quatrains obscurely -
he transformed his prophecy from prose to poetry. (What I have
done is merely transforming back that poetry into prose.)
PETER: No - not common sense, merely an alternative argument.
Yours, in fact!
CLAUDE: As I said to you in an earlier post, I do more than just
make an argument. I actually show his anagrams. Whether you
[still] believe that they ar MY anagrams and not HIS, is a matter
of opinion. If I may summarize the argument, as I understand it:
EITHER Nostradamus wrote his prophecy entirely in prose
disguised as poetry in anagrams, OR he did not.
IF HE DID NOT, end of argument.
IF HE DID, two possibilities arize.
EITHER the anagrams which I have begun to spoonfeed you
with are not by Nostradamus himself, but are an
unconscious projection of my own psyche,
OR these anagrams ARE from Nostradamus himself.
From my point of view, they cannot be an unconscious projection
of my own psyche, because I had no prior knowledge of 16th
Century French, the language in which the anagrams I discovered
are made. And I have indicated earlier that the spelling, the
vocabulary, the style of these sentences in prose COULD NOT have
come from me, consciously or unconsciously, because these were
never a part of my life (I am not a 16th Century scholar).
What more do you want, Peter?
PETER: Basically, evidence that the prophecies were indeed
intended as anagrams - other, that is, than the fact that (as you
have so brillliantly demonstrated) they CAN be treated as
anagrams!!
CLAUDE: There are two types of evidence. Direct evidence THE
ANAGRAMS THEMSELVES, which I gave you. Indirect evidence is A
STATEMENT, however obscure, THAT HE WROTE IN PROSE. Well, he gave
us that statement. (see above)
Again: what more do you want?
He even gives us a few words which are (too?) obviously
anagrams: CHYREN=HENRYC, RAPIS=PARIS, MENDOSUS=UENDOSME,
NORLARIS=LORRAINS, etc.
PETER: Fine.
He gives us a poetry which sometimes does not even rhyme, is too
short, is too long, uses non-existent words, Greek letters,
pictograms, etc.
[NO COMMENT BY PETER ON THESE VERY REVEALING ANOMALIES]
He screws up the numbering of some of his quatrains.
PETER: Unless this particular problem is the printer's fault, as
seems more likely in the light of other books of the time (the
page-numbering of the Shakespeare First Folio, for example).
CLAUDE: If that were the only anomaly, I would easily go along
with that. But it is not the only anomaly.
He screws up the publication of his quatrains, so as to publish
a certain number of quatrains at certain times, not at others.
PETER: Unless this was the result of other causes, such as
inter-publisher printing disputes (the Encyclopedia refers).
CLAUDE: Yes, you gave me that very reasonable explanation and, as
I wrote to you, if only you had direct documentary evidence to
support it, you would win the day. ;-)
You continue to blame all or most of it on his printers, Peter.
PETER: Well, some of it . . .
Did they write the anagrams above?
PETER: Assuredly not.
Did they screw up the rhyme and the metric of some quatrains?
PETER:`Not usually, but occasional letters did fall out of their
setting-sticks, and whole words were occasionally missed or
repeated ... The usual story, in fact . . .
CLAUDE: No way José! Letters falling out of the board does not
produce a good French word which does not rhyme with another one
two lines down.
Did they write Nostradamus' letters to Caesar, and to Henry?
No, they did not. Nostradamus did.
PETER: Have to agree with you there!
So, is it not about time that you stop blaming the printers, and
start blaming the author for a change? ;-)
PETER: As usual, I suspect it's not either/or, but both/and.
CLAUDE: If there are no anagrams, there was no reason for
Nostradamus to supervise verrrry closely the output of the
printing shops. If there were anagrams, he had to watch them like
a hawk. In that last case, it cannot be both.
You may have horror stories to tell about stupid publishers, but
I have tons of stories to tell about misguided authors who wrote
about Nostradamus, the latest (late in more ways than one) being
the brilliant Canadian Pierre Brind'Amour who wrote the most
fascinating and systematic account of Nostradamus' 'mistakes',
while failing all along to realize that *they were not*
mistakes.
PETER: Well, I agree about his brilliance, but his disagreement
doesn't have to be as a result of a failure, merely of careful
analysis from his point of view - which manifestly isn't the same
as yours! The question is: which is right? Much, as I say, hinges
on the interpretation of N's phrase about his 'other, prose
prophecies'.
CLAUDE: But Brind'Amour IS right about these so-called mistakes.
He gives us a great catalogue of them. My argument is: His point
of view that Nostradamus was not a seer prevents him from seeing
that all these very real 'mistakes' were intentional.
Contrary to you, Peter, he blames more Nostradamus for these
'mistakes' than he blames his printers.
Come to think of it... was he really brilliant, or merely
erudite? I leave that thought to your reflection, Peter.
I would suggest both - despite the fact that he personally could
not accept that Nostradamus was really capable of foreseeing the
future.
--
Peter
CLAUDE: Is that not the mark of a brilliant mind to accept
something which is indeed extraordinary? To see something which
no one before him has seen? (To better see my point of view,
think of Mendeleev and the periodical classification of elements.
He made sense out of nonsense. No need to refer to God (as you
did in one of your earlier posts which never reached my server).
A mind like Brind'Amour's - given the same information, would
never have seen what Mendeleev did see. That is why I question -
not his erudition, but his brilliance.
To summarize: Nostradamus' prophecy, as is, is nonsense. Displace
the letters according to the rules of cryptic anagrams, and
everything becomes clear. Nostradamus's mind worked like
Mendeleev's. Two great geniuses. Amen! :-)
*
[END OF QUOTE]
*
Have a nice day, folks!
*
Claude Latrémouille,
January 14, 2008,
http://web.ncf.ca/cj559
*
=== ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
.
|
