[ Home ] [ Biography ] [ Books ] [ Centuries ] [ Presages ] [ Locations ] [ Wars ] [ Myths ] [ Dictionary ] [ Quotes ] [ Authors ] [ References ]
Ever since the first part of the Centuries were published, endless Authors have given in print their translations and interpretations of his words.
Prior to the 20th Century, those interested parties tended to concern themselves with just a few verses; but during the late 19th and 20th Century we have experienced a glut of Authors who have taken it upon themselves to translate, and give us their opinions on his entire available-known works.
Which on the plus side, has to a degree given anybody who had an interest in such things, a window of opportunity, to look, see, and decide for themselves whether there was, or is any worth in his prophecies.
On the down side, these numerous Authors have manipulated, or evented miss-truths.
Nostra makes it quite clear in the first Epistle- letter of introduction to the Centuries, that unless God changes his mind, [and we should know full well that God is not a man, and therefore does not change his mind] that only one man, would ever be able to understand and correctly translate and thus interpret what he was telling us.
Now, you might think, oh well, maybe one of these Authors is right, but how can anyone know which one?
How many people in the world have read every available author's work? I would not be wrong if I said a couple, one, or even none? Certainly, if somebody would lay such a claim, they have learned nothing for their trouble, or expense.
Nostra tells us of the possible ways a person wishing to translate and interpret his words might do it. Yet not a single author has ever stated that they used such methods: not one of them sat on a brass stool and stared into a bowl of water (hydromantie), none claim the ability to divine by divination, none claim to have used even the judicial methods of Astrology, not even those allowed or accepted by the Catholic Church (a Vaticinateur), none have claimed to use the customs of the Egyptians scribes. They use hindsight; they troll through the history books, and attempt to match history to verses, but, what use is there in warning of a disaster that has already past.
If the endlessly evil and bloody past had a lesson for us, then how come we have not yet learned the lesson?
To this day no prophecy has saved even the life of a mouse; and worse they may have caused the deaths of millions.
And here we are today, still these pathetic fools fill You Tube, with meaningless interpretations about what Nostra wrote.
It usual is when one first attempts to solve a puzzle to gather associated pieces in logical groups, i.e. The four corners, the edges, those that by colour etc. look like they might go together. However, this is not a square or rectangular, or even a round puzzle, but a linear one; and colours are words, words that thread their way through history. It's, breadth varies depending on the number of events happening at various points, in any one-time zone.
Further, the parts of each piece that serve to lock, or tie the pieces together are words, and themes.
Consider the next 4 part verses, they concern a nasty future event.
The Duke who will want to exterminate his followers,
Will send the strongest to foreign places.
The signal for battle will not be given,
They will be obliged to leave the park:
Around Ghent the banner recognised,
Of him who will cause all his followers to be put to death.
Cries, tears, laments coming with knives,
Seeming to flee, they will make a final assault:
To set up high platforms around the park,
The living pushed back and murdered instantly.
In the sloping park great calamity,
Through the Spanish, (or west) and Insubria will cause,
The fire in the ship, plague and captivity,
Mercury in the l'ARC, Saturn to fade.
All 4 verses concern the followers of this Duke. The clues are not always so obvious, but you can see the point I'm making. This also means that you cannot rely on the translations alone, you need to study the original words with care.
Furthermore, he uses the excuse of using simple poetical rules to deceive, misguide any potential translator. This rule is as deceptive as it is pathetic. The last word of line 1, one determines the spelling of the last word of line 3; and the spelling of the last word in line 2 determines the spelling of the last word in line 4, although on odd occasions this is reversed.
Here is an example, given at random; I have 2 books open before me one by JH, another by Edgar Leoni, in both I am looking at verse 11, century 1.
In both cases line 1 ends Mains= hands.
Line 3 ends in both cases Romains.
Romains is a bastardization of the word Roman. There is no sanction except by poetical nonsense that you can render Roman as Romain. Yet it has led every previous writer at some point to render bastardizations of the word that should have been Roman as signifying Romania?
Double whammy for in line 2 and 4 the reverse happens.
For in this verse the last word in line 2 is bastardized to rhyme with the last word of line 4. Line 4 ends 'debile'= weak, feeble, faint, infirm. But line which should end Sicily, ends Sicile.
This happens in 70 to 85 percent of verses and has led many Authors to make grave mistakes. I give reference to such bastardization in my works, but not all, as it would make all works tedious beyond belief.~
To my knowledge, the first author writer who attempted to tackle and publish all the works of Nostra in one book was a man called Charles Ward, whose work was published in the late 19th Century.
He was meticulous in the sense, that it appears he had access to at least 3 early copies of Nostra's works. Where he finds differences between copies he gives us each French version. So, some verses have only one French version, some have 2, and others 3, although there is only one English version in all cases.
However, on closer inspection of CW. French verses the differences are of little consequence. For example, if we take C3 v 30 we find
Version 1, has, 'luitte, nuit, surprins.'
Version 2, has 'luite, nuict, surpris.'
Version 3, has 'luite, nuit, surpris.'
There is no way that these slight variations in spelling would lead to any difference in the translation. Luitte, luite, are of Luicte, wrestling, struggling, strife. Nuit is Nuict, night, darkness. Surprins, =surprised, caught off guard, or napping etc. Surpris= too expensive, dear, overpriced, and one could not make sense of the sentence, by this sense, and it was only rendered surpris to rhyme with the last word of line 2, pris.
There are on odd occasions differences between CW, versions and the originals I have seen, but they are rare.
Now, I have not seen Charles Ward's notes or comments on the verses, however, it appears to me that Edgar Leoni appears to have copied his English translation of his work word for word. Thus, I can only assume he has used his notes also. I thus, will say this, (without prejudice) if I am right, Charles Wards knowledge of Latin was far better than his knowledge of 16th Century French. If Edgar Leoni insists his notes are his own then howbeit, he makes the same mistakes as Charles Ward. For he consistently refers French words to their Latin origin, when there was no need, as they were used- recognised French words. It further neglects the slight changes that occur in language over time. That is to say Latin words became part of the French language, but did not necessarily carry exactly the same meaning, just as English words do not necessarily carry the same meaning when used by Americans.
One of the biggest problems anyone faces when trying to unravel Nostra's puzzle is our need for answers, and when we do not know the answers we have a tendency to make up answers. (Just as those who first pondered the reason behind the pyramids, and once they had decided they were built to bury pharaohs in, it takes heaven and earth to quake, before they will change their minds, despite the fact that there is not a thread of evidence for their assumption and endless evidence against it, they sit like the Sphinx, staring into space and listen to no one.)
Nostradamus adds to the confusion, by stating that while there is no attempt on his part to, lie or mislead, he acknowledges that events viewed by such means may, or may partially, or may not become a reality, as the flow of time is subject to forces both real and abstract, and that any event that proceeds another, relies somewhat on the extent how events beforehand reveal or manifest themselves, either wholly or partly, or not at all. But in reality, time cannot fail to pass, and in the end, all that was predicted comes to its unique end, and history past, present and future cannot be changed, only each person's perception of it actually varies.
The way Nostra puts this point across allows the Authors to think, that their obscure notions of meaning or intent as valid, when they are simply barking at the moon.
That the soul is a table, made sheer, clean and polished, in which all manner of form and image is reflected clearly.
In reality, in truth, Nostradamus neither deceives or lies, he has no need to, for we are in ourselves the greatest liar's and deceivers of ourselves, and because we believe our self lies, we believe in the lies, of others, Jesus lied, he said trust no man, he should have said never trust yourself, for we always take the path that seems easiest.
In the books/treaties of these works, that is the verses, I have in a sense treated them as a puzzle, and thus placed them by country, or by characters, and occasionally objects that have, or will make their mark on History.