Homogeneousness vs. heterogeneousness
of the Centuries

  Texte de Theo Van Berkel (Netherlands)

            Regarding the compilation history of the Centuries, the Preface to Cesar and the Epistle to Henry II, the main thesis of my book Nostradamus, astrologie en de Bijbel, published in 2002, was that as far as the quatrains are concerned, all mentioned astrological data could be traced back to the period October 1524 - December 1553, and that fulfilment data could be calculated by means of a progression system, based upon the retrograde movement of the Caput Draconis. This would mean that the visions regarding events, have taken place in that period. As for the overall structure, the thesis was that a millennium model was at stake, running from 4174 BC up to 3827 AD. In June 2005, I published an article on the creation years, mentioned in a number of Almanachs (www.nostradamusresearch.org/en/rslt/creation_years.htm). At the end of this article, a distinction was made between on the one hand the creation year 3967 BC, which can be derived from a substantial number of volumes of the Almanachs, and the creation years which can be derived from the Preface and the Epistle. The question is if a homogeneous time structure is present, in which the quatrains of the Centuries are embedded. The embedding of the quatrains is rather peculiar. The Preface contains references to the cycle of Great Years of 354 years and 4 months. References to this cycle are only present in some quatrains in the first four Centuries. The Preface as well as the Epistle contains references to millennia, but different types of millennia are present, i.e. millennia with different backgrounds. It is said by some that the year 3797, mentioned in the Preface, is the result of adding 2242 to March 1, 1555, meaning that 2242 AD is the actual year in which the world turns to an end, as suggested by Roussat by means of the cycle of Great Years. The peculiar thing is that the first biblical chronology looks to be a part of a 7000 year structure, running from 4757 BC to 2242 AD

(www.nostradamusresearch.org/en/rslt/bible_chron_comp.htm)

However, the cycle of Great Years, as formulated by Roussat / Turrel, started in 5199 BC. This can not be blended with a creation year 4757 BC. Next, the second biblical chronology seems to be a part of an 8000 year structure, running from 4174 BC to 3827 AD. In my eyes, it is quite remarkable that not one element of the cycle of Great Years is present in the quatrains which are part of the 8th up to 10th century, and on the other hand, it is also remarkable that only the tenth century contains one quatrain (10-74) in which elements can be found, which can be matched to the biblical scenario of the beginning of the kingdom of 1000 years

(www.nostradamusresearch./org/en/quatr/10-74.htm).

As for the derived creation years of all Nostradamic documents, I emphasize that no concrete year is given in any of these documents. They all are derived by the readers, they are not given by the author. In my eyes, we face a structure, present in a series of Almanachs which compilation covers more than 10 years and contains 11 volumes, a structure, which points to 3967 BC. The creation years which can be derived from the Preface and the Epistle, do not correspond with 3967 BC. For me, the main question is: why do they not correspond? The sources, used/quoted etc. in the Preface, are not present in the Epistle, and those, used/quoted etc in the Epistle, are not present in the Preface. To me, this means that we seriously have to consider the possibility of a heterogeneous character of the Centuries, the Preface and the Epistle as we know them today and it will not surprise me if actually a number of authors is at stake. De Meern, the Netherlands, January 29, 2006 Theo van Berkel

 

Observations de Jacques Halbronn

             If one looks at Turrel or Roussat's books, one will notice that they constitute already an heterogeneous source, each part  treating of a different method.  Therefore, anyone one borrowing from thos books will produce heterogeneity. If the borrower knows about Astrology, he will be conscious of it, if he does not know much and think that Astrology is homogeneous, he will take as granted that whatever he might borrow will be compatible. I think that it is exactly what has happened, those books have been used indifferently to produce a certain number of quatrains and to amplify Epistles to Cesar and Henry  II.  One part of Turrel/.Roussat is about Jupiter-Saturn conjonctions, another part is about the planetary  ages, another about the 10 saturnian revolutions and so on and each time the initial and terminal  dates which are proposed are different : 1789 with the 10 saturnian "revolts", 1702 with the great conjunctions . And all this has been mixed. For instance, 1702 has become 1792 in the Epistle to Henry II and so on. The compilation work has been made by  people who knew very little of the sujbject and there absolutely no reason why one should try to find coherence where there was none and moreover to attribute to Nostradamus such a mess!

            About heterogeneity,  even one  quatrain is not an homogeneous identity unless one decides otherwise and sometimes, even one line of a quatrain  is not either  homogeneous. The question is therefore not about proving homogeneity or heterogeneity but  to determine who borrowed from whom.  And one good argument wouid be who needs it  most. If I have an orchard with thousands of apples, why should  I steal a few apples from my neighbour  but I have no orchard and that my neighbour has one,  then it is likely that  I might  be suspected if one finds a few apples in my possession. And it will make no difference if I stole or bought them.  If one considers the production of Crespin - and we know that Bibliotheque Nostradamus has now a great deal of it on line -  it becomes obvious that Crespin had certainly  no difficulty at all to write poems and to produce texts in a prophetic style.And I become really sick and tired to hear some people telling and repeating unceasingly that he was an impostor  and therefore that he took texts from Nostradamus.  He did take the name of Nostradamus like in XIXth  Century's  England, Raphael was an astrological name which was inherited by a succession of almanach makers but that does not mean that he had to copy literally part of  his work. He would have become an impostor and may that was the case, if he had tried to  exhibit his own work as being the one of Nostradamus.  And even he did not do it, his work was indeed used fot that purpose which makes him an impostor "malgré lui'. So one should decide if Crespin was an impostor because he took from Nostradamus - more than his surname -  or because one took from him as being wrongly  of Nostradamus. In the first case,  the corpus of quatrains which appears in his work  is anterior to Crespin, in the second case, it is posterior to him and that is the main point to be debated, a chronological issue. And the time difference between the two possibilities is about 20 to 25 years.
Excusez du peu!