|
Homogeneousness vs. heterogeneousness
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) (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. |