Videl's diatribe against Nostradamus (repost)
le prophète
from the sale of your books about Nostradamus & his prophecies...
Now u r trying to discredit him...
How hyprocritical can u b ?!?
______________________________________________________________________________
Peter Lemesurier <lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<s8lrfu8i2gv4cc0la...@4ax.com>...
> VIDEL ON NOSTRADAMUS
>
> Laurens Videl was a doctor and astrologer who taught at Avignon and
> Lyon, and was the author of Almanachs with Claude Fabri (i.e. he knew
> what he was talking about!), who in 1557 wrote (and published in 1558)
> a pamphlet entitled the 'Declaration of the Deceptions, Ignorances and
> Seditions of Michel Nostradamus', which on the basis of its known
> finances had a print-run of 6,000.
>
> The following are English translations of some choice extracts. They
> are addressed to 'Michel de Nostredame' in person:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ..."I can say with complete confidence that of true astrology you
> understand less than nothing, as is evident not merely to the learned,
> but to learners in astrology too, as your works amply demonstrate, you
> who cannot calculate the least movement of any star whatever:
> and no more than knowing the movements do you understand how to use
> your tables. Nor do you show your knowledge of the tables when you
> state that the spring of this year 1557 will start on the 15th day of
> March when the sun enters the First Point of Aries at 0 degrees 53
> minutes. See how ignorant you are...What is this First Point? Do you
> not show that you have no idea what this Point is? For, when the sun
> is at the First Point, there are consequently no minutes, given that a
> point is indivisible...
>
> "I ask you, Michel, what makes you say that, if not your ignorance,
> you who are unaware that the planets in the ephemerides are calculated
> for noon, and that the sun has long since passed the First Point of
> Aries when it gets to 52 minutes. What you ought to have said was that
> spring will start on the 10th of March at 3 pm when the sun enters the
> First Point of Aries, as calculated with YOUR ephemerides, which were
> calculated (I believe) for the meridian of Venice, which is very
> different from ours, and which you wouldn't know how to adjust for...
>
> "Look, Michel, I ask you whether you aren't an even greater ignoramus
> and ass than I say? The full moon that you mention in your Presages
> for January 1557 -- you say that the moon is at 37 degrees and 46
> minutes of Cancer. What ARE you talking about, you great idiot -- the
> sun in Aquarius and the moon opposite it in Cancer? Who on earth told
> you that Cancer was opposite Aquarius? Would even anybody who had
> never seen an astrology book drop a bigger clanger than yours? Aren't
> you a great ninny if you don't understand that Leo is opposite
> Aquarius, and not Cancer?...
>
> "Certainly, if I wanted to recite all the ignorances, errors and
> idiocies that you have been putting in your works for the last four or
> five years, it would need a pretty big book...
>
> "...However, I see that you predicted *yourself* jolly well in January
> 1555, when you said that many would seduce the people by forging
> prophecies: for my part, the only person playing the prophet was you,
> and [so] I wonder whether you might not be one of the prophets of the
> Antichrist that are supposed to show up during the Last Times?
>
> "...and I reply for all three of those [astrologers whom you have
> attacked] that they have forgotten more mathematics than you will ever
> know, for you started too late and didn't enter by the true door...
>
> "...So now I would like to ask you whether you are not trying to tell
> everybody that you have a prophetic spirit that reveals everything to
> you, given that you speak as if you were assuredly God? Perhaps you
> will tell me that you receive revelations from a spirit, but not an
> evil one -- but you should understand that is is the Father of Lies
> who tries to transform himself into an angel of light, and for every
> truth he tells you, he tells you five hundred lies, as is obvious from
> all your works, which are full of them..."
>
> After citing many examples of astrological inaccuracies from the
> 1557 Almanach, Videl goes on:
>
> "Certainly it annoys me to have to teach you something so easy, for I
> could send you the least of my disciples who would teach you that when
> Saturn is four signs away from the sun it is said to be neither
> 'combuste' nor ' burning'. ['combuste' means 'next to the sun']
> Perhaps you thought it was four *degrees*?
>
> "Oh you ignorant muddle-head, why don't you check before you write? I
> don't know whether you are referring to Abbatou, who is a real liar,
> as I have demonstrated previously. Believe me, Michel, do a bit of
> study, and don't play around with these liars who give you to
> understand that Saturn is 'burning' when it is so far from the sun,
> contrary to every true rule. You said something very similar for the
> summer, when you even say that the sun is in Cancer, while Saturn in
> Taurus is 'combuste'. What ARE you thinking about, you poor fool?
> Certainly, if a man of good sense had undertaken to stand astrology
> completely on its head, he could not have done worse that you in your
> ignorance.
>
> "It upsets me to demonstrate to you your major idiocies, but in order
> to discharge what I have been asked to do, and to fulfil my duty, I am
> forced to demonstrate part of your minor follies, without even
> mentioning your major ones, so as not to scandalise you in the eyes of
> the people, whom you have seduced and misled in this way, although you
> gave me cause, without my having ever spoken ill of you [looks as if
> this is actually a riposte to something that Nostradamus had written
> or said about HIM -- this was, after all, about the time when
> Nostradamus's quatrain against astrologers (VI.100) first appeared in
> print!], but I would have warned you of your errors, which
> I perceived to be so great, if the occasion had presented itself, and
> would have remonstrated with you about them privately and with good
> will. [Note how the style is almost as convoluted as Nostradamus's!]
>
> "And I am well aware that many who know me will be staggered that I
> have bothered to reply to somebody who deserves no such response, just
> as the mad are free to say whatever they like, but having been asked
> to do so, and for the duty that I owe to this noble science, which
> should not be profaned as you profane it, I have been forced to show
> you that I am not as stupid as you think I am, and if you were a man
> of good will...
>
> "...you show yourself more ignorant than it is impossible to find
> anybody like you for ignorance [?!!]; you say that it was around
> half-an-hour after midnight, and when you do the chart for what should
> be the midnight line or a little afterwards, you show it at sunrise.
> Look, you great ass -- you want the sun to be at midnight and in the
> east, both at the same time: for what should be in the fourth house,
> you put in the first, and what should be in the first, you put in the
> tenth! Perhaps you will wriggle out of it for me by saying that you
> did it intentionally so that many should not understand you? But you
> shan't wriggle out of it, for in trying to wriggle out of the title of
> ignoramus you fall into something worse -- namely that of faker,
> deceiver and misleader of the people.
>
> "I have just remembered that a young gentleman recounted to me that,
> while passing through Salon with one other, they went to look you up,
> in the hope that you would do the birthchart for one of them. And you,
> being busy with your studies, opened your ephemerides and tried to do
> the birthchart simply from where they lay open, even though that was
> neither the year of birth nor the year of the interrogation, such that
> you were reproached by them, who didn't even know anything about
> astrology, and who said 'What are you trying to do to us? That isn't
> the birth year, nor is it this year in which we are consulting you!'
> And in the end you tried to bluster [?] your way out in your usual
> way, but they refused to let you, and recognised you as the ignoramus
> you are, mocking you in your own presence...They certainly did their
> duty in recognising how ignorant you are not to have told them
> anything relevant, and so they gave you nothing [for it] either.
>
> "Certainly I have seen many of your birthcharts, which you wriggled
> out of doing for them, but you have never had the grace to confirm
> that you have known how to find the true zodiacal Ascendant [this is
> true, as Brind'Amour demonstrates]. So what reading can you possibly
> give us when you don't know the principal feature on which all
> readings have to be based? So much for your new astrology that the
> mathematicians can make nothing of!
>
> "It is not only in this current year that you have tried to show
> yourself to be the Holy Spirit [Himself], for in the Prognostication
> for 1552 you used words that were so definite that God himself has
> never used more definite ones, when you said that many great persons
> both lay and ecclesiatical would infallibly die. What word is this --
> 'infallibly'? - given that we read in the prophet Jonah that God had
> told him that he was going to destroy the city of Niniveh, and yet he
> did not: again, apparently it was said that the Prophet would die, and
> he didn't. Thus it is clear that the Holy Spirit never spoke with such
> certainty as you in your new astrology forged in your own brain,
> putting the world in admiration of you by your loud assertions and
> follies.
>
> "Is it not the act of a madman in the said Prognostication for 1552,
> when you say may it please sovereign God immortal that the war,
> famine, sterility and death of many cattle, which will happen for
> sure, should not happen? Given that you say that it will happen for
> certain, why do you pray that it may not happen? Aren't you showing
> that you are contradicting yourself: first of all you say that it will
> happen for sure, and immediately afterwards you say that it doesn't
> have to happen -- plus so many other idiocies that I am ashamed to
> point them out to you.
>
> "...It is certain that three days after your death your name will be
> just as dead [as you are]... [Ah well, obviously Videl wasn't a
> prophet either! ;)
>
> Videl continues his diatribe (page 20)...
>
> "...That you contradict yourself, all your works bear witness: when
> you speak of changes in the air you say of one and the same lunar
> quarter that it will be hot, cold, dry and wet -- who on earth taught
> you to speak like that? For the new moon of April 1553 you say that it
> will be wet and warm, and then you say dry and there is no risk of
> rain. *There's* a fine piece of harmony for a musician!
>
> "...I return to your errors and ignorances for the month of January
> 1555. You say that the full moon of the 7th will be at 6 minutes in
> the morning. Why do you say a six minutes, you duffer? For the full
> moon will be on the said day after 8 o'clock in the evening and not at
> 6 minutes in the morning. Straight after that you say that you do not
> dare to declare what will happen that year. Why did you use such
> tricks -- if not so that you should be summoned to the Court?
>
> "...It irks me to recount the daylight robberies you committed on the
> way to the said Court, in Avignon as in Lyon and Valence and Vienne
> and othe towns [interesting commentary on N's probable route], such
> that I was ashamed to hear of them and you were as shameful as a dog.
> Among other things, I saw a woman from Lyon to whom you had issued
> some worthless prescription, to the extent of stinging her for 10
> crowns [a huge sum equal to 30 pounds, which you can probably multiply
> by 20 to get a rough modern value!]. When you came out of the house of
> the late Lord Lieutenant Tignac she called after you 'Give me back my
> ten crowns, for your prescription is no good.' And like a shameless
> charlatan you said 'It's OK.' Even though she had realised that it was
> no good you refused to give her back her ten crowns: there's an honest
> and honourable act for you, like so many others that you performed
> before you left Lyon as a known charlatan ignorant of all sound
> knowledge!
>
> "In addition, you confessed in the presence of my lords the Doctors of
> Medicine that you were not a doctor, but had been previously, and now
> you were working entirely in astrology, as if astrology stopped anyone
> being a doctor or as if somebody had made you forget what you knew.
> And what response did you give Jacqes Bassetin when he asked which
> type of domification [the division of the sky into houses] you found
> best? You answered his question just like (to quote the common saying)
> Magnificat at Matins [the Magnificat belongs in the evening service,
> not the morning one!]: for you just told him what fine things his
> epicycles were. O mammoth ignorance! In short, you performed such
> noble, honest deeds at Lyon that on your way back from the Court you
> didn't dare to show yourself there, nor to let anybody know except
> Jean Brotot, and him forbidden expressly to tell anybody you were
> coming, for fear that you might be forced to pay back what you had
> been clever enough to scrounge. For certainly you did such things at
> Lyon as merited your being thrashed or burnt. Do you really think that
> if the King had been told about it you wouldn't have been?
>
> "I think that your only thought is to predict all the ills that come
> into your head, without any other source of information -- for every
> year you predict pestilence, famine and war. Don't you see how often
> you have got it wrong? Even in that same year, when provisions were so
> abundant and cheap everywhere, you nevertheless said at the end of
> March that you doubted whether this age would be renewed. But first
> there must come other prophets than you -- for you also say 'my
> calculation is just and true.' How can it possibly be just and true,
> when you cannot calculate and don't understand the very principles of
> astrology, as anybody can see for themselves? You would do much better
> to refrain from ever talking about astrology, but if you insist on
> carrying on predicting as you have up to now, say that you have the
> spirit of prophecy and just prophesy in your own new-fangled way."
>
> "...thus you will be frustrated in all your ambiguities and stupid
> threats that you keep issuing to everybody, trying to scare them with
> your false alarms, as you do in your Almanach for 1556 when you say
> 'happy he who shall walk and shall not walk on the ground, and happier
> he who has little or no money'. There's a fine prediction for you! But
> YOU weren't prepared to be one of those happy ones with little or
> nothing, were you? -- for you were so well off as a result of your
> deceptions and seditions that you had acquired three or four hundred
> crowns [900 to 1200 pounds, or nearer £20,000 in modern money]!
>
> "What did you mean in the said Almanach for 1556 when you said for the
> month of January 'Nox incubat atra [Latin -- Night incubated dark
> things] shall be said in full daylight'? You just wanted everybody to
> know that you had read Virgil!
>
> "...For as Ptolemy says in his first aphorism, 'those who wish to
> predict in detail must needs be divinely inspired'... Believe me,
> leave your dreaming, which leads you to believe so many lies. Those
> who advised you to write against me are wishing great evil on you, for
> I never offended you in any way whatsoever, and yet you published
> insults about me. And it seemed to you that I lacked a voice to answer
> you with, for you thought I was dead, seeing that you had said that at
> the end of the year we should not have the leisure to speak. If you
> had been honest, and a man of good will, you would have acted
> differently, for if I had been in error, you should have shown me by
> way of good science (if you had understood it, that is) just where I
> have gone wrong, and not by spouting injurious words that you don't
> know what you mean [sic], unless you are joking.
>
> "...As for me, I am not at all surprised if people say you have
> correctly predicted and divined things that have actually happened,
> for inevitably among an infinite number of lies there must be *some*
> truth. As when you predicted the deaths of many -- some did die, but
> others are very much alive. Even here at Avignon there is a woman whom
> you told that she would be dead by such-and-such a month, and she was
> indeed quite ill out of sheer fright. Why are you so keen to scare
> everybody?
>
> "... What you are so keen to promote are blasphemies, holding in such
> little esteem so many fine contemporary minds and the fact that the
> arts and sciences are currently flourishing as a result of the
> abundance of well-educated people that are around today."
>
> Now Videl literally throws the Book at him! ...
>
> "You should take heed that you are not one of the prophets of whom
> Moses says at Deuteronomy 18: 'The prophet who through arrogance tries
> to say what I have not commanded him to say, he shall be put to
> death.' You say that 'prophet' means' seer' because it is written in
> Samuel that 'he who today is called a prophet was formerly called a
> seer': but it is certain that they saw what God revealed to them
> through his Spirit. And you are so arrogant as to say that you have
> written 'in a cloudy form, more by the spirit than in any prophetic
> way'. What proud, stupid arrogance! Aren't you content with having
> yourself thought of as a prophet? Do you want to be *more* than a
> prophet, through revealed inspiration? Well, well, friendly reader, I
> beseech you to take a good look at this proud arrogance that is not
> content merely to con everybody with its fables and mad inventions.
> But on top of that to call himself a prophet, and more than a prophet
> -- what intolerable blasphemy!
>
> "Even the Jews were thoroughly scandalised when [a certain prophet]
> was allowed to take on holy names when he boasted that he had received
> the spirit of prophecy and prophetic inspiration, and many volumes of
> occult philiosophy that were hidden for a long time have been
> attributed to him. And then all his wonderful fantasies about having
> burned them, or 'presented them to Vulcan, and reduced them to ashes'
> and so on... And on top of that he says that everything that is to
> come he can prophesy by means of nocturnal and celestial lights, and
> by the spirit of prophecy. He who is totally ignorant and knows no
> star or celestial body proposes to invent for us a new astrology
> forged out of his own bacchanalian fury -- and not his Mohammedan one,
> as he claims -- in a pretence at prophecy!
>
> "So you, Michel, have composed (so you tell us) books of prophecy? You
> have jumbled them up obscurely and they are perpetual vaticinations?
> Yet never did Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel or the rest boast
> of such a thing -- of having composed perpetual prophecies -- as you
> do. And yet they were true prophets, having received the true gift of
> prophecy which is the gift of God, poured out by the Holy Spirit and
> not at all by any human will!! As St Paul tells the Romans in his 12th
> chapter, nevertheless it is often given to the evil to prophesy -- as
> happened to Saul when the evil spirit assailed him, and he prophesied
> in the middle of the house, as is written at I Samuel 8. Moreover, the
> term 'prophet' is applied to those who interpret the holy scriptures,
> as St Paul says at I Corinthians 15. So no true prophet says anything
> that God has not put into his mouth, as is written in the first book
> of Kings, chapter 22. As the prophet Micah says, 'I will speak what
> the Lord says to me'. In addition, a prophet is called a man of God,
> as is written in the second book of Kings, chapter 5. For a prophet is
> one who teaches what God reveals to him by His Spirit, for the
> glorification of the holy church, as St Paul says in the 4th chapter
> to the Ephesians. But YOU are rather numbered with the 400 false
> prophets who advised King Ahab to make war against Ramoth Gilead. But
> a single true prophet of God called Micheas advised the contrary, as
> we read in the first book of Kings, chapter 22 -- the third in the
> Latin Bible. You are one of those lying prophetesses described in the
> 13th chapter of Ezekiel who prophesied from their own hearts, and not
> by the spirit of God. In St Matthew chapter 7 Jesus Christ warned us
> to beware of you, and of all similar false prophets: for your teaching
> is full of lying and avarice, unashamed to lie, disordered by your own
> stupidity, trying to arrogate holy names to yourself and claiming to
> be inspired by revelations. Take heed that you are not one of those of
> whom the 4th chapter of Jeremiah says that there are false prophets
> prophesying falsities, false vision, divination, fantasies and
> deceptions of their own devising, whom God has not sent, but whom he
> shall consume with the sword ... and so on.
>
> "O great midleader of the people, you say that you have made perpetual
> prophecies, and then you say that they are for the period from now
> until 3797 [Preface to César]. Who has told you that the world will
> last that long? Are you not a true liar? For even the angels
> themselves [traditionally the guardians of the earth's successive
> planetary ages] know nothing of it. As it is written at St Matthew 24,
> 'and you would judge yourselves higher than the angels', in that you
> have put it about that you are more than a prophet, prophesying for
> the whole world."
>
> (page 32...)
>
> ..."And afterwards in your prophecies [Preface to César] you say that
> before the universal end of the world there will be so many floods and
> deep inundations that there will be hardly any land not covered with
> water, and that for a long time everything will be destroyed apart
> from topographies. Why do you speak like that, I ask? I imagine it
> seems to you that everybody is as ignorant as you are in not
> understanding what 'topography' means. Certainly you make it perfectly
> clear that YOU don't know what it means, for there is no sense or
> reason in speaking in that way -- in saying that everything will be
> destroyed apart from the *description of certain places*: you imagined
> that 'topography' meant places ('topos') -- but 'graphia' means
> 'description', so that 'topography' is the 'description of a place'.
> Aren't you just showing your ignorance, you who know neither Greek nor
> Latin, and who in speaking French merely try to scrape off bits of
> Greek and Latin? Besides, you don't understand what you are writing,
> in that everybody can easily see your idiocy, to the extent that it is
> against Holy Scripture, which assures us that God will never again
> destroy the earth by water, as it is written in Genesis chapter 9,
> saying that there will henceforth be no flood to lay waste the earth.
> So there your doctrine and prophecies are completely contrary to Holy
> Scripture.
>
> "Again, you show yourself even more of an ass when you attempt to
> speak of secret sciences, where you say that although Mars is
> finishing its cycle, at the end of its final period it will take it up
> again. It is thirty-two years now since Mars finished [its cycle], and
> then the moon took over rulership, which is evident and probable. But
> to say that it will take it up again -- that is to exceed all bounds,
> given that even the Angels [who were said to govern the system] know
> nothing about it, as I said earlier. Thus it is that everybody can see
> that your prophecies are nasty and false, and it is hardly worth my
> taking the trouble to look at your works, for they are nothing but
> ignorance and gross deception.
>
> "And it's no use covering yourself with astrology, either, for it
> teaches us no such fantasies, not to fool around with going out at
> night to look at the stars. I realise that for those who wish to learn
> astrology it is necessary to observe the sky in order to recognise the
> fixed stars, the planets and their courses. But to say that you have
> to go and look at them to write Almanachs is pure deception
> [Nostradamus would later claim to have written part of the 1566
> Almanach atop the tower of Salon's castle]. Besides, as far as doing
> so in order to calculate their movements is concerned, you know
> nothing about it. If you knew even the basics of astrology, you would
> know that there is no need for you to leave your study to write
> Almanachs. For in our own time there are plenty of learned and
> educated people who have already calculated for us the movements of
> the eight heavens. But these matters are too obscure for your brain,
> for it is certain that you know how to calculate neither by the
> heavens nor by any tables whatsoever.
>
> "True, I am not unaware that it could be objected that the tables
> might be badly put together. Or if I wanted to be sure that a planet
> was in such-and-such a sign, I could go and check with the sky. That
> is undoubtedly true. But when I do, I don't disguise myself by winding
> a great sheet about my head, nor, similarly, do I draw circles, marks
> or other rigmaroles beneath my feet, which are only there to pull the
> wool over people's eyes [interesting sidelight on N's possible
> practices!]. I simply take my astrolabe or other instrument to measure
> the altitudes of the stars or to carry out any other necessary
> calculations.
>
> "Not long ago an upright man referred himself to you to ask your
> advice about a ulcer that he had in his bladder. And after you had
> stripped him completely naked you gave him a piece of advice that is
> worth remembering, if only so that it can be laughed at for evermore
> -- you told him to have sex with a small black woman. This piece of
> advice is rather like ordering the use of turpentine or oil for
> putting out a raging fire [Videl, it should remembered, was a doctor].
> In this way we can see that you are as good a physician as you are an
> astrologer for, not content with advising him to make his ulcer grow
> and get even worse by consorting with women, you insisted that the
> woman be black and small. I don't know whether you did so out of
> superstition, or because you meant that black women are more skilled
> with the weapons [of love].
>
> "Then again, I recently saw a book that you had had printed under your
> name [the 'Traité des fardemens et confitures'] containing certain
> recipes and cosmetics that you have gleaned from here and there, on
> the grounds that you had been an apothecary -- or rather a sophonist
> [?] or chemist. At any rate you hardly understood anything about this
> art, for in the book there is nothing but follies and old wives' tales
> designed to make people dream about your cosmetics..."
>
> (page 36 onwards)
>
> "Now if you were a man of reason and had some grounding in some other
> science, I would prove to you that anyone making predictions, presages
> and almanacs should not use enchantments, sorcery, secret spells or
> similar errors, which are contrary to reason, nature and mathematics.
> Yet you have written publicly that you wish to harmonise occult
> philosophy with astrology, and in many places in your works you write
> that you do not dare to declare what occult philosophy says -- which
> makes it quite clear that what you call occult philosophy is merely
> odds and snippets that you write in the course of your great
> blunders...
>
> "Seeing that you have deceived and tricked the world, even many people
> of goodwill say, 'I don't dare read his works because of all the ills
> that he predicts for us'. Not only have you misled and deceived the
> common people, but also the great lords, whom you have caused to
> admire you through your disordered ramblings, and who have all let
> pass your tall stories or simply failed to be on their guard against
> them. But rather did they not think it honorable to respond to such an
> ignoramus -- as, indeed, I did not either, even though without cause
> or reason you slandered me, for I knew perfectly well that what you
> said was false lies, given that neither I nor any of mine had accused
> or slandered you, whether before monarchs or anybody else, nor indeed
> said a word about you [had Nostradamus perhaps said unpleasant things
> about him to Catherine de Médicis at Court in the summer of 1555?].
>
> "Therefore for the duty that I owe to science, and also so that the
> world should no longer be misled by your lies, deceptions, tricks and
> fables and other diabolical inventions -- whatever truths they may
> contain -- seeing that they argue neither from reason nor from any
> true science at all, but rather from various superstitions and spells
> which are simply not to be endured, I thought it well to warn you by
> this present work.
>
> "And when I consider the opinion that people have of astrology, I am
> reminded of what the prophet Jeremiah said: 'How the gold has darkened
> and changed its beauteous colour!' For true knowledge has been shamed
> and disgraced by your ridiculous presages and idiotic fables and lies.
>
> "...For the month of February 1556 you talk about the new moon of the
> 10th in Aquarius. Look, you ignoramus -- the sun is in Pisces and the
> moon in *Aquarius*? Truly, if a literate carter were to try writing
> almanacs, he wouldn't make as many mistakes as you do. You even say
> 'Saturn regarding the Lion with a sextile aspect': Saturn is in Aries,
> and you want it to regard Leo with a sextile?!
>
> "In truth, the more I look at your fantasies, the more I can see you
> are a charlatan and ignoramus. You say 'Because human reason cannot
> attain to heaven by means of the ancient tables of revolutions, we can
> get there by means of other secrets -- but I absolutely do not dare to
> explain what must inevitably come to pass.' You want us to believe
> that you have more divinity than other men, because you are a prophet,
> or because you have TWO spirits that make you more than they are --
> and those are your secrets which let you attain to heaven and say that
> this or that will happen infallibly!
>
> "...Every year, too, you say that you wonder whether the end of the
> age is not truly near, but since you say that your have written your
> prophecies up to the year 3797, and that you are inspired by God, why
> are you worrying about it now, for we [evidently] still have a long
> way to go? Also you say that you cannot fail or err. Well, before I
> leave you, not for a calf, which is too small a dumb animal, but for a
> great bull or elephant, the biggest of dumb animals, let me assure you
> that I have examined very closely the revolution of this moon of 20th
> November 1557 at 1500 hours in the afternoon, with Mercury retrograde
> ascending into the sign of Aquarius, the moon conjunct with it, and
> afterwards Venus conjoining with Jupiter in the sign of Capricorn, the
> moon conjoining with the said Venus, the quartile aspect of Mars with
> Saturn, the conjunction of Mercury with the sun, and various other
> aspects during this present month of November. And among all these new
> phenomena I have found not one of those that you actually claimed to
> find through all your schemings: these may be 'new' to you, but not to
> those who know anything about it.
>
> "This is what I declare and make known to you, then -- that you are an
> ignoramus, a brainless idiot, a lunatic dreamer, fleeing the company
> of men except when you think you can make money from them, and having
> no other friend than your grotty familiar (?).
>
> "Also I had forgotten to tell you that you are nothing but a cabalist
> because you don't really understand metathesis. For example, when you
> say in your Almanachs 'le grand Chyren', meaning 'Henry', there should
> be no 'C' for the purposes of metathesis, nor for orchema (?), at
> least if you were trying to speak French. But if you tell me that this
> is according to the mother-tongue of your region to say 'Henryc' for
> 'Henry' I accept it and admit that you win.
>
> "...Before drawing to an end this present piece I pray you, before you
> write any more Almanachs or Prognostications, to study the principles
> of astrology, for I can see quite well than in your works for the year
> 1558 you have still not realised your ignorance, and if I could I
> would persuade you to withdraw them so that you could start again from
> scratch. But I am not as hostile to you as you imagined, and thank God
> I bear you no grudge at all, and do not slander you in any way, nor
> have I done, and I take no pleasure in saying bad things about
> anybody, as those who are acquainted with me know full well. And even
> if I had never published any Almanachs [of my own] it would not upset
> me at all, given that there are many errors and idiocies written by
> the Arabs that are of little efficacy or usefulness.
>
> "And I advise all those who are thinking of writing predictions not to
> amuse themselves in this way, but rather to follow Ptolemy, who is a
> good author. In this way they will not exceed the limits of astrology.
>
> "Well, if it seems to you that in responding to you I have been too
> rude, you should know that if you ever come to speak of me again as
> you did, you shall know that what I have written so far has merely
> been the petal of the rose pricking you, and that if you eventually
> come back to pick it, you shall feel the thorn which will pierce you
> to the marrow.
>
> "From Avignon, this day when you threatened me with all kinds of ills,
> which is the 25th November 1557.
>
> "End of the deceptions, deceptions and ignorances of Michel Nostramus
> [sic], of Salon de Craux.
>
> "ERRATA [listed for pages 5 to 15]
>
> "Printed with the authority and permission of My Lord the Vicar
> General of Avignon" [Avignon was still a papal enclave at the time]
>
> -------------
>
> English translation copyright (c) Peter Lemesurier 2000
Peter Lemesurier
wrote:
>Peter, u made many hundreds of thousands of pounds (if not millions)
>from the sale of your books about Nostradamus & his prophecies...
Yes, I tried telling my publishers that. Unfortunately they
disagreed... :(
>
>Now u r trying to discredit him...
As far as Nostradamus is concerned, all I am trying to do is post the
evidence (positive AND negative) about him. Or did you not notice that
I described Videl's piece in my header as a 'diatribe'?
>
>How hyprocritical can u b ?!?
Only as hypocritical as the mentally confused can make me...
In case you hadn't noticed, my criticisms are usually directed not at
Nostradamus, but at people's long-cherished delusions about him.
--
Peter
Denny Hart
> Nostradamus, but at people's long-cherished delusions about him.
No No NO No No. Your take on Nostradamus is that we can not really
trust much of what he said, since he was motivated by money. His
letter to his own son, far from being a father-son thing, was you
said, was suspect. Yet another way to turn a buck. Lastly, I think
your take on Nostradamus is that he may very well have been a total
fake (rather than someone who THINKS he is tell the future, but can
not). But perhaps, I am wrong on this last point. Perhaps you could
tell us what you think about the "seer". Was he a fake?
Denny Hart
> Nostradamus, but at people's long-cherished delusions about him.
Denny Hart
> Nostradamus, but at people's long-cherished delusions about him.
Peter Lemesurier
>> In case you hadn't noticed, my criticisms are usually directed not at
>> Nostradamus, but at people's long-cherished delusions about him.
>
>
>No No NO No No. Your take on Nostradamus is that we can not really
>trust much of what he said, since he was motivated by money.
Well, that among other things, like most of us. He had a wife and six
kids to support, after all.
That has little or nothing to do with whether we can trust him or not,
though. That depends on (a) how sound his method was and (b) how
reliably useful he has proved up to now...
> His
>letter to his own son, far from being a father-son thing, was you
>said, was suspect.
No, I think you must be thinking of somebody else. It was clearly for
the benefit of (a) his son and (b) the general reader, just like all
dedications at the time.
> Yet another way to turn a buck. Lastly, I think
>your take on Nostradamus is that he may very well have been a total
>fake (rather than someone who THINKS he is tell the future, but can
>not). But perhaps, I am wrong on this last point. Perhaps you could
>tell us what you think about the "seer". Was he a fake?
He didn't see himself that way. His (or rather his age's) underlying
model of cyclic destiny is even believed in by some modern financial
analysts. But there seems to me to be precious little evidence to
support it.
If you mean was he consciously a con-man, the answer is clearly no. If
you mean was he deceiving himself, I suspect the answer is yes!
But then he wouldn't be the only one who ever did that, would he? ;)
--
Peter
Denny Hart
Hi Peter:
I do not want to be a jerk, but this is exactly what you said
at another time. I understand, however, that views can change. Or
perhaps they did not and you can explain.
Peter SEZ: In case you hadn't noticed, my criticisms are usually
directed not at
> >> Nostradamus, but at people's long-cherished delusions about him.
> >
> >
DENNY SEZ: No No NO No No. Your take on Nostradamus is that we can not
really
> >trust much of what he said, since he was motivated by money.
>
PETER SEZ BACK: Well, that among other things, like most of us. He
had a wife and six
> kids to support, after all.
>
> That has little or nothing to do with whether we can trust him or not,
> though. That depends on (a) how sound his method was and (b) how
> reliably useful he has proved up to now...
>
Peter also SEZ: If you mean was he consciously a con-man, the answer
is clearly no.
However, on Oct 22, 2001 here is what you said. Note how you call
Nostradamus a bullshitter. Also note how you knock the letter to his
son.
On 21 Oct 2001 22:00:32 -0700, gertan...@yahoo.com (gert) wrote:
>
>Now, in "Nostradamus's Preface to César"
>
>He and you write: "This is what caused me to refrain from public
>utterance and prevented my putting pen to paper. [Yes, yes - excuses,
>excuses!]" So you imply that he is lying as to why he has not "put
pen
>to paper". He is lying to his son.
PETER THEN SEZ: Well, he's writing an open letter for general public
consumption.
Given that his son was only one year old at the time, I don't suppose
it made too much difference to him whether his dad was cooking up
excuses or not.
This is a lot different from this week:
DENNY SEZ: His
> >letter to his own son, far from being a father-son thing, was you
> >said, was suspect.
>
PETER SEZ BACK: No, I think you must be thinking of somebody else. It
was clearly for
> the benefit of (a) his son and (b) the general reader, just like all
> dedications at the time.
>
Gert SEZ in his letter (my pet theory too):
>
>Rather, HERE he stresses the role of "impressions", which he perhaps
>was unable to understand (because they are out of context, as you
once
>pointed out and also because he was not part of the future culture he
>saw). THEN, in order to understand these "impressions" of the future
>he used horoscopy.
PETER SEZ: You might think that. Certainly it's what he wants you to
believe. But
if you had read as much of Nostradamus as I have, you would know what
an incorrigible old bullshitter he was! The ALmanachs in particular
are an absolute disgrace! ;)
....
There are several levels to distinguish:
1. What he believed he was doing.
2. What he wanted his public to believe he was doing.
3. What he was actually doing.
They're not necessarily all the same!
>
> >In the preface, N. cautions he son against doing anything other than
>horoscopy, but he says that he took another path.
Bullshitting?
>
>Thus, if you think "As for how he DID do it, you may care to note
that
>most of his prophecies are either (a) forecast repetitions of known
>historical events or (b) regurgitations of prophecies by others that
>were already well known".
>
>For, by logic, if you believe that " most of his prophesies" came
from
>methods a and b, you must think he was bull shitting his son. For in
>the preface, he claimed something very different.
Ah, you hit on the very word!
>
In this thread Denny SEZ:
> > His
> >letter to his own son, far from being a father-son thing, was you
> >said, was suspect.
>
> No, I think you must be thinking of somebody else. It was clearly for
> the benefit of (a) his son and (b) the general reader, just like all
> dedications at the time.
But we have already seen that you thought him Bullshitting in the
letter about his occult methods.
Denny SEZ:
> > Yet another way to turn a buck. Lastly, I think
> >your take on Nostradamus is that he may very well have been a total
> >fake (rather than someone who THINKS he is tell the future, but can
> >not). But perhaps, I am wrong on this last point. Perhaps you could
> >tell us what you think about the "seer". Was he a fake?
PEtyer SEZ:
> He didn't see himself that way. His (or rather his age's) underlying
> model of cyclic destiny is even believed in by some modern financial
> analysts. But there seems to me to be precious little evidence to
> support it.
>
> If you mean was he consciously a con-man, the answer is clearly no.
But you used the B.S. issue before
Have you changed your mind on this? This, by the way, is a question
asked in a seaching and truthful way (I am not trying to one up you)!
Jean Guernon
Denny Hart a écrit :
>
> Peter Lemesurier <lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<69j3gus0ahkb07e7t...@4ax.com>...
>
> [snip]
>
> PEtyer SEZ:
> > He didn't see himself that way. His (or rather his age's) underlying
> > model of cyclic destiny is even believed in by some modern financial
> > analysts. But there seems to me to be precious little evidence to
> > support it.
> >
> > If you mean was he consciously a con-man, the answer is clearly no.
>
> But you used the B.S. issue before
In other words, he says all along MANY times in the prophecies that he
got them by revelations from God, but Peter deduce that they are derived
from his own takes i.e. either from
1) Comparative Horoscopy or
2) By taking old oracles, and making up things.
But still, according to Peter, he was a fraud that was not trying to con
anyone. Yet, Peter declared before that Nostradamus lied when he said
they were revelations; that he would now say that the Seer wasn't aware
he was lying is quite irreconcilable not to mention illogical.
LOL
>
> Have you changed your mind on this? This, by the way, is a question
> asked in a seaching and truthful way (I am not trying to one up you)!
Of course it is Peter's own conclusions that are faulty, derived from
his lack of competence in reading French, not at all Nostradamus who
isn't a fraud. Nostradamus made clear to completely dissociate the
prophecies (quatrains and accompanying 2 letters) from any other oracles
he did for the people for France, and made sure to make obvious his
sources were not the same for the two different tasks. His prophecies
were revelations that he used to make up the poems. His almanacs and
horoscopes were NOT revelations but derived from astrology and
intuition. Nostradamus never hid these things.
So it is very simple, either you believe the Seer or Peter. You can't
have your cake and eat it too, like Peter tries to do here, lamely I
might add, by saying N was a fraud that didn't know he was a fraud, so
that Peter's conclusions are covered.
J.
Peter Lemesurier
>But you used the B.S. issue before
>
> Have you changed your mind on this? This, by the way, is a question
>asked in a seaching and truthful way (I am not trying to one up you)!
Appreciated. No, not in the slightest.
Bullshitting -- i.e., in this case, trying to put it about that he was
much more of a prophet than he really was (he elsewhere freely admits
to not actually being one on no less than three occasions) -- isn't
necessarily the same as being a continual liar. It's just a form of
propaganda designed to impress people and make them more likely to
accept what you are saying. And Nostradamus, quite obviously, was a
past master at that -- which, of course, is why people are still
worried about him today (success if ever there was!).
Most people do it -- not least the US government!
But the point that you quoted from me remains valid, so I requote
it...
"There are several levels to distinguish:
1. What he believed he was doing.
2. What he wanted his public to believe he was doing.
3. What he was actually doing.
They're not necessarily all the same!"
Now...
1. constitutes sincere belief.
2. constitutes bullshitting.
3. constitutes taking ancient prophecies and events and projecting
them into the future, on the grounds that the past (as most people
believed at the time) necessarily repeats itself -- which,
incidentally, comes under 1 above!
In other words, people aren't either-ors: they exhibit complex
mixtures of behaviour!
--
Peter
Mark Burggraf
Yes! And because of your approach to Nostradamus... Peter, you probably
know more about the man 'Nostradamus' then anyone else living today. You've
studied the culture, the language, customs, science, fears, hopes, and
'what-nots' of the people and the region of the time.
Peter, whether you're aware of it or not, you've probably developed a
psychological profile of Nostradamus that is un-equaled and unparalleled in
modern times (in fact, because of your approach, you probably know more
about Nosty than those living in Nosty's day and age!)
Question: If Nosty knew the ramifications of his predictions in his
Quatrains, would he still have 'posted' them?
Personally, I currently believe that Nosty would have been ecstatic at the
attention that his Quatrains are receiving in the present day and age...
;)
Denny Hart
> mixtures of behaviour!
I get this as a general point. And, I think, you are right. People do
have mix motives.
Thank you for answering the general point of my post
As to the second point which I made: In Oct. you said he was "cooking"
things up, while in June you imply that he was not. Did you chqange
your mind on this.
1. What he believed he was doing.
2. What he wanted his public to believe he was doing.
3. What he was actually doing.
In October you said that the letter to his son was a case of 2), as in
the almanacs. In June, however, you seem to think he was doing 1) or
3)
The example of 2)
On 21 Oct 2001 22:00:32 -0700, gertan...@yahoo.com (gert) wrote:
>
>Now, in "Nostradamus's Preface to César"
>
>He and you write: "This is what caused me to refrain from public
>utterance and prevented my putting pen to paper. [Yes, yes - excuses,
>excuses!]" So you imply that he is lying as to why he has not "put
pen
>to paper". He is lying to his son.
PETER THEN SEZ: Well, he's writing an open letter for general public
consumption.
Given that his son was only one year old at the time, I don't suppose
it made too much difference to him whether his dad was cooking up
excuses or not.
>
>Thus, if you think "As for how he DID do it, you may care to note
that
>most of his prophecies are either (a) forecast repetitions of known
>historical events or (b) regurgitations of prophecies by others that
>were already well known".
>
>For, by logic, if you believe that " most of his prophesies" came
from
>methods a and b, you must think he was bull shitting his son. For in
>the preface, he claimed something very different.
Ah, you hit on the very word!
This is a lot different from this week:
DENNY SEZ: His
> >letter to his own son, far from being a father-son thing, was you
> >said, was suspect.
>
PETER SEZ BACK: No, I think you must be thinking of somebody else. It
was clearly for
> the benefit of (a) his son and (b) the general reader, just like all
> dedications at the time.
>
In the letter to his son is there Bullshit, to you mind?
Peter Lemesurier
Well, that's probably an exaggeration -- but thank you for the
compliment.
>
>Peter, whether you're aware of it or not, you've probably developed a
>psychological profile of Nostradamus that is un-equaled and unparalleled in
>modern times (in fact, because of your approach, you probably know more
>about Nosty than those living in Nosty's day and age!)
That too -- especially when you consider some of the modern *French*
experts on the subject...
>
>Question: If Nosty knew the ramifications of his predictions in his
>Quatrains, would he still have 'posted' them?
I'm sure he would. More strings to his bow!
>
>Personally, I currently believe that Nosty would have been ecstatic at the
>attention that his Quatrains are receiving in the present day and age...
>;)
Absolutely over the moon! ;)
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
>Peter Lemesurier <lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message n
>> In other words, people aren't either-ors: they exhibit complex
>> mixtures of behaviour!
>
>I get this as a general point. And, I think, you are right. People do
>have mix motives.
>
>Thank you for answering the general point of my post
>
>As to the second point which I made: In Oct. you said he was "cooking"
>things up, while in June you imply that he was not. Did you chqange
>your mind on this.
>
>1. What he believed he was doing.
>2. What he wanted his public to believe he was doing.
>3. What he was actually doing.
>
>In October you said that the letter to his son was a case of 2), as in
>the almanacs. In June, however, you seem to think he was doing 1) or
>3)
Well, he was in rather a difficult position, wasn't he? He was writing
for the public-- so had to say the right things -- but at the same
time he was purportedly writing for his son (who wouldn't be able to
read it for years to come). So obviously the public position had to
come first, didn't it?
So it's probably the usual case of both/and, rather than either/or.
>
>The example of 2)
>On 21 Oct 2001 22:00:32 -0700, gertan...@yahoo.com (gert) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Now, in "Nostradamus's Preface to César"
>>
>>He and you write: "This is what caused me to refrain from public
>>utterance and prevented my putting pen to paper. [Yes, yes - excuses,
>>excuses!]" So you imply that he is lying as to why he has not "put
>pen
>>to paper". He is lying to his son.
>
>PETER THEN SEZ: Well, he's writing an open letter for general public
>consumption.
>Given that his son was only one year old at the time, I don't suppose
>it made too much difference to him whether his dad was cooking up
>excuses or not.
Absolutely. I suspect that on that occasion he was cooking up excuses.
He seems to have been rather prone to that, as you can see for
yourself by looking at his letter to Jean de Morel, for example..
>
>>
>>Thus, if you think "As for how he DID do it, you may care to note
>that
>>most of his prophecies are either (a) forecast repetitions of known
>>historical events or (b) regurgitations of prophecies by others that
>>were already well known".
>>
>>For, by logic, if you believe that " most of his prophesies" came
>from
>>methods a and b, you must think he was bull shitting his son. For in
>>the preface, he claimed something very different.
>
>Ah, you hit on the very word!
>
>
>This is a lot different from this week:
>
>DENNY SEZ: His
>> >letter to his own son, far from being a father-son thing, was you
>> >said, was suspect.
>>
>PETER SEZ BACK: No, I think you must be thinking of somebody else. It
>was clearly for
>> the benefit of (a) his son and (b) the general reader, just like all
>> dedications at the time.
>>
>
>In the letter to his son is there Bullshit, to you mind?
Definitely, but only to the extent that it was for public consumption!
--
Peter
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
The bullsit is only in the... mind of Peter.
J.