Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Did Michel 'predict' St Bart's Day?

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Brian Mattys

unread,
Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98
to

Or did he simply know it was going to happen sooner or later?

That is to say: Perhaps Michel used his skills as a political scientist
to forecast the event, not his divine contacts. First, at some point in
the future, the king would have to arrange a special occassion - an
opportunity to gather the Prot leaders together in one place. In other
words, he would set a trap. Now, the marriage (dynastic alliance?) of
Henri IV and Margot (both born in 1553) was inevitable, but Michel was
perceptive enough to know that could not occur until their year of
majority - therefore he bloody well KNEW it would happen in 1572-74!

HISTORICAL FACTS (after publication of the Qs): The idea of a summary
execution of the Protestant leaders, which would be the means of putting
an end to the civil discord that had caused three "religious wars" in
France in 1562-1563, 1567-1568, and 1569-1570 respectively, had long
existed in the mind of Catherine de' Medici, widow of Henry II and
mother of the three successive kings, Francis II, Charles IX, and Henry
III; it had also been entertained by her sons. As early as 1560
Michaelis Suriano, the Venetian ambassador, wrote:

"Francis II (1559-1560) wanted to fall upon the Protestant leaders,
punish them without mercy and thus extinguish the conflagration."

When, in 1565, Catherine de' Medici with her son Charles IX (1560-1574)
and her daughters Margaret of Valois and Elizabeth, wife of Philip II,
investigated the political and religious questions of the hour at the
conferences of Bayonne...

THE DUKE OF ALBA, who was present on these occasions, wrote to Philip
II: "A way to be rid of the five, or at most six, who are at the head of
the faction and direct it, would be to seize their persons and cut off
their heads or at least to confine them where it would be impossible for
them to renew their criminal plots."

Just at that time Alava on his side confided to the same Spanish king
this dark forecast, "I foresee that these heretics will be completely
wiped out".

In 1569 Catholics and Protestants were in arms one against the other,
and the Venetian ambassador, Giovanni Carrero, remarked: "It is the
common opinion that, in the beginning it would have sufficed to do away
with five or six heads and no more". This same year Parliament promised
a reward of 50,000 écus to whoever would apprehend the Admiral de
Coligny (1517-72), leader of the Calvinist party, the king adding that
this sum would be awarded to him who would deliver up the admiral either
alive or dead. Maurevel tried to overtake the admiral for the purpose of
killing him but instead only assassinated one of his lieutenants. Thus
we see that the idea of a summary execution of the leaders of
Protestantism was in the air from 1560 to 1570; moreover it was
conformable to the doctrine of political murder as it flourished during
the sixteenth century when the principles of social morality and
Christian politics elaborated by the theology of the Middle Ages, were
replaced by the lay and half-pagan doctrine of Machiavellianism,
proclaiming the right of the strongest or the most crafty.

Now let us consider the evidence in Centuries I and II:

01.13 Les exiles par ire, haine intestine,
Seront au Roy grand conjuration:
Secret mettront ennemis par la mine,
Et ses vieux fiens contre eux sedition.

Valois vs Guise-Lorraine? Or Huguenots (the exiles) against Henri II?
We know that Jeanne d'Albret will support reform, but what will her
husband Antoine do? Whose side is he on? Michel knows!

01.36 Tard le monarque se viendra repentir,
De n'avoir mis a mort son adversaire:
Mais viendra bien a plus hault consentir,
Que tout son sang par mort sera deffaire.

Henri II would rue the day he trusted les Guises. He also misjudged
Coligny, who was loyal... but the Admiral was destined to be martyred on
St Bart's Day, savagely murdered by gutless assassins. At another
level, Michel knew that the Guise-Lorraine plots would eventually
destroy the Valois family.

01.88 Le divin mal surprendra le grand prince,
Vn peu devant aura femme espousee.
Son apuy & credit a un coup viendra mince,
Conseil mourra pour la teste rasee.

Whoever the shaven heads are (in the almanacs they sound like
Huguenots), they don't like les Valois. We assume Doc expects Henri III
to ascend after Charles. Queen Henri was supposed to marry Elizabeth I
during reign of Charles IX, but refused on relig grounds. But 4th line
is murky. Henri III lost support of Catholics when he allied himself
with Navarre. He was killed by Dominican fanatic J Clement.

02.25 La garde estrange trahira forteresse,
Espoir & umbre de plus hault mariage:
Grade deceue, fort prise dans la presse,
Loyre, Son, Rosne, Gar. a mort oultrage.

When you see a shadow think 'cloak & dagger'. One of the most infamous
weddings in the 16th? Henri Navarre and Margaret of Valois. Nostr
could well have been told of this arrangement by the queen mother
herself. But the Doctor warns his Prot friends (settled along those
rivers) that persecutions will follow. What Prot stronghold was taken
c1562? This is very specific.

02.28 Le penultiesme du surnom du prophete,
Prendra Diane pour son jour & repos:
Loing vaguera par frenetique teste,
Et delivrant un grand peuple d'impos.

This might have something to do with Diane de France, daughter of Henri
II and wife of Francois de Montmorency. We know that she was crucial to
the alliance between her brother and Henri Navarre, and she was an aid
to Henri IV during his reign. The problem here is the 'last but one'
angle: Does it pertain to les Valois, or some other family? Or perhaps
this is Diane de Poitiers, the king's mistress?

02.66 Par grans dangiers le captif eschape,
Peu de temps grand a fortune changee:
Dand le palais le peuple est attrape,
Par bon augure la cite assiege.

Is it the Louvre, in Paris? Consider the fact that Henri Navarre was
held captive at palace after St Bart debacle, but he escaped in 1576 to
begin his impressive ascent to power. Paris later 'evicted' Henri III,
and he was forced to attack it. Nostr must have had a rough scenario to
work from: Navarre destined to prevail! Toppling the Valois dynasty
would necessitate civil war.

02.67 Le blonde au nez forche viendra commettre,
Par le duelle a chassera dehors:
Les exiles dedans sera remettre,
Aux lieux marins commettant le plus fors.

Identify the blond man with hooked nose. William the Silent? Could also
be 'young Navarre', when Nostr knew him (age 10?). The exiles are
likely Prots. As king, he improved France's naval powers, and it's a
safe bet he put his trusted supporters in charge of the ports. This was
crucial to defense against Spain & Italy, even England. But that
strategy seems far beyond the Doctor's frame of ref. Based on contemp
descriptions, Navarre had red hair as a youth, but it had darkened by
early manhood. ("The First Bourbon", p.21)

02.82 Par faim la proye sera loup prisonnier,
L'assaillant lors en extreme detresse,
Le nay ayant au devant le derniere,
Le grand n'eschappe‚ au milieu de la presse.

Is there only one wolf? Again, we are reminded of Nostr discretion. No
wonder he is vague here; the Valois family would have snuffed him! The
prisoner is Henri Navarre. The elder is Charles, the younger is Henri
III. And knowing that his young hero would soon be captive, perhaps he
is leaving orders for the rescue party.

02.88 Le circuit du grand faict ruineux,
Le nom septiesme de cinquiesme sera:
D'un tiers plus grand l'estrange belliqueux ,
Mouton, Lutece, Aix ne garantira.

Lutetia=Paris. Clear ref to Henri the Third, and proof that Nostr worked
from a blueprint, with accession of Henri Navarre the goal.

02.89 Un jour seront demis les deux grands maistres;
Leur grand pouvoir se verra augmente:
La terre neufue sera en ses hauts estres,
Au sanguinaire le nombre racompte.

'Man of blood' is killer of Prots, perhaps Duke of Guise. The two
leaders are Henri III and Navarre. But 'new land' triggers Neustria,
and puts us in mind of Clovis and Theodoric. This Q fits many events,
but Nostr has a goal.

02.92 Feu couleur d'or du ciel en terre veu,
Frappe du haut nay, faict cas merveilleux:
Grand meutre humaine prinse du grad nepeue,
Mort d'espactacles eschappe l'orgueilleux.

Fire from sky, this time connected with slaughter of Prots and the
captive nephew, who must be Henri Navarre. But what is the marvellous
event? It should be noted that Tycho's comet was 1577! Henri escaped
in Feb '76.

02.98 Celui du sang reperse le visage,
De la victime proche sacrifiee:
Tonant en Leo augure par presage,
Mis estre a mort lors pont la fiancee.

Tonans=Jupiter. Does Nostr use 'auge' as abbrev for augerer? This
execution entails some blood-guilt. The fiancee could be the betrothed
of young Henri Navarre, so the one who is sacrificed could well be
Coligny. But he was the victim of assassination. Did Doc expect his
execution?

03.14 Par le rameau du vaillant personnage,
De France infime: par le pere infelice:
Honneurs, richesses, travail en son vieil aage,
Pour avoir creu le conseil d'homme nice.

rameau=branch; nice=simple, inexperienced. Henri II and sons never got
old, unless we consider Henri III at age 38! We are looking for the son
of a brave yet unfortunate French king. The son profits from father's
labors, but weakens the country - so it can't be Navarre. Francois I
succeeded his cousin, Louis XII, 'father of the people' who succeded his
cousin Charles VIII. Charles (died at 28) took over from father Louis
XI, when France was quite strong. Louis XI is our best fit for this Q
(by default?).

-Brian Mattys

Claude Latremouille

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

Brian Mattys (enmend...@geocities.com) wrote:
: Or did he simply know it was going to happen sooner or later?

[ huge snip ]

: -Brian Mattys

Brian, I may have asked a similar question before, but will try
again.

In your mind, what is the difference between someone who simply
knows that something is going to happen, and someone who predicts
that the something is going to happen?

Could you also state clearly what I think you seem to be hinting
at in your various posts, i.e., that Nostradamus had no prophetic
gift whatsoever, but was simply aware of the political and religious
climate of his times and guided himself accordingly.

The reason I am asking is that most of what you write about the
good doctor can be true, and still coexist with his prophetic gift.

You seem to exclude one by the other. I do not see why they ought to
contradict each other.

Claude.

--
**** ac...@freenet.toronto.on.ca ****
C L A U D E L A T R E M O U I L L E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Peter Lemesurier

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

>Brian Mattys (enmend...@geocities.com) wrote:
>: Or did he simply know it was going to happen sooner or later?

>[ huge snip ]

>: -Brian Mattys

Answered via Claude's reply:

Well, if he indeed wrote the Sixains, the answer would appear to be
yes.

For those who read French, please see Sixain 52 - e.g. at Zaphod's
Website. My freeish translation of it [FAQs(PL), 3] reads:

Another blow, great town, half-starved anew,
The feast of blessed Saint Bartholomew
Shall grave into the bowels of your heart.
At Nimes, Rochelle, Geneva, Montpellier,
Castres and Lyon, Mars on his Arian way
Shall wager all on noble lady's part.
--

Peter


Brian Mattys

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

Claude Latremouille wrote:
>
> In your mind, what is the difference between someone who simply
> knows that something is going to happen, and someone who predicts
> that the something is going to happen?

Well, the first is based on common sense and a clear understanding of
historical patterns. The second is hocus-pocus, IMO. I simply think
too highly of Michel to label him a 'prophet'. My gnosticism makes no
provision for this, and yes, you are right, that is my prejudice and my
problem. (I also happen to believe that HE was a gnostic, too.) But
there are a few facts about Michel that have been overlooked by
historians. It is a matter of great importance to explore the
possibility that he had prior knowledge from inside sources of such a
vast conspiracy. I'm sure we would all agree that St Bart's Day was one
of the worst atrocities ever committed, and I for one would like to know
if the Vatican had a hand in it. Their 'historians' claim it did not.


> Could you also state clearly what I think you seem to be hinting
> at in your various posts, i.e., that Nostradamus had no prophetic
> gift whatsoever, but was simply aware of the political and religious
> climate of his times and guided himself accordingly.

Claude, this is a complicated situation to say the least (LOL!). On one
hand, there is Michel the Humanist (if not a Huguenot) and on the other
there is Michel the Mystic (astrology and alchemy go hand in hand), and
his alchemical experiments may have altered his consciousness, I kid you
not - and opened his mind to spectacular possibilities in the future, a
la Jules Verne or H.G. Wells. Do you see my point?

> You seem to exclude one by the other. I do not see why they ought to
> contradict each other.

You are absolutely right. They don't. For example, I think YOU are a
rationalist and an esotericist. This is to your credit, IMO. But you
must admit: If I happen to mention 'Claude of Toronto' in my writings,
and my audience is aware of the fact that I am interested in your work,
then they may logically conclude that I am referring to YOU, and not
some other person named Claude who will come in the future.

Does that make any sense?

-Brian

Claude Latremouille

unread,
Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98
to

Brian Mattys (enmend...@geocities.com) wrote:

: Claude Latremouille wrote:
: >
: > In your mind, what is the difference between someone who simply
: > knows that something is going to happen, and someone who predicts
: > that the something is going to happen?

: Well, the first is based on common sense and a clear understanding of
: historical patterns. The second is hocus-pocus, IMO. I simply think
: too highly of Michel to label him a 'prophet'. My gnosticism makes no
: provision for this, and yes, you are right, that is my prejudice and my
: problem.

CLAUDE: Why do you deny the reality, however rare, of what you
call hocus-pocus? Nostradamus calls himself a seer, noting that
in his days such a person is called a prophet, but used to be
called a seer. If he does not mind calling himself a seer, or a
prophet, why should you be 'more Catholic than the Pope' and
resist calling him thus?

: (I also happen to believe that HE was a gnostic, too.) But


: there are a few facts about Michel that have been overlooked by
: historians. It is a matter of great importance to explore the
: possibility that he had prior knowledge from inside sources of such a
: vast conspiracy. I'm sure we would all agree that St Bart's Day was one
: of the worst atrocities ever committed, and I for one would like to know
: if the Vatican had a hand in it. Their 'historians' claim it did not.

CLAUDE: Brian, you are all over the place. Try to restrict
yourself to the question at hand. Yes, Nostradamus predicted La
Saint-Barthélémy in one of his best known quatrains, the anagrams
merely confirming what the commentators understood the quatrain
to be referring to.

: > Could you also state clearly what I think you seem to be hinting


: > at in your various posts, i.e., that Nostradamus had no prophetic
: > gift whatsoever, but was simply aware of the political and religious
: > climate of his times and guided himself accordingly.

: Claude, this is a complicated situation to say the least (LOL!). On one
: hand, there is Michel the Humanist (if not a Huguenot) and on the other
: there is Michel the Mystic (astrology and alchemy go hand in hand), and
: his alchemical experiments may have altered his consciousness, I kid you
: not - and opened his mind to spectacular possibilities in the future, a
: la Jules Verne or H.G. Wells. Do you see my point?

CLAUDE: Brian, Brian, did he or did he not have a prophetic gift,
in your view? You are still all over the place.

: > You seem to exclude one by the other. I do not see why they ought to
: > contradict each other.

: You are absolutely right. They don't. For example, I think YOU are a
: rationalist and an esotericist. This is to your credit, IMO. But you
: must admit: If I happen to mention 'Claude of Toronto' in my writings,
: and my audience is aware of the fact that I am interested in your work,
: then they may logically conclude that I am referring to YOU, and not
: some other person named Claude who will come in the future.
:
: Does that make any sense?

: -Brian

CLAUDE: Only if you do not claim to be writing a prophecy (which
Nostradamus does claim), a prophecy in which a bearded guy born
in Québec and named Claude will find in Toronto your secret 440
years after its first publication.

In that other case, your audience would naturally conclude that
you are referring to a Claude of the XVIth Century, not to that
other guy of the future.

But being that other guy of the future, it is hard for me to
conclude that Nostradamus is referring in his writings to the
then Governor of Provence, Comte Claude de Tende.

And the politically correct interpretation of his use of my name
in one quatrain is to say that he is referring to a limping man,
claudication, claudicant(e), claudiquer being good French words.

I too can be all over the place, you know! :-)

Claude Latrémouille
17 janvier 1998

0 new messages