World News: 1557 edition
Wouter Weyland
Dear readers,
There is a 1557 exemplary of the Prophecies of Nostradamus of which it
is not yet known
publicly that it is different from and earlier than the 1557 exemplaries
as conserved in
Budapest and Moscow. When I was searching, at the request of Chomarat,
in the Dutch
libraries in the summer of 1996, I came upon it (title see below), and
sent a photocopy of it to Chomarat, who judged it authentic.
It bears the characteristics of a genuine Antoine du Rosne publication,
and it is of much greater quality than the 1557 edition we knew before.
It makes the Budapest exemplary look like a pirated edition, but one
which still is based on a genuine copy. I have compared the texts of the
1555 Albi, 1555 Vienna, 1557 Utrecht, 1557 Budapest, 1568 Benoist Rigaud
(stockholm KB), 1590 Antwerp, 1650 Leiden and 1668 Amsterdam editions.
With this information, I will try to find out if there are links or
missing links between existing editions.
As some of us know, we are still searching for a 1555 Avignon edition, a
1558 Lyon edition, a 1556 edition and perhaps even more which may have
been published before 1568.
This Utrecht exemplary is THE EARLIEST SURVIVING TEXT OF THE QUATRAINS
VI.54 UNTIL VII.42, but may not have been the first one published. It
does not offer a lot of variants of its own, fortunately, but its
strength is that it confirms a lot of the text of the 1555 and 1568
editions. The 1590/1650/1668 family of variants seems to be the result
of modernization on the one hand, and perhaps it is really based on the
editions now all inaccessible: the 1590 Antwerp edition claims to be
based on a 1555 Avignon edition explicitly, the 1650 Leiden edition and
the 1668 Amsterdam editions claim to be based on editions of 1556 and
1558 (same title borne by a 1627 edition)(The 1558 edition if ever
extant therefore may have contained 10 Centuries in 1558).
As far as I have checked, I see a remarkable similarity between the 1590
Antwerp edition (based on Avignon 1555) and the Budapest exemplary from
the quatrain IV.54 and further up to VII.40. The quatrains I.1 to IV.53
occur in so many editions, that it is yet hard to measure any degree of
coincidence between editions. Both 1590Antw and 1557Bud editions do not
go further than VII.40. To me, the Budapest exemplary is rather based on
the 1555 edition, and not on the Utrecht exemplary, but I would still
have to find out if this is likely to be the case for I.1 until IV.53.
I'm preparing the text of the Utrecht exemplary, followed by a list of
variants of the editions mentioned, for publication at the moment,
deadline early december, but it is not in its definitive shape yet.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Full title:
LES / PROPHETIES / DE M. MICHEL / NOSTRADAMVS. / [fleuron] / Dont il en
y à trois cents qui n'ont / encores iamais esté / imprimées. /
ADIOVSTEES DE NOV- / ueau par ledict Autheur. / [vignette A1 cf. Benazra
p. 636] / A LYON / Chés Antoine du Rosne / M. D. LVII.
Its location: Utrecht (Netherlands), Bibliotheek van de Universiteit
Utrecht, Rariora Duod. 213.
Printing date of the Utrecht exemplary: September 6th, 1557
Printing date of the Budapest exemplary: November 3rd, 1557
Further info: 122 pages, woodcut on frontispice cf. Benazra p. 636: A 1.
Size: as usual the size of a small pocket diary. It has been sold by a
bookseller around the beginning of the 1980s, who could not trace it in
his bibliographical apparatus.
Quatrains until incl. VII.42, no quatrain VI.100, but there is a LEGIS
CANTIO at the place where we would expect a quatrain VI.100.
Peter Lemesurier
From the photocopy that Wouter has kindly sent me, my impression too
is that this copy is indubitably genuine, and certainly prior to the
1557 edition that we have known hitherto - which was published in
facsimile by Michel Chomarat, which was reprinted (for Centuries IV.54
to VII.40) in the Nostradamus Encyclopedia, and which Jean currently
has on his site.
I know Wouter is more cautious about this than I am, but my own
initial view is that Wouter's recently discovered 'Utrecht' edition
(or rather a copy printed from it) was probably the main source of the
now familiar 'Budapest' edition since, while the text and punctuation
are essentially the same - at least in verses I.1 to IV.53 - the
'Budapest' version mangles both unmercifully, as well as leaving out
the last two verses of the 'Utrecht' version (VII.41 and VII.42). I
have suggested to Wouter that (with hindsight!) this latter edition
was probably a pirated one brought out in a hurry some 2 months after
the original publication in order to capitalise on the national sense
of crisis and panic following the huge defeat of France by the Empire
at St-Quentin in August of that year, news of which would have reached
the south in around October. The last two verses (I suggest) were left
out purely because the printer/publisher had reached page 160 (books
were and are generally printed in multiples of 16 pages, as a result
of the mathematics of repeatedly folding a large sheet of paper), and
so didn't think it worth embarking on a new 16-page section. There's
commercialism for you!
I would even stick my neck out and suggest that the 'Utrecht' edition
(or a variant of it) may well have been used by Benoist Rigaud when
setting the eventual 'complete' 1568 edition, at least for the verses
after IV.53. The succession from 1555 to 1557 to 1568 editions seems
perfect.
Good on you, Wouter - and good luck with the publication!
For those whose software can decode it, I append as a PCX Attachment
(some 3767 K) the last page of the Preface to César and the first page
of the Centuries, so that you can compare it with the Budapest version
(which you can find on page 89 of the Nostradamus Encyclopedia) and
the original, 1555 version (page 35).
Then you can start saving up your pennies for Wouter's edition!
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
across 7 parts and may take some time to load. Feel free to delete the
headings entirely if it messes up your system. Sorry if so!
(Groan - 'NOW he tells us!!')
Peter
lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk (Peter Lemesurier) wrote:
(snip)
Peter Lemesurier
across 7 parts and may take some time to load. Feel free to delete the
headings entirely if it messes up your system. Sorry if so!
(Groan - 'NOW he tells us!!')
Peter
And BTW, it is only 276 K or so...
Phew!!
--
Peter
Claude Latremouille
Wouter Weyland <wwey...@xs4all.nl> wrote in part about
> THE UTRECHT EXEMPLARY
> Dear readers,
>
> There is a 1557 exemplary of the Prophecies of Nostradamus of which it
> is not yet known publicly that it is different from and earlier than the
> 1557 exemplaries as conserved in Budapest and Moscow. When I was searching,
> at the request of Chomarat, in the Dutch libraries in the summer of 1996, I
> came upon it (title see below), and sent a photocopy of it to Chomarat, who
> judged it authentic.
Great news, Wouter!
> It bears the characteristics of a genuine Antoine du Rosne publication,
> and it is of much greater quality than the 1557 edition we knew before.
> It makes the Budapest exemplary look like a pirated edition, but one
> which still is based on a genuine copy. I have compared the texts of the
> 1555 Albi, 1555 Vienna, 1557 Utrecht, 1557 Budapest, 1568 Benoist Rigaud
> (stockholm KB), 1590 Antwerp, 1650 Leiden and 1668 Amsterdam editions.
> With this information, I will try to find out if there are links or
> missing links between existing editions.
An exhaustive list of all the differences between the 1557
edition already published in 1993 by Les Éditions Michel Chomarat
and the one you mention here would be the greatest service you
could provide to all Nostradamus freaks, Wouter! ;-)
> As some of us know, we are still searching for a 1555 Avignon edition, a
> 1558 Lyon edition, a 1556 edition and perhaps even more which may have
> been published before 1568.
Correct, Wouter. The so-called Sixte Denyse 1556 edition, I presume?
> This Utrecht exemplary is THE EARLIEST SURVIVING TEXT OF THE QUATRAINS
> VI.54 UNTIL VII.42, but may not have been the first one published.
Well, a difference of two months can hardly be termed in capital
letters "THE EARLIEST SURVIVING TEXT". Let's be a little more
discreet, Wouter, and say that there appears to have been
published, in the Fall of 1557, not one (1), but two (2) editions
of LES CENTVRIES, by the same printer.
> It does not offer a lot of variants of its own, fortunately, but its
> strength is that it confirms a lot of the text of the 1555 and 1568
> editions.
I lost you, there: how can a 1557 edition confirm a 1568 edition?
Should it not be the other way around?
As to confirming the 1555 edition, how does THIS 1557 edition do
any better job at confirming the 1555 edition than the Chomarat
1557 edition ever did?
[ my snip ]
> (The 1558 edition if ever extant therefore may have contained 10 Centuries
> in 1558).
And on what do you base this statement, Wouter? On Ruzo or
Benazra, or on something else?
[ snip ]
> To me, the Budapest exemplary is rather based on
> the 1555 edition, and not on the Utrecht exemplary, but I would still
> have to find out if this is likely to be the case for I.1 until IV.53.
I lost you again, here, Wouter. How can the Budapest exemplary be
based on the 1555 edition, as it contains hundreds of quatrains
absent from the 1555 edition?
> I'm preparing the text of the Utrecht exemplary, followed by a list of
> variants of the editions mentioned, for publication at the moment,
> deadline early december, but it is not in its definitive shape yet.
Thank God! How about this, Wouter: do not mess up with the messed
up editions you have already mentioned and which I have snipped.
If you were to publish this hitherto unknown 1557 edition
together with a COMPLETE list of variants between it and (1) the
Albi, Vienna, copies of the 1555 edition (for the Préface, the
quatrains from I-1 to IV-53, the actual text of the printing
date), and (2) the already-published-by-Chomarat 1557 edition,
that would indeed be doing a great service to nostradamian
studies.
If you were to use any messed up edition as a basis for
comparison, you would be introducing more confusion than there
already is, which would not be in my view a very useful exercice.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Full title:
> LES / PROPHETIES / DE M. MICHEL / NOSTRADAMVS. / [fleuron] / Dont il en
> y à trois cents qui n'ont / encores iamais esté / imprimées. /
> ADIOVSTEES DE NOV- / ueau par ledict Autheur. / [vignette A1 cf. Benazra
> p. 636] / A LYON / Chés Antoine du Rosne / M. D. LVII.
> Its location: Utrecht (Netherlands), Bibliotheek van de Universiteit
> Utrecht, Rariora Duod. 213.
> Printing date of the Utrecht exemplary: September 6th, 1557
> Printing date of the Budapest exemplary: November 3rd, 1557
>
> Further info: 122 pages, woodcut on frontispice cf. Benazra p. 636: A 1.
> Size: as usual the size of a small pocket diary. It has been sold by a
> bookseller around the beginning of the 1980s, who could not trace it in
> his bibliographical apparatus.
> Quatrains until incl. VII.42, no quatrain VI.100, but there is a LEGIS
> CANTIO at the place where we would expect a quatrain VI.100.
Wouter, since you have slept on that discovery for the last two
years, how about giving us in a.p.n. a few instalments of - for
instance, VII-41 and VII-42, or the LEGIS CANTIO, *as is* with no
Lemesurier-style translitteration (so as not to obfuscate any
more than is necessary the understanding of the manner in which
the Prophecies were written)?
That would indeed make a.p.n. worth reading from time to time,
something I had almost given up doing these past weeks. :-)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Claude Latrémouille % "Claude! There ain't no stinkin' %
Le 8 novembre 1998 % cryptic anagrams in them dang verses, %
APNCL#1079 % ya hear?!" (A chorus of a.p.n. voices) %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
--
**** 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
>Well, a difference of two months can hardly be termed in capital
>letters "THE EARLIEST SURVIVING TEXT". Let's be a little more
>discreet, Wouter, and say that there appears to have been
>published, in the Fall of 1557, not one (1), but two (2) editions
>of LES CENTVRIES, by the same printer.
They don't look to be even remotely by the same printer to me, Claude!
The September publication is of an entirely higher order.
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
TORAH
Alef
Peter Lemesurier wrote:
> Name: 1557ed.pcx
> 1557ed.pcx Type: Corel Photo House Image (application/x-unknown-content-type-CorelPhotoHouse.Document)
> Encoding: x-uuencode
Peter Lemesurier
>Mind the bug that come with these download.
>
>Alef
Gosh - freebies as well!! Do I get a prize if I collect a certain
number?
--
Peter
Wouter Weyland
> > This Utrecht exemplary is THE EARLIEST SURVIVING TEXT OF THE QUATRAINS
> > VI.54 UNTIL VII.42, but may not have been the first one published.
>
> Well, a difference of two months can hardly be termed in capital
> letters "THE EARLIEST SURVIVING TEXT". Let's be a little more
> discreet, Wouter, and say that there appears to have been
> published, in the Fall of 1557, not one (1), but two (2) editions
> of LES CENTVRIES, by the same printer.
>
It IS the earliest surviving text of the quatrains IV.54 to VII.42. We
have no clue to what extent later copies of earlier texts have been
modernized and variated. The Budapest copy does not bear any resemblance
to an Anthoine du Rosne publication, where the other one is authentic.
Of the Budapest copy we cannot be sure if Nostradamus has had a say in
its typesetting, I'm afraid.
> > It does not offer a lot of variants of its own, fortunately, but its
> > strength is that it confirms a lot of the text of the 1555 and 1568
> > editions.
>
> I lost you, there: how can a 1557 edition confirm a 1568 edition?
> Should it not be the other way around?
>
I understand that this has sounded a bit strange to you. I did was
speaking from the point of view of the later researcher who was familiar
with the 1568 edition earlier than the 1557 Utr. copy.
> As to confirming the 1555 edition, how does THIS 1557 edition do
> any better job at confirming the 1555 edition than the Chomarat
> 1557 edition ever did?
>
Because the 1557 Budapest copy has fragments of text missing where the
Utrecht and 1555 copies have those fragments, and because the Budapest
exemplary shows a careless mix-up of the long f and long s.
This might have happened in the copy of the source of the Budapest
exemplary, or in the Budapest exemplary, but anyway it makes the Utrecht
exemplary more trustworthy, in general. I say in general, because there
are a number printing errors in the Utrecht exemplary too, but not as
serious as in the already known Budapest 1557 copy. Of course I'm
speaking from the point of view of those who translate the text and then
start interpreting.
> [ my snip ]
>
> > (The 1558 edition if ever extant therefore may have contained 10 Centuries
> > in 1558).
>
> And on what do you base this statement, Wouter? On Ruzo or
> Benazra, or on something else?
>
Mainly from my knowledge of the other works, in which the dating of his
prefaces matches the year of publication, perhaps with some months, but
not with 10 years, as is the difference between a supposed 1558 edition
and the 1568 editions which we know now.
One exception is the 1552 dating of the "Excellent et moult utile
opuscule ..." of which only copies from 1555 onwards are known. But if
copies of his works from during his life are still existing, it is
usually so enormously rare that it would be no surprise to me that those
things have got lost. Benazra and Ruzo assume only, but they in fact are
also still guessing if a 1558 copy with the Centuries VIII to X has ever
existed.
> [ snip ]
>
> > To me, the Budapest exemplary is rather based on
> > the 1555 edition, and not on the Utrecht exemplary, but I would still
> > have to find out if this is likely to be the case for I.1 until IV.53.
>
> I lost you again, here, Wouter. How can the Budapest exemplary be
> based on the 1555 edition, as it contains hundreds of quatrains
> absent from the 1555 edition?
>
I'm quite sure I wrote that there is a 1590 Antwerp edition with the
quatrains I.1 to VII.40, which explicitly states that it has been based
upon a 1555 Avignon edition, WHICH WE DO NOT KNOW TO BE EXTANT today, so
why shouldn't it have contained the quatrains I.1 to VII.40. To me it
seems unlikely, given the fact that the Macé Bonhomme 1555 edition goes
until IV.53 in the same year, however we should not exclude the
possibility.
> > I'm preparing the text of the Utrecht exemplary, followed by a list of
> > variants of the editions mentioned, for publication at the moment,
> > deadline early december, but it is not in its definitive shape yet.
>
> Thank God! How about this, Wouter: do not mess up with the messed
> up editions you have already mentioned and which I have snipped.
> If you were to publish this hitherto unknown 1557 edition
> together with a COMPLETE list of variants between it and (1) the
> Albi, Vienna, copies of the 1555 edition (for the Préface, the
> quatrains from I-1 to IV-53, the actual text of the printing
> date), and (2) the already-published-by-Chomarat 1557 edition,
> that would indeed be doing a great service to nostradamian
> studies.
>
A complete list as you would like it, to the letter, I will not make,
sorry to say. I will only pick out variants which change in gender,
number, sense of the word. But you are already familiar with the 1555
and 1568 copies. I assume that the only thing that would be interesting
to your approach are the quatrains IV.54 to VII.42.
I think for those who translate the text as it is, the other editions
thought to be close to the source are still of importance. I will
mention variants and from which edition they come, so the editions
preferred by you are included anyway. I just want to show the readers
that there is the mentioned 1590 edition which has relatively much in
common with the 1650 Leiden and 1668 Amsterdam edition. They seem like a
family of variants, roughly. The 1650 and 1668 editions of this family
have a title which states explicitly that the source copy of it are
editions from 1556 and 1558. The 1556 and 1558 editions are now not
extant as far as is known publicly, so if this is the only indication to
what their text may have looked like, I think it is best with the
present state of knowledge that we just would have to include it.
What if for example we will ever discover another 1555 and/or 1556
edition edition WITH 7 Centuries, and what if there is a 1558 edition
which shows greater similarity with the 1650/1668 family than the 1568
editions? But the only clues on their possible existence are the later
editions mentioned.
> If you were to use any messed up edition as a basis for
> comparison, you would be introducing more confusion than there
> already is, which would not be in my view a very useful exercice.
>
The confusion is already there, if you compare the many books by
commentators. It is so unlimited, that if you pick up (a) the copies
from during his life (b) some later copies claiming to be based on lost
copies of during his life, after first having checked group (b) for
accuracy for example in page numbering errors (which is a good
indication of its quality), then we have at least a LIMITED NUMBER of
variants.
If one chooses to skip them, one can pick out what is wanted looking for
variants followed by the mention of the copies wanted. To your approach
the 1590, 1650 and 1668 editions would not matter, and I know that you
are convinced that this approach is the only true one.
> > ________________________________________________________________________
>
> > Full title:
> > LES / PROPHETIES / DE M. MICHEL / NOSTRADAMVS. / [fleuron] / Dont il en
> > y à trois cents qui n'ont / encores iamais esté / imprimées. /
> > ADIOVSTEES DE NOV- / ueau par ledict Autheur. / [vignette A1 cf. Benazra
> > p. 636] / A LYON / Chés Antoine du Rosne / M. D. LVII.
>
> > Its location: Utrecht (Netherlands), Bibliotheek van de Universiteit
> > Utrecht, Rariora Duod. 213.
>
> > Printing date of the Utrecht exemplary: September 6th, 1557
> > Printing date of the Budapest exemplary: November 3rd, 1557
> >
> > Further info: 122 pages, woodcut on frontispice cf. Benazra p. 636: A 1.
> > Size: as usual the size of a small pocket diary. It has been sold by a
> > bookseller around the beginning of the 1980s, who could not trace it in
> > his bibliographical apparatus.
> > Quatrains until incl. VII.42, no quatrain VI.100, but there is a LEGIS
> > CANTIO at the place where we would expect a quatrain VI.100.
>
> Wouter, since you have slept on that discovery for the last two
> years, how about giving us in a.p.n. a few instalments of - for
> instance, VII-41 and VII-42, or the LEGIS CANTIO, *as is* with no
> Lemesurier-style translitteration (so as not to obfuscate any
> more than is necessary the understanding of the manner in which
> the Prophecies were written)?
>
I'm glad that you still give it a try to trust my citations!
Myself I think it sucks in many ways that it has taken such a long time
before the news spreads. I sent the copies to Chomarat, thinking that
the news would be considered important enough to spread through the
Nostradamus circles through his contacts, but it did not turn out like
that, strange enough. I have approached some book editors about a year
later but they wanted too great an arm in the pie dictating what it's
going to be like, they were clearly completely ignoramus, so I have
started working on it myself and have it printed, but I underestimated
the job a little bit. I have only mounted the electronic highway in
march, and it is only a short while ago that I got to know this
newsgroup. Stories, stories, stories, I admit, but I'm working on it.
> That would indeed make a.p.n. worth reading from time to time,
> something I had almost given up doing these past weeks. :-)
>
Well, my citations you were reading very carefully anyway which I then
of course must regard as a compliment.
Wouter Weyland
-SNIP-
Dear Claude, below you will find the fragments you wish to see
from the Utrecht copy of the 1557 edition of the Prophecies,
in the way you would like to see it written (please read the
remarks too):
[p. 114, after quatrain VI.99]
L E G I S C A N T I O
contra ineptos criticos.
[start italics]
Quos legent ho[s]ce ver[s]us maturè
cen[s]unto,
Profanum vulgus, "et" in[s]cium ne
attrestato:
Omne[s]q3 Astrologi Blenni, Barbari
procul [s]unto,
Qui aliter facit, is rite, [s]acer esto.
[end italics]
-snip-
[p. 121, Centurie VII]
X L I
Les oz des piedz & des mains en[s]errés,
Par bruit mai[s]on long temps inhabitee:
Seront par [s]onges concauant deterrés,
Mai[s]on [s]alubre & [s]ans bruyt habitee.
[p. 122]
X L I I
Deux de poy[s]ou [s]ai[s]iz, nouueau venuz,
Dans la cui[s]ine du grand Prince ver[s]er:
Par le [s]ouillard tous deux au faict cogneuz,
Prins qui cuidoit de mort l'ai[s]né vexer.
F I N.
Acheué d'imprimer le .6. du moys
de Septembre. 1557.
_____________________________________
Remarks:
- [s]=long "s"
- LEGIS CANTIO: "et" is not the "&" but the other which
looks like the word "et".
- LEGIS CANTIO: Omne[s]q3: with "q3" I mean the
abbreviation which looks like "q" with a subscript "3"
attached (="que") (I think you know what I mean)
- VII-42 line 4: a [s]né (the i not visible)
Source:
Michel Nostradamus: Les propheties de M. Michel
Nostradamvs... (Lyon: Anthoine du Rosne, 1557)
(cd. Utrecht, Bibliotheek van de Universiteit Utrecht,
Rariora Duod. 213)
Wouter
Jean Guernon
But there was no need to tell us you were a bug, we had expected it... (Yes, I know Debra, I am insulting bugs... but
hey, the other arthropodes don't post here, so maybe they won't notice).
J.
TORAH a écrit:
> Mind the bug that come with these download.
>
> Alef
>
Peter Lemesurier
>Wouter, since you have slept on that discovery for the last two
>years, how about giving us in a.p.n. a few instalments of - for
>instance, VII-41 and VII-42, or the LEGIS CANTIO, *as is* with no
>Lemesurier-style translitteration (so as not to obfuscate any
>more than is necessary the understanding of the manner in which
>the Prophecies were written)?
Claude
Wouter being a busy man, he has asked me (who have little else better
to do) to send you the passages you asked for in facsimile. Please
call up the pcx Attachment herewith to view them.
To save space, I have put them all on one sheet.
--
Peter
Claude Latremouille
Wouter Weyland <wwey...@xs4all.nl> wrote in part about what
Claude Latremouille wrote:
[ my snip, leading to your quote which led me to believe that
"your" 1557 edition was a genuine Antoine du Rosne publication,
as was supposed to be "Chomarat's" 1557 edition which he
published in 1993 under that assumption ]
> > It bears the characteristics of a genuine Antoine du Rosne publication,
> > and it is of much greater quality than the 1557 edition we knew before.
That is why I thought - silly me, that both exemplaries had come
from the same printer.
> > It makes the Budapest exemplary look like a pirated edition, but one
> > which still is based on a genuine copy.
No need to refer to "your" 1557 edition to realize that
"Chomarat's" 1557 edition looks weird in many respects.
> > I have compared the texts of the
> > 1555 Albi, 1555 Vienna, 1557 Utrecht, 1557 Budapest, 1568 Benoist Rigaud
> > (stockholm KB), 1590 Antwerp, 1650 Leiden and 1668 Amsterdam editions.
A total comparison between 1555 Albi, 1555 Vienna, 1557 Utrecht,
1557 Budapest and 1568 (depending on which one) Rigaud, is most
certainly very useful. 1590 Antwerp, 1650 Leiden and 1668
Amsterdam (a most beautiful little book) editions being "post-
Nostradamus" editions and not "original Nostradamus" editions
(i.e., editions in which Nostradamus might have had a say,
therefore published during his lifetime or shortly thereafter)
are not worth the trouble of comparison. By definition, being
post-Nostradamus, they are corrupt. Why won't you drop them?
>> > This Utrecht exemplary is THE EARLIEST SURVIVING TEXT OF THE QUATRAINS
>> > VI.54 UNTIL VII.42, but may not have been the first one published.
>>
>> Well, a difference of two months can hardly be termed in capital
>> letters "THE EARLIEST SURVIVING TEXT". Let's be a little more
>> discreet, Wouter, and say that there appears to have been
>> published, in the Fall of 1557, not one (1), but two (2) editions
>> of LES CENTVRIES, by the same printer.
>>
>It IS the earliest surviving text of the quatrains IV.54 to VII.42. We
>have no clue to what extent later copies of earlier texts have been
>modernized and variated. The Budapest copy does not bear any resemblance
>to an Anthoine du Rosne publication, where the other one is authentic.
>Of the Budapest copy we cannot be sure if Nostradamus has had a say in
>its typesetting, I'm afraid.
The question therefore is: when did the "Chomarat" 1557 edition
come into existence? If it was actually produced in November
1557, then Nostradamus could have known about its existence. If
it was produced *after* July 1566, Nostradamus being very dead,
he would have been unable to do anything about it.
If it was produced in November 1557, then both Nostradamus and
the main interested party, Antoine du Rosne, the alleged pirated
printer, would have been in a position to do something about it,
denouncing it, for instance. The fact that there is no record of
any protest by either Nostradamus or Du Rosne about this piracy
does not prove that it was not piracy, but could be an indication
that (1) this pirated copy did not exist at the time or (2) that
it was truly printed by Du Rosne. Why, two months after "your"
1557 edition? I have no idea.
>> > It does not offer a lot of variants of its own, fortunately, but its
>> > strength is that it confirms a lot of the text of the 1555 and 1568
>> > editions.
Well, Wouter, if it does not offer a lot of variants of its own,
then why jump on the bandwagon of the pirated edition? The fact
that I (or maybe you too) have no idea as to why the same printer
would have made two distinct printing jobs of the same book in
less than two months does not automatically mean that it did not
happen. It just means that we (?) have no idea as to why.
>> I lost you, there: how can a 1557 edition confirm a 1568 edition?
>> Should it not be the other way around?
>>
>I understand that this has sounded a bit strange to you. I did was
>speaking from the point of view of the later researcher who was familiar
>with the 1568 edition earlier than the 1557 Utr. copy.
Understood.
>> As to confirming the 1555 edition, how does THIS 1557 edition do
>> any better job at confirming the 1555 edition than the Chomarat
>> 1557 edition ever did?
>>
>Because the 1557 Budapest copy has fragments of text missing where the
>Utrecht and 1555 copies have those fragments, and because the Budapest
>exemplary shows a careless mix-up of the long f and long s.
You mean the "f" and the long "s". As I do not have the original
Budapest copy, but I have what Chomarat did to it, at least we
can say that what Chomarat printed does show that careless mix-
up. Do you know to what extent Chomarat retouched his working
copy before printing it?
>This might have happened in the copy of the source of the Budapest
>exemplary, or in the Budapest exemplary, but anyway it makes the Utrecht
>exemplary more trustworthy, in general. I say in general, because there
>are a number printing errors in the Utrecht exemplary too, but not as
>serious as in the already known Budapest 1557 copy. Of course I'm
>speaking from the point of view of those who translate the text and then
>start interpreting.
Understood. If you feel that "your" exemplary is more trustworthy
than the Budapest (i.e. Chomarat's) exemplary, that's fine with
me, even though I have not yet seen your exemplary. And I also
understand that you do not subscribe to the notion that
Nostradamus' apparent printing errors are not printing errors but
are the product of his anagrams.
>> > (The 1558 edition if ever extant therefore may have contained 10
>> > Centuries in 1558).
>>
>> And on what do you base this statement, Wouter? On Ruzo or
>> Benazra, or on something else?
>>
>Mainly from my knowledge of the other works, in which the dating of his
>prefaces matches the year of publication, perhaps with some months, but
>not with 10 years, as is the difference between a supposed 1558 edition
>and the 1568 editions which we know now.
Understood. That was an argument made by Ruzo and Benazra, I
believe. You could have added that there was no point for
Nostradamus to have published in 1568 (after his death) a letter
dated 1558 and addressed to King Henry II who died in 1559, and
that this fact can point to an earlier publication of said
letter. Of course, this argument is most reasonable... unless one
knows that the so-called Letter to Henry is a (now decrypted)
cryptogram addressed to the France of 2017. But I know that you
do not subscribe to that idea either. ;-)
>One exception is the 1552 dating of the "Excellent et moult utile
>opuscule ..." of which only copies from 1555 onwards are known. But if
>copies of his works from during his life are still existing, it is
>usually so enormously rare that it would be no surprise to me that those
>things have got lost. Benazra and Ruzo assume only, but they in fact are
>also still guessing if a 1558 copy with the Centuries VIII to X has ever
>existed.
Agreed. They all assume. Which is something I do not like to do,
as it clouds the mind. I much prefer a raw fact.
>> > To me, the Budapest exemplary is rather based on
>> > the 1555 edition, and not on the Utrecht exemplary, but I would still
>> > have to find out if this is likely to be the case for I.1 until IV.53.
>>
>> I lost you again, here, Wouter. How can the Budapest exemplary be
>> based on the 1555 edition, as it contains hundreds of quatrains
>> absent from the 1555 edition?
>>
>I'm quite sure I wrote that there is a 1590 Antwerp edition with the
>quatrains I.1 to VII.40, which explicitly states that it has been based
>upon a 1555 Avignon edition, WHICH WE DO NOT KNOW TO BE EXTANT today, so
>why shouldn't it have contained the quatrains I.1 to VII.40. To me it
>seems unlikely, given the fact that the Macé Bonhomme 1555 edition goes
>until IV.53 in the same year, however we should not exclude the
>possibility.
Understood. But bear in mind that the number of quatrains
published by Nostradamus in 1555 points to the actual time of the
detonation of the thermonuclear warhead over the Place de la
Concorde, i.e., 3:53 a.m., Sunday August 13, 2017. I know that
you do not subscribe to that idea either, but since it explains
why 353 quatrains were printed in 1555, it would be quite
remarkable if Nostradamus had printed a different number of
quatrains in 1555 in Avignon. I know, I know, many people are
still looking for that Avignon edition, but dont forget that
publishers are not above committing a little white lie, once in a
while. ;-)
So the guy who says that his copy of the Centuries was based on
the 1555 (non extant?) Avignon edition may have been mistaken,
and may have lifted the quatrains from the Chomarat 1557 edition.
In which case the 1590 Antwerp guy would never have seen "your"
1557 edition either (as it contains VII-41 and VII-42) and did
not print these two quatrains. But Antwerp and Utrecht are much
closer to each other than is Antwerp to Avignon. « A beau mentir
qui vient de loin ! »
>> > I'm preparing the text of the Utrecht exemplary, followed by a list of
>> > variants of the editions mentioned, for publication at the moment,
>> > deadline early december, but it is not in its definitive shape yet.
>>
>> Thank God! How about this, Wouter: do not mess up with the messed
>> up editions you have already mentioned and which I have snipped.
>> If you were to publish this hitherto unknown 1557 edition
>> together with a COMPLETE list of variants between it and (1) the
>> Albi, Vienna, copies of the 1555 edition (for the Préface, the
>> quatrains from I-1 to IV-53, the actual text of the printing
>> date), and (2) the already-published-by-Chomarat 1557 edition,
>> that would indeed be doing a great service to nostradamian
>> studies.
>>
>A complete list as you would like it, to the letter, I will not make,
>sorry to say.
Sorry to read this. Benazra made such a complete list (even
including minute typographic differences) when comparing the Albi
and the Vienna copies of the 1555 edition. A less comprehensive
list would have been on his part an editorial. Even if you do not
subscribe to things you do not understand, Wouter, the act of
suppressing information because it does not fit with your pre-
conceived notions is not that of a true researcher, but that of
an advocate. And your book would then be a piece of
disinformation. Unless that is what you intend to do, I would
advise you to change your mind about this.
If Benazra was smart enough not to change anything, and to
indicate every little difference between his two copies, you
surely can do the same, Wouter.
> I will only pick out variants which change in gender,
>number, sense of the word. But you are already familiar with the 1555
>and 1568 copies. I assume that the only thing that would be interesting
>to your approach are the quatrains IV.54 to VII.42.
Not really. Everything is important, even that which we do not
understand. That is the mark of true intelligence. So, even if
you were to publish only "your" 1557 edition, with no comment
added, it would be great. But if you plan to make comparisons, as
I said earlier, compare "original Nostradamus" editions with
"original Nostradamus" editions. And please, compare everything,
not just what YOU think is important.
>I think for those who translate the text as it is, the other editions
>thought to be close to the source are still of importance. I will
>mention variants and from which edition they come, so the editions
>preferred by you are included anyway. I just want to show the readers
>that there is the mentioned 1590 edition which has relatively much in
>common with the 1650 Leiden and 1668 Amsterdam edition. They seem like a
>family of variants, roughly. The 1650 and 1668 editions of this family
>have a title which states explicitly that the source copy of it are
>editions from 1556 and 1558. The 1556 and 1558 editions are now not
>extant as far as is known publicly, so if this is the only indication to
>what their text may have looked like, I think it is best with the
>present state of knowledge that we just would have to include it.
Understood, if by your expression "the present state of
knowledge" you exclude the notion that Nostradamus' prophecies
are a gigantic cryptogram.
>What if for example we will ever discover another 1555 and/or 1556
>edition edition WITH 7 Centuries, and what if there is a 1558 edition
>which shows greater similarity with the 1650/1668 family than the 1568
>editions? But the only clues on their possible existence are the later
>editions mentioned.
Understood. There is nothing wrong at discovering new "original
Nostradamus" editions. The more the merrier. It is these "post-
Nostradamus" editions which worry me, not the other way around.
>> If you were to use any messed up edition as a basis for
>> comparison, you would be introducing more confusion than there
>> already is, which would not be in my view a very useful exercice.
>>
>The confusion is already there, if you compare the many books by
>commentators.
You can say that again!
> It is so unlimited, that if you pick up (a) the copies
>from during his life (b) some later copies claiming to be based on lost
>copies of during his life, after first having checked group (b) for
>accuracy for example in page numbering errors (which is a good
>indication of its quality), then we have at least a LIMITED NUMBER of
>variants.
But there is NO point wasting time comparing "post-Nostradamus"
editions, is there? Isn't the whole purpose of the exercice to
find what Nostradamus published or wanted published, not to find
out how others screwed it up?!
>If one chooses to skip them, one can pick out what is wanted looking for
>variants followed by the mention of the copies wanted. To your approach
>the 1590, 1650 and 1668 editions would not matter, and I know that you
>are convinced that this approach is the only true one.
No Wouter. There are only two possible approaches. Either the
entire prophecy is a cryptogram, or it is not. That's two
possible approaches.
If the cryptogram took more than 400 years to be discovered, it
is precisely BECAUSE there are too many know-it-all smart asses
in the Nostradamus field who have elected to publish only certain
things and not others, because it did not fit with their pre-
conceived notions. Thanks to Les Amis de Nostradamus in Lyon, we
now have access to some originals.
>> > ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> > Full title:
>> > LES / PROPHETIES / DE M. MICHEL / NOSTRADAMVS. / [fleuron] / Dont il en
>> > y à trois cents qui n'ont / encores iamais esté / imprimées. /
>> > ADIOVSTEES DE NOV- / ueau par ledict Autheur. / [vignette A1 cf. Benazra
>> > p. 636] / A LYON / Chés Antoine du Rosne / M. D. LVII.
>>
>> > Its location: Utrecht (Netherlands), Bibliotheek van de Universiteit
>> > Utrecht, Rariora Duod. 213.
>>
>> > Printing date of the Utrecht exemplary: September 6th, 1557
>> > Printing date of the Budapest exemplary: November 3rd, 1557
>> >
>> > Further info: 122 pages, woodcut on frontispice cf. Benazra p. 636: A 1.
>> > Size: as usual the size of a small pocket diary. It has been sold by a
>> > bookseller around the beginning of the 1980s, who could not trace it in
>> > his bibliographical apparatus.
>> > Quatrains until incl. VII.42, no quatrain VI.100, but there is a LEGIS
>> > CANTIO at the place where we would expect a quatrain VI.100.
>>
>> Wouter, since you have slept on that discovery for the last two
>> years, how about giving us in a.p.n. a few instalments of - for
>> instance, VII-41 and VII-42, or the LEGIS CANTIO, *as is* with no
>> Lemesurier-style translitteration (so as not to obfuscate any
>> more than is necessary the understanding of the manner in which
>> the Prophecies were written)?
>>
> I'm glad that you still give it a try to trust my citations!
I do, I do... especially since you will soon publish the book.
Then will we see if my trust was warranted! ;-)
> Myself I think it sucks in many ways that it has taken such a long time
> before the news spreads. I sent the copies to Chomarat, thinking that
> the news would be considered important enough to spread through the
> Nostradamus circles through his contacts, but it did not turn out like
> that, strange enough.
Jesus! Did you not realize that you were exploding a bomb in
Chomarat's face when you sent him these copies? You became his
potential competitor, Wouter. He was the last man to spread the
word that "his" 1557 edition was a phoney (if indeed it is)!
> I have approached some book editors about a year
> later but they wanted too great an arm in the pie dictating what it's
> going to be like, they were clearly completely ignoramus, so I have
> started working on it myself and have it printed, but I underestimated
> the job a little bit. I have only mounted the electronic highway in
> march, and it is only a short while ago that I got to know this
> newsgroup. Stories, stories, stories, I admit, but I'm working on it.
Understood. You have my sympathy.
>> That would indeed make a.p.n. worth reading from time to time,
>> something I had almost given up doing these past weeks. :-)
>
>Well, my citations you were reading very carefully anyway which I then
>of course must regard as a compliment.
I try to read things very carefully Wouter (even when some a.p.n.
shitface named Alef quotes back some article of mine while
changing its content, just to see if I would notice!), that's how
I found the anagrams: I read things verrrry carefully!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Claude Latrémouille % "Claude! There ain't no stinkin' %
Le 10 novembre 1998 % cryptic anagrams in them dang verses, %
APNCL#1081 % ya hear?!" (A chorus of a.p.n. voices) %
AbracaDebra
Peter,
Parts 2,3,4/4 came out as coded jibberish. Could you use the same
attachment process you used in Part 1.1, on the others?
Debra
Claude Latremouille
lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk (Peter Lemesurier) wrote about what
ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
>>Well, a difference of two months can hardly be termed in capital
>>letters "THE EARLIEST SURVIVING TEXT". Let's be a little more
>>discreet, Wouter, and say that there appears to have been
>>published, in the Fall of 1557, not one (1), but two (2) editions
>>of LES CENTVRIES, by the same printer.
>
>They don't look to be even remotely by the same printer to me, Claude!
>
>The September publication is of an entirely higher order.
>--
>
>Peter
The above was written as I was taking Wouter's word that "his"
1557 edition was an authentic Antoine du Rosne edition, the same
printer as the one having done the book Chomarat had reproduced
(with or without alterations?) in 1993.
If you are saying anything useful in the two lines above, Peter,
what are you saying? That Wouter's 1557 edition is of a better
quality than the photocopies (?) Chomarat used to reproduce "his"
1557 edition? I see no problem with that.
Are you saying that - because Wouter's edition is of a better
quality, that Chomarat's edition MUST BE a pirated version? That
does not automatically follow, does it?
Have you ever discussed with Chomarat the 1557 edition Chomarat
used? Have you inquired as to what extent he did retouch the copy
he used before printing it?
Thank you, Peter, for the extracts from Wouter's 1557 edition
sent today via e-mail.
Issue #1: The last page of the book (whose numbering is difficult
to read on my *.pcx file, maybe page 222?): Have you reproduced
without editing that portion of the page containing VII-42, the
F I N. and the "Achevé d'imprimer", or have you edited both items
to make them fit in the space which they occupy? In other words,
is there a page in that book containing only VII-42, plus F I N.,
plus the "Achevé d'imprimer..." whose spacing is intact, i.e., is
there plenty of space on that page which could have accommodated
three or four more quatrains, had Nostradamus intended that they
be published there in 1557?
Issue #2: VII-41: Am I correct at understanding that it occupies
the bottom of a page containing... how many quatrains?
Issue #3: The L E G I S C A N T I O : Is that page of what you
sent me intact, in other words, page 214 (?) contains VI-98 and
VI-99 plus, in a rather huge typeface, the LEGIS CANTIO exactly
where it appears on the page you sent me?
Issue #4: The typeface used in the C E N T V R I E V I. at the
top of page 214 (?) is identical to the typeface used in the
Chomarat 1557 edition. Why would both editions not have been
produced in the same printing shop some two months apart?
By the way, your other *.pcx file was transmitted in seven
pieces, two of which were not received. If you were able to re-
post parts 5 and 7 *as is* of the original posts, perhaps it will
be possible to assemble them... :-(
(Do not re-send the entire image, as its parts may be split
slightly differently next time, making the already received parts
incompatible with the new ones.)
Thank you again for the e-mailed extracts, courtesy of Wouter.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Claude Latrémouille % "Claude! There ain't no stinkin' %
Le 10 novembre 1998 % cryptic anagrams in them dang verses, %
APNCL#1082 % ya hear?!" (A chorus of a.p.n. voices) %
Jean Guernon
AbracaDebra a écrit:
Ity doesn't work that way Debra. Either there is only one post or the
subsequent posts cannot be read by, say, Netscape. You get only the
first part of the picture...
You need to download Free-Agent to get to have multi-parts pictures come
together... Otherwise, there is no way (that I know of).
You can dowload Free Agent (for free obviously)
at:http://www.forteinc.com/getfa/download.htm
J.
Peter Lemesurier
>On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 12:21:18 GMT,
>lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk (Peter Lemesurier) wrote about what
>
>ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
>
>>>Well, a difference of two months can hardly be termed in capital
>>>letters "THE EARLIEST SURVIVING TEXT". Let's be a little more
>>>discreet, Wouter, and say that there appears to have been
>>>published, in the Fall of 1557, not one (1), but two (2) editions
>>>of LES CENTVRIES, by the same printer.
>>
>>They don't look to be even remotely by the same printer to me, Claude!
>>
>>The September publication is of an entirely higher order.
>>--
>>
>>Peter
>
>The above was written as I was taking Wouter's word that "his"
>1557 edition was an authentic Antoine du Rosne edition, the same
>printer as the one having done the book Chomarat had reproduced
>(with or without alterations?) in 1993.
>
>If you are saying anything useful in the two lines above, Peter,
>what are you saying? That Wouter's 1557 edition is of a better
>quality than the photocopies (?) Chomarat used to reproduce "his"
>1557 edition? I see no problem with that.
No - simply that the original editing and printing is far more
professionally done.
>
>Are you saying that - because Wouter's edition is of a better
>quality, that Chomarat's edition MUST BE a pirated version? That
>does not automatically follow, does it?
No, that is merely my impression, since I cannot conceive of Du Rosne
doing two different editions at an interval of only two months, with
the second of them undecorated, incomplete and with loads of mistakes
that weren't in the first one.
>
>Have you ever discussed with Chomarat the 1557 edition Chomarat
>used? Have you inquired as to what extent he did retouch the copy
>he used before printing it?
Once again, Claude, I am not talking about the quality of the
reproduction - merely of the original printing.
>
>Thank you, Peter, for the extracts from Wouter's 1557 edition
>sent today via e-mail.
Glad they got there!
>
>Issue #1: The last page of the book (whose numbering is difficult
>to read on my *.pcx file, maybe page 222?)
122
: Have you reproduced
>without editing that portion of the page containing VII-42, the
>F I N. and the "Achevé d'imprimer", or have you edited both items
>to make them fit in the space which they occupy?
I sent them exactly 'as is'.
> In other words,
>is there a page in that book containing only VII-42, plus F I N.,
>plus the "Achevé d'imprimer..." whose spacing is intact, i.e., is
>there plenty of space on that page which could have accommodated
>three or four more quatrains, had Nostradamus intended that they
>be published there in 1557?
That's right. What you have occupies only the top third of the page or
so.
>
>Issue #2: VII-41: Am I correct at understanding that it occupies
>the bottom of a page
Yes
> containing... how many quatrains?
Six, as per all the other 'regular' pages.
>
>Issue #3: The L E G I S C A N T I O : Is that page of what you
>sent me intact, in other words, page 214 (?)
114
> contains VI-98 and
>VI-99 plus, in a rather huge typeface, the LEGIS CANTIO exactly
>where it appears on the page you sent me?
Yes. Exactly 'as is'.
>
>Issue #4: The typeface used in the C E N T V R I E V I. at the
>top of page 214 (?)
114
> is identical to the typeface used in the
>Chomarat 1557 edition. Why would both editions not have been
>produced in the same printing shop some two months apart?
Interesting observation! In fact, though, to my eye the arms of the
'E's in the Chomarat edition look relatively shorter. In fact I can
confidently say that they ARE shorter!
If you were right, then one would have to start asking whether Du
Rosne himself knew anything about it, such is the drop off in standard
of the Chomarat edition!
Possibly, though, it would make more sense to ask where both printers
got their fonts from...
>
>By the way, your other *.pcx file was transmitted in seven
>pieces, two of which were not received. If you were able to re-
>post parts 5 and 7 *as is* of the original posts, perhaps it will
>be possible to assemble them... :-(
Not sure I know how to do that!
>
>(Do not re-send the entire image, as its parts may be split
>slightly differently next time, making the already received parts
>incompatible with the new ones.)
True. Have you tried retrieving it from the attachment to my a.p.n
reply to Wouter's original post? please see Debr's and Jean's later
posts on this one...)
>
>Thank you again for the e-mailed extracts, courtesy of Wouter.
You're welcome.
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
If I may intrude - an interesting point, Claude. But, to echo your own
approach, the fact that we have no record of such a protest does not
prove that it didn't take place, does it?
> Why, two months after "your"
>1557 edition? I have no idea.
I have already suggested a possible explanation for this - namely, a
desire to capitalise on the mood of national panic and despair
following the disastrous battle of St Quentin in August of that year,
news of which would probably have reached the south of France in
around October...
>
>>> > It does not offer a lot of variants of its own, fortunately, but its
>>> > strength is that it confirms a lot of the text of the 1555 and 1568
>>> > editions.
>
>Well, Wouter, if it does not offer a lot of variants of its own,
>then why jump on the bandwagon of the pirated edition?
When you actually see the text, Claude, I think you will agree that it
offers a huge number of variants in the matter of printing. I think
Wouter may have been referring to actual word-variants.
>The fact
>that I (or maybe you too) have no idea as to why the same printer
>would have made two distinct printing jobs of the same book in
>less than two months does not automatically mean that it did not
>happen. It just means that we (?) have no idea as to why.
As I said, Claude, I have an idea, even though unproven!
>
>>> I lost you, there: how can a 1557 edition confirm a 1568 edition?
>>> Should it not be the other way around?
>>>
>>I understand that this has sounded a bit strange to you. I did was
>>speaking from the point of view of the later researcher who was familiar
>>with the 1568 edition earlier than the 1557 Utr. copy.
>
>Understood.
>
>>> As to confirming the 1555 edition, how does THIS 1557 edition do
>>> any better job at confirming the 1555 edition than the Chomarat
>>> 1557 edition ever did?
>>>
>>Because the 1557 Budapest copy has fragments of text missing where the
>>Utrecht and 1555 copies have those fragments, and because the Budapest
>>exemplary shows a careless mix-up of the long f and long s.
>
>You mean the "f" and the long "s". As I do not have the original
>Budapest copy, but I have what Chomarat did to it, at least we
>can say that what Chomarat printed does show that careless mix-
>up. Do you know to what extent Chomarat retouched his working
>copy before printing it?
I can assure you, Claude, that Michel is not in the business of
altering letters in his facsimiles!!
Me too! So I do hope you are not about to attempt to twist them in
respect of Chomarat's edition - or Wouter's for that matter! (Perish
the thought!)
I think what Wouter may be hoping, Claude, is that you will wait a
month or two and then take a look at the published text for yourself!
>
>If Benazra was smart enough not to change anything, and to
>indicate every little difference between his two copies, you
>surely can do the same, Wouter.
Perhaps Ruzo had a little more time on his hands?
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
Peter Lemesurier
>Peter Lemesurier wrote:
>
>Peter,
>
>Parts 2,3,4/4 came out as coded jibberish. Could you use the same
>attachment process you used in Part 1.1, on the others?
>
>Debra
Only if I posted the whole thing again. Should I try, do you think?
--
Peter
Wouter Weyland
>
> On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 06:37:04 -0800,
> Wouter Weyland <wwey...@xs4all.nl> wrote in part about what
>
> Claude Latremouille wrote:
>
> [ my snip, leading to your quote which led me to believe that
> "your" 1557 edition was a genuine Antoine du Rosne publication,
> as was supposed to be "Chomarat's" 1557 edition which he
> published in 1993 under that assumption ]
>
> > > It bears the characteristics of a genuine Antoine du Rosne publication,
> > > and it is of much greater quality than the 1557 edition we knew before.
>
> That is why I thought - silly me, that both exemplaries had come
> from the same printer.
>
In the same message I doubted the genuinity of the Chomarat edition, the
other Antoine du Rosne editions have the same typefaces and on the
frontispice the same woodcut as the Paraphrase de Galen has, where the
Chomarat edition does not have.
> > > It makes the Budapest exemplary look like a pirated edition, but one
> > > which still is based on a genuine copy.
>
> No need to refer to "your" 1557 edition to realize that
> "Chomarat's" 1557 edition looks weird in many respects.
>
If it was all we knew about Antoine du Rosne I would not have known, but
you with your Benazra and Chomarat bibliographies close at hand, you may
have noticed that there is different of woodcut and typeface.
> > > I have compared the texts of the
> > > 1555 Albi, 1555 Vienna, 1557 Utrecht, 1557 Budapest, 1568 Benoist Rigaud
> > > (stockholm KB), 1590 Antwerp, 1650 Leiden and 1668 Amsterdam editions.
>
> A total comparison between 1555 Albi, 1555 Vienna, 1557 Utrecht,
> 1557 Budapest and 1568 (depending on which one) Rigaud, is most
> certainly very useful. 1590 Antwerp, 1650 Leiden and 1668
> Amsterdam (a most beautiful little book) editions being "post-
> Nostradamus" editions and not "original Nostradamus" editions
> (i.e., editions in which Nostradamus might have had a say,
> therefore published during his lifetime or shortly thereafter)
> are not worth the trouble of comparison. By definition, being
> post-Nostradamus, they are corrupt. Why won't you drop them?
>
Because I still consider it not impossible that earlier editions of the
second and third bunches of quatrains may have existed, at least.
[snip about the publication dates of the 1557 editions]
>
> The question therefore is: when did the "Chomarat" 1557 edition
> come into existence? If it was actually produced in November
> 1557, then Nostradamus could have known about its existence. If
> it was produced *after* July 1566, Nostradamus being very dead,
> he would have been unable to do anything about it.
>
> If it was produced in November 1557, then both Nostradamus and
> the main interested party, Antoine du Rosne, the alleged pirated
> printer, would have been in a position to do something about it,
> denouncing it, for instance. The fact that there is no record of
> any protest by either Nostradamus or Du Rosne about this piracy
> does not prove that it was not piracy, but could be an indication
> that (1) this pirated copy did not exist at the time or (2) that
> it was truly printed by Du Rosne. Why, two months after "your"
> 1557 edition? I have no idea.
>
Did he say anything about the Barbe Regnault almanachs too which
composed almanachs from several earlier almanachs?
See also Peter's nice idea about the wave of fear caused by the defeat
of the French army at St. Quentin.
> >> > It does not offer a lot of variants of its own, fortunately, but its
> >> > strength is that it confirms a lot of the text of the 1555 and 1568
> >> > editions.
>
> Well, Wouter, if it does not offer a lot of variants of its own,
> then why jump on the bandwagon of the pirated edition? The fact
> that I (or maybe you too) have no idea as to why the same printer
> would have made two distinct printing jobs of the same book in
> less than two months does not automatically mean that it did not
> happen. It just means that we (?) have no idea as to why.
>
The supposedly pirated edition is based upon an earlier edition anyway.
Those editions are the earliest available to us, and it is already
scarce. I think it is up to future discoveries of editions from during
the life of Nostradamus that we can start drawing conclusions in mapping
printing variants, but my comparison is just to combine the ones I think
relevant for the job, in one or two books (perhaps a separate book will
deal with the prophecies published after 1557).
[snip]
> >> As to confirming the 1555 edition, how does THIS 1557 edition do
> >> any better job at confirming the 1555 edition than the Chomarat
> >> 1557 edition ever did?
> >>
> >Because the 1557 Budapest copy has fragments of text missing where the
> >Utrecht and 1555 copies have those fragments, and because the Budapest
> >exemplary shows a careless mix-up of the long f and long s.
>
> You mean the "f" and the long "s". As I do not have the original
> Budapest copy, but I have what Chomarat did to it, at least we
> can say that what Chomarat printed does show that careless mix-
> up. Do you know to what extent Chomarat retouched his working
> copy before printing it?
>
Not to the extent as to retouch a long "s" with black paint into "f"
anyway. Especially if words would cease to make sense to the Frenchman
he is. To me it seems most logic that white paint is used for black ink
drops scattered over the page, and black paint for darkening what is
already there, or filling out white spots inside a black area.
> >This might have happened in the copy of the source of the Budapest
> >exemplary, or in the Budapest exemplary, but anyway it makes the Utrecht
> >exemplary more trustworthy, in general. I say in general, because there
> >are a number printing errors in the Utrecht exemplary too, but not as
> >serious as in the already known Budapest 1557 copy. Of course I'm
> >speaking from the point of view of those who translate the text and then
> >start interpreting.
>
> Understood. If you feel that "your" exemplary is more trustworthy
> than the Budapest (i.e. Chomarat's) exemplary, that's fine with
> me, even though I have not yet seen your exemplary. And I also
> understand that you do not subscribe to the notion that
> Nostradamus' apparent printing errors are not printing errors but
> are the product of his anagrams.
>
I do not subscribe to it, sorry to say. I think it is best for you to
order a microfilm from the Utrecht University library, because text is
shining through which causes the reader of a photocopy to be misled
sometimes to read "ë" into e for example. And some of the typefaces have
not reached the paper in a sufficient way, vague shadows of which can be
only traced on microfilm which is clearer and bigger. And there remains
some doubt between some points and commas.
[snip]
> Understood. That was an argument made by Ruzo and Benazra, I
> believe. You could have added that there was no point for
> Nostradamus to have published in 1568 (after his death) a letter
> dated 1558 and addressed to King Henry II who died in 1559, and
> that this fact can point to an earlier publication of said
> letter. Of course, this argument is most reasonable... unless one
> knows that the so-called Letter to Henry is a (now decrypted)
> cryptogram addressed to the France of 2017. But I know that you
> do not subscribe to that idea either. ;-)
>
Not as long as it is still about future about which nothing can be
proved. Nostradamus was always flattering to upper class people when
addressing them, with as his only limit the point where he runs short of
superlatives. Why predicting his soon death there?
[snip]
> So the guy who says that his copy of the Centuries was based on
> the 1555 (non extant?) Avignon edition may have been mistaken,
> and may have lifted the quatrains from the Chomarat 1557 edition.
> In which case the 1590 Antwerp guy would never have seen "your"
> 1557 edition either (as it contains VII-41 and VII-42) and did
> not print these two quatrains. But Antwerp and Utrecht are much
> closer to each other than is Antwerp to Avignon. « A beau mentir
> qui vient de loin ! »
>
I hope I was clear enough in stating that the finding place is Utrecht
University Library, but the place of publication is Lyon: Antoine du
Rosne. I think a 1555 Avignon edition used as source copy clearly shows
in its frontispice where and when it was published.
[snip]
> >>
> >A complete list as you would like it, to the letter, I will not make,
> >sorry to say.
>
> Sorry to read this. Benazra made such a complete list (even
> including minute typographic differences) when comparing the Albi
> and the Vienna copies of the 1555 edition. A less comprehensive
> list would have been on his part an editorial. Even if you do not
> subscribe to things you do not understand, Wouter, the act of
> suppressing information because it does not fit with your pre-
> conceived notions is not that of a true researcher, but that of
> an advocate. And your book would then be a piece of
> disinformation. Unless that is what you intend to do, I would
> advise you to change your mind about this.
>
That thing about disinformation is your opinion, so "advise" is not the
rightest word to use. I could easily take this as an insult and get
angry, but I think it is wiser not to waste my energy in comparing
apples with pears. You are so convinced of the results of your own
approach that you think everything else is wrong. Just let the future
events speak and we will see if your anagrams will need some very minute
re-anagrammizations or not. The list of mine will be destined for the
historical-critical method, at least to put some limit to the seemingly
endless number of variants in use. And why would you need a book with
variants anyway if you are completely convinced of the text of one
edition per quatrain?
Let me add some minute things to Benazra's list which were overlooked:
I.60 Qui à (1555V); Qui a (1555A)
> If Benazra was smart enough not to change anything, and to
> indicate every little difference between his two copies, you
> surely can do the same, Wouter.
>
Benazra's list reflects the utter joy of having at last found back the
1555 copies. And in such case who would not love to describe it in
detail, also necessary because of the fact that the one is a correction
of the other, with most of the typefaces of the first one still at the
same place as in the second one. As we see, Benazra's interest does not
exclude bibliography at all. Now this would be really re-inventing the
wheel when I re-published that list. It is not for bibliophile
purposes.
> > I will only pick out variants which change in gender,
> >number, sense of the word. But you are already familiar with the 1555
> >and 1568 copies. I assume that the only thing that would be interesting
> >to your approach are the quatrains IV.54 to VII.42.
>
> Not really. Everything is important, even that which we do not
> understand. That is the mark of true intelligence. So, even if
> you were to publish only "your" 1557 edition, with no comment
> added, it would be great. But if you plan to make comparisons, as
> I said earlier, compare "original Nostradamus" editions with
> "original Nostradamus" editions. And please, compare everything,
> not just what YOU think is important.
>
And what YOU think is important too will clog up the list of variants so
that it is a hell of a job to pick out for those who will be interested
in it. And if YOU are so convinced of YOUR truly intelligently conceived
"truth", it would sound rather strange to me if you would accept that
people ever would use a text not accepted by YOU as the true
Nostradamian one. I had the plan in mind already to state that my list
of variants are based on the sense of the word and that they are
transcriptions.
> >I think for those who translate the text as it is, the other editions
> >thought to be close to the source are still of importance. I will
> >mention variants and from which edition they come, so the editions
> >preferred by you are included anyway. I just want to show the readers
> >that there is the mentioned 1590 edition which has relatively much in
> >common with the 1650 Leiden and 1668 Amsterdam edition. They seem like a
> >family of variants, roughly. The 1650 and 1668 editions of this family
> >have a title which states explicitly that the source copy of it are
> >editions from 1556 and 1558. The 1556 and 1558 editions are now not
> >extant as far as is known publicly, so if this is the only indication to
> >what their text may have looked like, I think it is best with the
> >present state of knowledge that we just would have to include it.
>
> Understood, if by your expression "the present state of
> knowledge" you exclude the notion that Nostradamus' prophecies
> are a gigantic cryptogram.
>
You would not even accept their variants because they are clearly second
hand and posthumous, In fact I'm surprised about your indignation to be
excluded from it. It is very clear that they are thought to be second
hand copies of lost editions, a thing which you are not interested in at
all.
> >What if for example we will ever discover another 1555 and/or 1556
> >edition edition WITH 7 Centuries, and what if there is a 1558 edition
> >which shows greater similarity with the 1650/1668 family than the 1568
> >editions? But the only clues on their possible existence are the later
> >editions mentioned.
>
> Understood. There is nothing wrong at discovering new "original
> Nostradamus" editions. The more the merrier. It is these "post-
> Nostradamus" editions which worry me, not the other way around.
>
Perhaps all of those nonextant and posthumous ones may worry us one day,
including you.
[snip]
> But there is NO point wasting time comparing "post-Nostradamus"
> editions, is there? Isn't the whole purpose of the exercice to
> find what Nostradamus published or wanted published, not to find
> out how others screwed it up?!
>
I just hope they are reliable.
> >If one chooses to skip them, one can pick out what is wanted looking for
> >variants followed by the mention of the copies wanted. To your approach
> >the 1590, 1650 and 1668 editions would not matter, and I know that you
> >are convinced that this approach is the only true one.
>
> No Wouter. There are only two possible approaches. Either the
> entire prophecy is a cryptogram, or it is not. That's two
> possible approaches.
>
To you there is only one true approach, yours. What is not "true" is put
into the cloudy land of "untrue" in your eyes. If one sees one quatrain
as cryptogram (Hewitt/Lorie) and another reads it like a poem without
anagrammizing, we have three already.
> If the cryptogram took more than 400 years to be discovered, it
> is precisely BECAUSE there are too many know-it-all smart asses
> in the Nostradamus field who have elected to publish only certain
> things and not others, because it did not fit with their pre-
> conceived notions. Thanks to Les Amis de Nostradamus in Lyon, we
> now have access to some originals.
>
It is not because they were selective, but because of lack of knowledge
in one or several fields, and lack of access to original texts or
transcriptions of them.
[snip]
>
> > Myself I think it sucks in many ways that it has taken such a long time
> > before the news spreads. I sent the copies to Chomarat, thinking that
> > the news would be considered important enough to spread through the
> > Nostradamus circles through his contacts, but it did not turn out like
> > that, strange enough.
>
> Jesus! Did you not realize that you were exploding a bomb in
> Chomarat's face when you sent him these copies? You became his
> potential competitor, Wouter. He was the last man to spread the
> word that "his" 1557 edition was a phoney (if indeed it is)!
>
It is only LIKELY that it is a phoney. Chomarat did not withhold the
news of the discovery, as I could read in a leaflet about the exhibition
"propheties pour temps de crise" (1997) in the Lyon B.M., saying that it
showed again a number of variants. But that is the only thing I know
about his opinion on the Budapest exemplary so far. Unfortunately, our
correspondence soon slept in, because I had really nothing new to report
in my searches and because my loss of christian faith took me some time
to re-figure out a world picture including on Nostradamus, not anymore
trying to solve the quatrains comparing them to history to prove the
existence of a higher being. My motivation was gone for some time
completely for Nostradamus. I hope to pick the correspondence up again
one day.
[snip]
>
> >> That would indeed make a.p.n. worth reading from time to time,
> >> something I had almost given up doing these past weeks. :-)
> >
> >Well, my citations you were reading very carefully anyway which I then
> >of course must regard as a compliment.
>
> I try to read things very carefully Wouter (even when some a.p.n.
> shitface named Alef quotes back some article of mine while
> changing its content, just to see if I would notice!), that's how
> I found the anagrams: I read things verrrry carefully!
>
I'm really amazed by your astonishing anagrammizing as such, I've read
them. It does show great intelligence, but what makes you so certain
about what event it must be about? That is where I lose you.
Did you read the LEGIS CANTIO, VII.41 and VII.42 posted by me on your
request?
Wouter
AbracaDebra
> >> Peter,
> >> Parts 2,3,4/4 came out as coded jibberish. Could you use the same
> >> attachment process you used in Part 1.1, on the others?
> >> Debra
> >Ity doesn't work that way Debra. Either there is only one post or the
> >subsequent posts cannot be read by, say, Netscape. You get only the
> >first part of the picture...
> >You need to download Free-Agent to get to have multi-parts pictures come
> >together... Otherwise, there is no way (that I know of).
> >
> >You can dowload Free Agent (for free obviously)
> >at:http://www.forteinc.com/getfa/download.htm
> >
> >J.
> Ah - there's your answer then, Debra - and Claude!
Wellll, not quite. I have FreeAgent. Used it. Here's the results.
Attachments from 11-8-98 @ 5:23 are as follows:
0/7 no, 1/7 yes, 2/7 no, 3/7 no, 4/7 no, 5/7 no, 6/7 no, 7/7 no.
Attachments posted 11-10-98 are as follows:
0/4 no, 1/4 yes, 2/4 no, 3/4 no.
So now what? I don't understand, using the commands consistantly, how
one will work and not the others. Any suggestions?
Debra
> Peter
Claude Latremouille
Wouter Weyland <wwey...@xs4all.nl> wrote in part about what
Claude Latremouille wrote:
> -SNIP-
>
> Dear Claude, below you will find the fragments you wish to see
> from the Utrecht copy of the 1557 edition of the Prophecies,
> in the way you would like to see it written (please read the
> remarks too):
Is it my birthday, or what ?! I shall read the remarks as well,
Wouter.
> [p. 114, after quatrain VI.99]
>
> L E G I S C A N T I O
> contra ineptos criticos.
> [start italics]
> Quos legent ho[s]ce ver[s]us maturè
> cen[s]unto,
> Profanum vulgus, "et" in[s]cium ne
> attrestato:
> Omne[s]q3 Astrologi Blenni, Barbari
> procul [s]unto,
> Qui aliter facit, is rite, [s]acer esto.
>[end italics]
[ my snip ]
>Remarks:
> - [s]=long "s"
> - LEGIS CANTIO: "et" is not the "&" but the other which
> looks like the word "et".
> - LEGIS CANTIO: Omne[s]q3: with "q3" I mean the
> abbreviation which looks like "q" with a subscript "3"
> attached (="que") (I think you know what I mean)
I cannot resist, Wouter! Such a faithful reproduction (I know,
because Peter has kindly posted the image of the original.) So,
what should I do to thank you?
How about 6 lines of anagrams taken from this 6-line text (yes,
Wouter, I know that the indented text is part of the same line of
text, so I shall remove the elongated ancient "s", spell
"Omnesque" in full, leave the ancient "et", elongate the line,
and... hope for the best:
LINE 1 L E G I S C A N T I O
LINE 2 contra ineptos criticos.
LINE 3 Quos legent hosce versus maturè censunto,
LINE 4 Profanum vulgus, et inscium ne attrestato:
LINE 5 Omnesque Astrologi Blenni, Barbari procul sunto,
LINE 6 Qui aliter facit, is rite, sacer esto.
LINE 1 À L A D I G N E C I T É
LINE 2 de Paris, occise à tort : Ton
LINE 3 très Cher Amy, le si Bon U S, te tue auecques son
LINE 4 Atome au Plutonium, et tes Gens ont osé rire
LINE 5 du très long poësme qu'un brillant Torontois aura
LINE 6 traduict et que tu ne croiras iamais !
That's what Nostradamus was writing! Here is some more:
LINE 7 F I N.
LINE 8 Acheué d'imprimer le .6. du moys
LINE 9 de Septembre. I557.
which becomes:
LINE 7 F I N
LINE 8 de Mon Cher Paris, cuyt en MM Dix
LINE 9 Sept, ma rude idée !
You see Wouter, there is no escape: Nostradamus speaks of the
destruction of Paris absolutely everywhere in his prophecy.
Which means that both 1557 editions are legit... ;-)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Claude Latrémouille % "Claude! There ain't no stinkin' %
Le 11 novembre 1998 % cryptic anagrams in them dang verses, %
APNCL#1083 % ya hear?!" (A chorus of a.p.n. voices) %
Peter Lemesurier
Debra
Funny. And mine collects them OK...
Sure you're opening 0/7 in the usual way, then 'decoding' and
'launching' the attachments from within it via 'File'? Then ditto for
0/4?
If that doesn't work, I don't know what will, I'm afraid. I'm not the
expert. Do you have the latest version of Free Agent?
I could try emailing the bits to you, I suppose...
Otherwise you might have to wait for Wouter's book!
--
Peter
Vincent
wrote:
I have the same error too in FreeAgent, therefor I ask You peter!
Vincent
Claude Latremouille
: ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
: >On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 12:21:18 GMT,
: >lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk (Peter Lemesurier) wrote about what
: >
: >ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
[ my snip ]
(About the September 1557 edition versus the November 1557 edition)
: >Are you saying that - because Wouter's edition is of a better
: >quality, that Chomarat's edition MUST BE a pirated version? That
: >does not automatically follow, does it?
: No, that is merely my impression, since I cannot conceive of Du Rosne
: doing two different editions at an interval of only two months, with
: the second of them undecorated, incomplete and with loads of mistakes
: that weren't in the first one.
What you cannot conceive and what is are two different things, as we
all know now, Peter, as you cannot conceive that Nostradamus wrote an
entire prophecy in cryptic anagrams, that Nostradamus speaks of the US
almost everywhere in his prophecy, that Nostradamus speaks of Japan
in a few quatrains of his original poetry, etc. etc.
So, I would not be unduly alarmed at the fact that you cannnot
conceive that Antoine du Rosne has produced two editions of the
Centuries in 1557. Although I do not have a clue as to why he may
mave done it, I am not pompous enough to think that - if I cannot
understand something, then it did not happen.
[ snip leading to extracts from the September 1557 edition ]
: > In other words,
: >is there a page in that book containing only VII-42, plus F I N.,
: >plus the "Achevé d'imprimer..." whose spacing is intact, i.e., is
: >there plenty of space on that page which could have accommodated
: >three or four more quatrains, had Nostradamus intended that they
: >be published there in 1557?
: That's right. What you have occupies only the top third of the page or
: so.
Have you ever wondered, Peter, why - if there are two-thirds of the
last page blank, why Nostradamus did not use that space to print
more quatrains, if they ever existed? And if they did not exist, have
you ever asked yourself the question: why?
: >Issue #4: The typeface used in the C E N T V R I E V I. at the
: >top of page 214 (?)
: 114
: > is identical to the typeface used in the
: >Chomarat 1557 edition. Why would both editions not have been
: >produced in the same printing shop some two months apart?
: Interesting observation! In fact, though, to my eye the arms of the
: 'E's in the Chomarat edition look relatively shorter. In fact I can
: confidently say that they ARE shorter!
We all know what your confident statements are worth, Peter. Not only
are the "E"s identical, but so is everything else on that line, the
leg of the "R" in particular, It is the same damn typeface.
: If you were right, then one would have to start asking whether Du
: Rosne himself knew anything about it, such is the drop off in standard
: of the Chomarat edition!
That is a very good point. I was thinking the same thing myself. Some
apprentice freelancing in his master's shop? But the anagrams in both
editions preclude that Nostradamus was unaware of either edition. He
knew of both editions.
: Possibly, though, it would make more sense to ask where both printers
: got their fonts from...
Both printers? We have not established that there were two printing shops
yet, Peter...
Bottom line: the fact that Chomarat's 1557 edition looks stupid in
many respects does not mean that it is a pirated edition.
I still would like to know if you know to what extent Chomarat has
retouched (not falsified) his working copy before printing it. That
would be a useful piece of information to share with a.p.n. readers,
Peter.
Because to my untrained eye (I am not a printer) his book looks as if
it had been retouched from cover to cover. If I am wrong, I would like
to know. And if I am right, then YOU should like to know! ;-)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Claude Latrémouille % "Claude! There ain't no stinkin' %
Le 12 novembre 1998 % cryptic anagrams in them dang verses, %
APNCL#1085 % ya hear?!" (A chorus of a.p.n. voices) %
Claude Latremouille
: ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
: >On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 06:37:04 -0800,
: >Wouter Weyland <wwey...@xs4all.nl> wrote in part about what
: >
: >Claude Latremouille wrote:
[ my huge snip ]
(Referring to the mix-up between the "f" and the long "s")
: >You mean the "f" and the long "s". As I do not have the original
: >Budapest copy, but I have what Chomarat did to it, at least we
: >can say that what Chomarat printed does show that careless mix-
: >up. Do you know to what extent Chomarat retouched his working
: >copy before printing it?
: I can assure you, Claude, that Michel is not in the business of
: altering letters in his facsimiles!!
Funny that you should say that, Peter. I said "retouched", not
altered in the sense of producing a fraudulent job. Now, since you now
know what I mean, can you answer the question: did Chomarat retouch
his working copy before printing it? Yes or no? Did you ever ask him?
Did he ever tell you how he did it?
[ snip ]
(Referring to Ruzo's and Benazra's assumptions re: bibliography)
: >Agreed. They all assume. Which is something I do not like to do,
: >as it clouds the mind. I much prefer a raw fact.
: Me too! So I do hope you are not about to attempt to twist them in
: respect of Chomarat's edition - or Wouter's for that matter! (Perish
: the thought!)
You have a crooked mind, Peter. (Alef will be pleased) Why don't you
take what I write on its face. If I had wanted to state categorically
that Chomarat was a fraud, I would have stated so. My vocabulary is
large enough to allow me to do that. By insinuating that that is what
I am attempting to do here, while not actually saying it, you are
providing a typical example of your own deviousness, Peter.
[ huge snip ]
: >If Benazra was smart enough not to change anything, and to
: >indicate every little difference between his two copies, you
: >surely can do the same, Wouter.
: Perhaps Ruzo had a little more time on his hands?
I said Benazra, Peter, Benazra, not Ruzo.
Oh well...
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Claude Latrémouille % "Claude! There ain't no stinkin' %
Le 12 novembre 1998 % cryptic anagrams in them dang verses, %
APNCL#1086 % ya hear?!" (A chorus of a.p.n. voices) %
Claude Latremouille
: >AbracaDebra a écrit:
: >
: >> Peter Lemesurier wrote:
: >>
: >> Peter,
: >>
: >> Parts 2,3,4/4 came out as coded jibberish. Could you use the same
: >> attachment process you used in Part 1.1, on the others?
: >>
: >> Debra
: >
: >Ity doesn't work that way Debra. Either there is only one post or the
: >subsequent posts cannot be read by, say, Netscape. You get only the
: >first part of the picture...
: >You need to download Free-Agent to get to have multi-parts pictures come
: >together... Otherwise, there is no way (that I know of).
: >
: >You can dowload Free Agent (for free obviously)
: >at:http://www.forteinc.com/getfa/download.htm
: >
: >J.
: Ah - there's your answer then, Debra - and Claude!
: --
: Peter
Not really, Peter. First, I was not asking a question. Second, I know
that a 7-part image, using any piece of software, cannot be retrieved
if you only have parts 1-2-3-4-6 to work with.
So, until and unless UseNet is able to transmit all 7 parts, I am
afraid that your effort at posting them will remain fruitless.
Peter Lemesurier
>Peter Lemesurier (lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
>
>: >On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 12:21:18 GMT,
>: >lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk (Peter Lemesurier) wrote about what
>: >
>: >ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
>
>[ my snip ]
>
>(About the September 1557 edition versus the November 1557 edition)
>
>: >Are you saying that - because Wouter's edition is of a better
>: >quality, that Chomarat's edition MUST BE a pirated version? That
>: >does not automatically follow, does it?
>
>: No, that is merely my impression, since I cannot conceive of Du Rosne
>: doing two different editions at an interval of only two months, with
>: the second of them undecorated, incomplete and with loads of mistakes
>: that weren't in the first one.
>
>What you cannot conceive and what is are two different things, as we
>all know now, Peter,
Don't you mean 'as we may or may not soon find out', by any chance?
> as you cannot conceive that Nostradamus wrote an
>entire prophecy in cryptic anagrams, that Nostradamus speaks of the US
>almost everywhere in his prophecy, that Nostradamus speaks of Japan
>in a few quatrains of his original poetry, etc. etc.
>
>So, I would not be unduly alarmed at the fact that you cannnot
>conceive that Antoine du Rosne has produced two editions of the
>Centuries in 1557. Although I do not have a clue as to why he may
>mave done it, I am not pompous enough to think that - if I cannot
>understand something, then it did not happen.
You mean that, as in your case, it has to be either pomposity or
arrogance, but never both at once?
>
>[ snip leading to extracts from the September 1557 edition ]
>
>: > In other words,
>: >is there a page in that book containing only VII-42, plus F I N.,
>: >plus the "Achevé d'imprimer..." whose spacing is intact, i.e., is
>: >there plenty of space on that page which could have accommodated
>: >three or four more quatrains, had Nostradamus intended that they
>: >be published there in 1557?
>
>: That's right. What you have occupies only the top third of the page or
>: so.
>
>Have you ever wondered, Peter, why - if there are two-thirds of the
>last page blank, why Nostradamus did not use that space to print
>more quatrains, if they ever existed? And if they did not exist, have
>you ever asked yourself the question: why?
Umm... I give up. I mean, what would be the point, since you obviously
know all the answers anyway?
>
>: >Issue #4: The typeface used in the C E N T V R I E V I. at the
>: >top of page 214 (?)
>
>: 114
>
>: > is identical to the typeface used in the
>: >Chomarat 1557 edition. Why would both editions not have been
>: >produced in the same printing shop some two months apart?
>
>: Interesting observation! In fact, though, to my eye the arms of the
>: 'E's in the Chomarat edition look relatively shorter. In fact I can
>: confidently say that they ARE shorter!
>
>We all know what your confident statements are worth, Peter. Not only
>are the "E"s identical, but so is everything else on that line, the
>leg of the "R" in particular, It is the same damn typeface.
Yes, I noticed that bit, too. But in the case of the 'E's I'm afraid I
am not responsible for the standards of your optician/optometrist.
>
>: If you were right, then one would have to start asking whether Du
>: Rosne himself knew anything about it, such is the drop off in standard
>: of the Chomarat edition!
>
>That is a very good point. I was thinking the same thing myself. Some
>apprentice freelancing in his master's shop? But the anagrams in both
>editions preclude that Nostradamus was unaware of either edition. He
>knew of both editions.
Whatever you say, Claude.
>
>: Possibly, though, it would make more sense to ask where both printers
>: got their fonts from...
>
>Both printers? We have not established that there were two printing shops
>yet, Peter...
Well, YOU seem to have made up your mind...
>
>Bottom line: the fact that Chomarat's 1557 edition looks stupid in
>many respects does not mean that it is a pirated edition.
Did I say categorically that it did?
>
>I still would like to know if you know to what extent Chomarat has
>retouched (not falsified) his working copy before printing it. That
>would be a useful piece of information to share with a.p.n. readers,
>Peter.
I would have thought that, since you obviously know everything else,
you would have known that as well.
>
>Because to my untrained eye (I am not a printer) his book looks as if
>it had been retouched from cover to cover. If I am wrong, I would like
>to know. And if I am right, then YOU should like to know! ;-)
But how could you possibly be wrong, Claude? ;)
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
>On Thu, 12 Nov 1998 10:37:57 GMT, lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk (Peter Lemesurier)
>wrote:
>
>>AbracaDebra <stod...@spammenot.zidt.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Lemesurier wrote:
>>>> Jean Guernon <jgue...@ivic.qc.ca> wrote:
>>>> >AbracaDebra a écrit:
>>>> >> Peter Lemesurier wrote:
>>>> >> Peter,
>>>
>>>> >> Parts 2,3,4/4 came out as coded jibberish. Could you use the same
>>>> >> attachment process you used in Part 1.1, on the others?
>>>
>>>> >> Debra
>>>
>>>> >Ity doesn't work that way Debra. Either there is only one post or the
>>>> >subsequent posts cannot be read by, say, Netscape. You get only the
>>>> >first part of the picture...
>>>> >You need to download Free-Agent to get to have multi-parts pictures come
>>>> >together... Otherwise, there is no way (that I know of).
>>>> >
>>>> >You can dowload Free Agent (for free obviously)
>>>> >at:http://www.forteinc.com/getfa/download.htm
>>>> >
>>>> >J.
>>>
>>>> Ah - there's your answer then, Debra - and Claude!
>>>
>>>Wellll, not quite. I have FreeAgent. Used it. Here's the results.
>>>Attachments from 11-8-98 @ 5:23 are as follows:
>>>
>>>0/7 no, 1/7 yes, 2/7 no, 3/7 no, 4/7 no, 5/7 no, 6/7 no, 7/7 no.
>>>
>>>Attachments posted 11-10-98 are as follows:
>>>
>>>0/4 no, 1/4 yes, 2/4 no, 3/4 no.
>>>
>>>So now what? I don't understand, using the commands consistantly, how
>>>one will work and not the others. Any suggestions?
>>>
>>>Debra
>>>
>>>> Peter
>>
>>Debra
>>
>>Funny. And mine collects them OK...
>>
>>Sure you're opening 0/7 in the usual way, then 'decoding' and
>>'launching' the attachments from within it via 'File'? Then ditto for
>>0/4?
>>
>>If that doesn't work, I don't know what will, I'm afraid. I'm not the
>>expert. Do you have the latest version of Free Agent?
>>
>>I could try emailing the bits to you, I suppose...
>>
>>Otherwise you might have to wait for Wouter's book!
>>--
>>
>>Peter
>
>I have the same error too in FreeAgent, therefor I ask You peter!
>
>Vincent
OK. Obviously we have a problem! Thank heavens for email!
Incidentally I discovered (Debra?) that, once you've decoded or
launched the attachment you can highlight any of the subfiles (1/7 to
7/7, or 1/4 to 4/4) in Free Agent, then press Enter and it will
retrieve the whole file.
Initially, though, it's 'Decode attachment' and 'Launch attachment'
from 'File' within the base file (0/7 or 0/4).
Theoretically!
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
>Peter Lemesurier (lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
>
>: >On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 06:37:04 -0800,
>: >Wouter Weyland <wwey...@xs4all.nl> wrote in part about what
>: >
>: >Claude Latremouille wrote:
>
>[ my huge snip ]
>
>(Referring to the mix-up between the "f" and the long "s")
>
>: >You mean the "f" and the long "s". As I do not have the original
>: >Budapest copy, but I have what Chomarat did to it, at least we
>: >can say that what Chomarat printed does show that careless mix-
>: >up. Do you know to what extent Chomarat retouched his working
>: >copy before printing it?
>
>: I can assure you, Claude, that Michel is not in the business of
>: altering letters in his facsimiles!!
>
>Funny that you should say that, Peter. I said "retouched", not
>altered in the sense of producing a fraudulent job. Now, since you now
>know what I mean, can you answer the question: did Chomarat retouch
>his working copy before printing it? Yes or no? Did you ever ask him?
>Did he ever tell you how he did it?
I'm afraid I'm obviously far too devious to be able to supply you with
an answer that would satisfy you, Claude.
>
>[ snip ]
>
>(Referring to Ruzo's and Benazra's assumptions re: bibliography)
>
>: >Agreed. They all assume. Which is something I do not like to do,
>: >as it clouds the mind. I much prefer a raw fact.
>
>: Me too! So I do hope you are not about to attempt to twist them in
>: respect of Chomarat's edition - or Wouter's for that matter! (Perish
>: the thought!)
>
>You have a crooked mind, Peter. (Alef will be pleased) Why don't you
>take what I write on its face. If I had wanted to state categorically
>that Chomarat was a fraud, I would have stated so. My vocabulary is
>large enough to allow me to do that. By insinuating that that is what
>I am attempting to do here, while not actually saying it, you are
>providing a typical example of your own deviousness, Peter.
There you are - what did I tell you?
>
>[ huge snip ]
>
>: >If Benazra was smart enough not to change anything, and to
>: >indicate every little difference between his two copies, you
>: >surely can do the same, Wouter.
>
>: Perhaps Ruzo had a little more time on his hands?
>
>I said Benazra, Peter, Benazra, not Ruzo.
>
So you did. Benazra... Shmenazra. ..
See how devious I am?
By comparison with your own always shining straightforwardness, I
mean?
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
>Peter Lemesurier (lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: Jean Guernon <jgue...@ivic.qc.ca> wrote:
>
>: >AbracaDebra a écrit:
>: >
>: >> Peter Lemesurier wrote:
>: >>
>: >> Peter,
>: >>
>: >> Parts 2,3,4/4 came out as coded jibberish. Could you use the same
>: >> attachment process you used in Part 1.1, on the others?
>: >>
>: >> Debra
>: >
>: >Ity doesn't work that way Debra. Either there is only one post or the
>: >subsequent posts cannot be read by, say, Netscape. You get only the
>: >first part of the picture...
>: >You need to download Free-Agent to get to have multi-parts pictures come
>: >together... Otherwise, there is no way (that I know of).
>: >
>: >You can dowload Free Agent (for free obviously)
>: >at:http://www.forteinc.com/getfa/download.htm
>: >
>: >J.
>
>: Ah - there's your answer then, Debra - and Claude!
>: --
>
>: Peter
>
>Not really, Peter. First, I was not asking a question. Second, I know
>that a 7-part image, using any piece of software, cannot be retrieved
>if you only have parts 1-2-3-4-6 to work with.
>
>So, until and unless UseNet is able to transmit all 7 parts, I am
>afraid that your effort at posting them will remain fruitless.
All parts were duly and successfully transmitted, Claude. But then I
wouldn't expect anybody as arrogant as you to be able to admit that
any fault could ever lie anywhere but 'out there' with somebody
else...
So in your case I shan't bother again.
--
Peter
Wouter Weyland
>
> On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 15:13:33 -0800,
> >
> > Dear Claude, below you will find the fragments you wish to see
> > from the Utrecht copy of the 1557 edition of the Prophecies,
> > in the way you would like to see it written (please read the
> > remarks too):
>
> Is it my birthday, or what ?! I shall read the remarks as well,
> Wouter.
>
If so, congratulations!
> > [p. 114, after quatrain VI.99]
> >
> > L E G I S C A N T I O
> > contra ineptos criticos.
> > [start italics]
> > Quos legent ho[s]ce ver[s]us maturè
> > cen[s]unto,
> > Profanum vulgus, "et" in[s]cium ne
> > attrestato:
> > Omne[s]q3 Astrologi Blenni, Barbari
> > procul [s]unto,
> > Qui aliter facit, is rite, [s]acer esto.
> >[end italics]
>
> [ my snip ]
>
> >Remarks:
> > - [s]=long "s"
> > - LEGIS CANTIO: "et" is not the "&" but the other which
> > looks like the word "et".
> > - LEGIS CANTIO: Omne[s]q3: with "q3" I mean the
> > abbreviation which looks like "q" with a subscript "3"
> > attached (="que") (I think you know what I mean)
>
> I cannot resist, Wouter! Such a faithful reproduction (I know,
> because Peter has kindly posted the image of the original.) So,
> what should I do to thank you?
>
Oh, I do it with pleasure. We both have trust in our approaches, you
deserve good tools as well as me. I'm glat that you see that if I want I
can be very precise in citation. The re-published text itself by the way
will be like this, and even in a self-designed font which supports all
those old typefaces too (adapted to the style of my own typeface of
course).
> How about 6 lines of anagrams taken from this 6-line text (yes,
> Wouter, I know that the indented text is part of the same line of
> text, so I shall remove the elongated ancient "s", spell
> "Omnesque" in full, leave the ancient "et", elongate the line,
> and... hope for the best:
>
The indention is not mine. It is indeed part of the same line, because
the original typeface is of a bigger size there.
> LINE 1 L E G I S C A N T I O
> LINE 2 contra ineptos criticos.
>
> LINE 3 Quos legent hosce versus maturè censunto,
> LINE 4 Profanum vulgus, et inscium ne attrestato:
> LINE 5 Omnesque Astrologi Blenni, Barbari procul sunto,
> LINE 6 Qui aliter facit, is rite, sacer esto.
>
> LINE 1 À L A D I G N E C I T É
> LINE 2 de Paris, occise à tort : Ton
>
> LINE 3 très Cher Amy, le si Bon U S, te tue auecques son
> LINE 4 Atome au Plutonium, et tes Gens ont osé rire
> LINE 5 du très long poësme qu'un brillant Torontois aura
> LINE 6 traduict et que tu ne croiras iamais !
>
My goodness, did you anagrammize this in this short period of time or
were you already familiar with its text? Whatever, it is really
astonishing this anagrammizing of yours.
I guess the whole poem is about the destruction of Paris supposedly to
be taking place in 2017, or also about its causes and context? I guess
it can be found in a book that you are about to publish?
> That's what Nostradamus was writing! Here is some more:
>
> LINE 7 F I N.
>
> LINE 8 Acheué d'imprimer le .6. du moys
> LINE 9 de Septembre. I557.
>
> which becomes:
>
> LINE 7 F I N
>
> LINE 8 de Mon Cher Paris, cuyt en MM Dix
> LINE 9 Sept, ma rude idée !
>
> You see Wouter, there is no escape: Nostradamus speaks of the
> destruction of Paris absolutely everywhere in his prophecy.
>
The anagram fits such an event, but if it's Nostradamus who predicted it
I'm still not convinced of. Did you try to pick out any event from
history and try the same method? Just one to check, like the beheading
of Louis XVI?
> Which means that both 1557 editions are legit... ;-)
>
Maybe.
Greetings,
Wouter
Wouter Weyland
>
[snip]
> : > is identical to the typeface used in the
> : >Chomarat 1557 edition. Why would both editions not have been
> : >produced in the same printing shop some two months apart?
>
> : Interesting observation! In fact, though, to my eye the arms of the
> : 'E's in the Chomarat edition look relatively shorter. In fact I can
> : confidently say that they ARE shorter!
>
> We all know what your confident statements are worth, Peter. Not only
> are the "E"s identical, but so is everything else on that line, the
> leg of the "R" in particular, It is the same damn typeface.
>
> : If you were right, then one would have to start asking whether Du
> : Rosne himself knew anything about it, such is the drop off in standard
> : of the Chomarat edition!
>
> That is a very good point. I was thinking the same thing myself. Some
> apprentice freelancing in his master's shop? But the anagrams in both
> editions preclude that Nostradamus was unaware of either edition. He
> knew of both editions.
>
So then he has left variants between the 1555 and the 1557 edition he
accepted.
If you like I will give you some examples?
> : Possibly, though, it would make more sense to ask where both printers
> : got their fonts from...
>
> Both printers? We have not established that there were two printing shops
> yet, Peter...
>
There were many in Lyon at that time. I don't know whether some printers
produced their own typefaces or bought them from completely separate
guilds founding typefaces for more printers. The latter seems most
likely to me, because specialization was coming up. Perhaps that also
explains the difference of the typefaces OF THE QUATRAINS between the
two editions, for example that both bought from shop A the small
capitals, and that the other typefaces were bought from shop B and C.
But Claude you still have a point here, with those small capitals. I see
E's with smaller legs in the Utrecht exemplary, but also some with the
same proportions. Within each exemplary the "E"s vary amongst each
other, and both exemplaries have things in common. If only we knew the
real heights as they are! Perhaps that would be decisive. A problem is
that in the Utrecht exemplary the outline of the typefaces is not so
easy to reconstruct very exactly because they are more inky.
There is a nice puzzle which just came into my mind which has to do with
the authenticity of the Budapest exemplary. The paraphrase de Galen
bears the woodcut of the Utrecht exemplary, in 1557 as well as in 1558,
and the typesetting has remained unaltered for by far the greatest part,
anyway in the case of the front page.
You can check that for yourself by consulting Chomarat, p. 25 and 28.
What if first the prophecies were printed (Utrecht exemplary), then the
whole thing disbanded to serve for the typesetting of the Paraphrase de
Galen from late 1557 to (early) 1558, but Antoine du Rosne wishing to
print a further edition of the prophecies, while the Paraphrase de Galen
was already being set or in print? He would either have to use the
woodcut, perhaps interrupting a printing process, or have a new one made
quickly to meet the demand there seems to be for it.
But it is unlikely:
It does not take that long, about 1.5 month, to set the typefaces, if we
look at the time elapsing between finishing a preface and starting the
printing (see the 1555 exemplary: 1 march 1555 finished preface, 30
april permission given.
This makes a bit less than 2 months between writing and printing:
- minus the transport of the manuscript to the printer who has to be
ready to start,
(2 days or more?)
- minus the procedure of getting permission which in case of no bribery
has included reading time by authorities,
(reading time + something)
- perhaps even minus Nostradamus minutely correcting the printing proof
for Claude!
(which would shorten the printing time by at least a week incl. sending
to Salon!)
Which makes it about 1.5 months to have a work of about 90 pages set,
about the same size of the Paraphrase de Galen, almost 70 prose pages,
set. And the printing time I think is even shorter, for such a demand as
can be expected for an intellectual work.
The Budapest exemplary was finished on 3 november 1557. If this also
took 1.5 months to set and print, conservative estimate because of the
bigger size, but justified by the seeming hurry of it. Then we are in
the middle of september 1557 as starting date, at most a few days after
the release of the Utrecht exemplary. Not mentioned correction time by
Nostradamus. In fact the middle of september or earlier must have even
interfered with the printing process of the Utrecht exmplary (6
september)!
Do you really think it is logic, Claude, to disband the whole
typesetting of the Prophecies and start the whole thing all over just a
few days later, with a spare set of typefaces at hand, while the setting
of the Paraphrase de Galen is kept in place for a second edition for
more than 2 months? In those few days Antoine du Rosne could not know
anything about the impact of the Prophecies than from the market of
Lyon, and perhaps it is even possible to find back the starting date of
this market from an almanach. To disband the typesetting so soon in
favour of the Paraphrase de Galen, was a terrible, costly mistake if
this really happened.
If a second edition of the Prophecies had to make way for the Paraphrase
de Galen, the most conservative estimate of the time the Paraphrase de
Galen was set and in print is between mid september 1557 and 1 january
1558, which is 3.5 months. 1.5 months to set it and 2 months to keep it
in print, but undoubtedly later than 1 january, so more than 2 months
kept in print. This is just close to impossible to me. I think the
Paraphrase has been set much later, like in November 1557 or so,
followed by a second edition with only few corrections early 1558.
Anyway the Utrecht ex. is of earlier date, and the quality of the
Budapest exemplary can only be explained for in case of a hurry, like
Peter said, the panic following the defeat of St-Quentin, which indeed
was huge, or maybe just the demand expected anyway. Anyone else could
have made a hurried printing of what was just published when the panic
of St-Quentin struck. Perhaps even justified by the absence of a
permission in both Utrecht exemplary and Budapest exemplary!
The Budapest exemplary may have been even authorized to be printed by
another book printer courtesy of Antoine du Rosne, but that would have
been done not in his shop. So it may be half-authentic even, perhaps
even borrowing a set of small capitals to a fellow printer, who knows?
There are no permissions in the Paraphrase de Galen or the 1557 editions
of the prophecies to determine anything about this.
I think that with all our interpretations and the theories we invent, we
would "en passant" be great fiction writers. Shall we come together the
three of us to write a novel?
> Bottom line: the fact that Chomarat's 1557 edition looks stupid in
> many respects does not mean that it is a pirated edition.
>
That far I agree, but it is very very huried if Antoine du Rosne's.
> I still would like to know if you know to what extent Chomarat has
> retouched (not falsified) his working copy before printing it. That
> would be a useful piece of information to share with a.p.n. readers,
> Peter.
>
I guess it is best for you to order a microfilm from Budapest to check
for yourself.
I have only Chomarat's facsimile but it would be nice in my collection
to have the microfilm and photocopies from it too, but I have confidence
in Chomarat. He has a very very good reputation to loose if he would
even think about it.
> Because to my untrained eye (I am not a printer) his book looks as if
> it had been retouched from cover to cover. If I am wrong, I would like
> to know. And if I am right, then YOU should like to know! ;-)
>
You make me curious, but I doubt if it is to the extent of changing long
"s" into "f" adding part of a bar where there wasn't.
Claude, I think your mind is not Clauded, but I just don't know whether
it is the sun or the moon that you see shining. Your anagrammizing is
one brilliant enormous work of art definitely worth publishing, but I
wonder where you got the event from, and I still doubt if the Budapest
exemplary is the right one, but you have at least not diverted from what
you had at your disposal. Even with the Utrecht exemplary you would have
seen the same event, judging from your certainty. In the Nostradamus
world I have not seen the likes of your work. It will stand at least as
a unique feature of Nostradamus research which should never pass into
oblivion. It will not misfit my bookcase!
Wouter
Claude Latremouille
Wouter Weyland <wwey...@xs4all.nl> posted a
double-spaced 710-line article about what
Claude Latremouille wrote:
[ my snip ]
(About the September 1557 edition versus the November 1557 edition)
> In the same message I doubted the genuinity of the Chomarat edition, the
> other Antoine du Rosne editions have the same typefaces and on the
> frontispice the same woodcut as the Paraphrase de Galen has, where the
> Chomarat edition does not have.
Wouter, I know that both you and Peter doubt the genuinity of the
Chomarat edition. I don't think Chomarat and Benazra doubt the
genuinity of Chomarat's edition. As to the typefaces, having the
Chomarat edition in my hand and the extract from the September
1557 edition you asked Peter to send me, I do not see any
difference whatsoever between the typefaces used in either.
As to the woodcut, they are indeed different (in fact they appear
to have been the reverse of each other, one looking to the right
(C. Galen) the other looking to the left (Chomarat)). But is that
sufficient to conclude that the November 1557 edition (Chomarat)
is not authentic?
> If it was all we knew about Antoine du Rosne I would not have known, but
> you with your Benazra and Chomarat bibliographies close at hand, you may
> have noticed that there is different of woodcut and typeface.
Woodcuts, yes, typefaces no.
>> 1590 Antwerp, 1650 Leiden and 1668
>> Amsterdam (a most beautiful little book) editions being "post-
>> Nostradamus" editions and not "original Nostradamus" editions
>> (i.e., editions in which Nostradamus might have had a say,
>> therefore published during his lifetime or shortly thereafter)
>> are not worth the trouble of comparison. By definition, being
>> post-Nostradamus, they are corrupt. Why won't you drop them?
> Because I still consider it not impossible that earlier editions of the
> second and third bunches of quatrains may have existed, at least.
Me neither. But what does this have to do with the "post-
Nostradamus" editions which I was suggesting you drop?
>> The question therefore is: when did the "Chomarat" 1557 edition
>> come into existence? If it was actually produced in November
>> 1557, then Nostradamus could have known about its existence. If
>> it was produced *after* July 1566, Nostradamus being very dead,
>> he would have been unable to do anything about it.
>>
>> If it was produced in November 1557, then both Nostradamus and
>> the main interested party, Antoine du Rosne, the alleged pirated
>> printer, would have been in a position to do something about it,
>> denouncing it, for instance. The fact that there is no record of
>> any protest by either Nostradamus or Du Rosne about this piracy
>> does not prove that it was not piracy, but could be an indication
>> that (1) this pirated copy did not exist at the time or (2) that
>> it was truly printed by Du Rosne. Why, two months after "your"
>> 1557 edition? I have no idea.
> Did he say anything about the Barbe Regnault almanachs too which
> composed almanachs from several earlier almanachs?
Ooops! You lost me there, Wouter. I thought we were discussing
the two 1557 editions.
> See also Peter's nice idea about the wave of fear caused by the defeat
> of the French army at St. Quentin.
As I said in an earlier post, I much prefer a raw fact to Peter's
nice ideas.
>> >> > It does not offer a lot of variants of its own, fortunately, but its
>> >> > strength is that it confirms a lot of the text of the 1555 and 1568
>> >> > editions.
>>
>> Well, Wouter, if it does not offer a lot of variants of its own,
>> then why jump on the bandwagon of the pirated edition? The fact
>> that I (or maybe you too) have no idea as to why the same printer
>> would have made two distinct printing jobs of the same book in
>> less than two months does not automatically mean that it did not
>> happen. It just means that we (?) have no idea as to why.
> The supposedly pirated edition is based upon an earlier edition anyway.
Earlier by two months? Or just... earlier?
> Those editions are the earliest available to us, and it is already
> scarce. I think it is up to future discoveries of editions from during
> the life of Nostradamus that we can start drawing conclusions in mapping
> printing variants, but my comparison is just to combine the ones I think
> relevant for the job, in one or two books (perhaps a separate book will
> deal with the prophecies published after 1557).
Understood. But I was pointing out earlier that what you have
decided to be relevant may omit something else which is also
relevant.
>> >> As to confirming the 1555 edition, how does THIS 1557 edition do
>> >> any better job at confirming the 1555 edition than the Chomarat
>> >> 1557 edition ever did?
>> >Because the 1557 Budapest copy has fragments of text missing where the
>> >Utrecht and 1555 copies have those fragments, and because the Budapest
>> >exemplary shows a careless mix-up of the long f and long s.
>>
>> You mean the "f" and the long "s". As I do not have the original
>> Budapest copy, but I have what Chomarat did to it, at least we
>> can say that what Chomarat printed does show that careless mix-
>> up. Do you know to what extent Chomarat retouched his working
>> copy before printing it?
>
> Not to the extent as to retouch a long "s" with black paint into "f"
> anyway. Especially if words would cease to make sense to the Frenchman
> he is. To me it seems most logic that white paint is used for black ink
> drops scattered over the page, and black paint for darkening what is
> already there, or filling out white spots inside a black area.
If Chomarat told you that he did not retouch ANY long "s" and ANY
"f", then I have to conclude that they were originally
misprinted. But if you did not ask him the question, or if he has
never explained how he did his 1557 edition, then I would wait to
read it from the horse's mouth before reaching any conclusion.
Since he published in November 1993 and we are now at November
1998, I would have thought that 5 years was enough time for him
to explain how he did it.
>> >This might have happened in the copy of the source of the Budapest
>> >exemplary, or in the Budapest exemplary, but anyway it makes the Utrecht
>> >exemplary more trustworthy, in general. I say in general, because there
>> >are a number printing errors in the Utrecht exemplary too, but not as
>> >serious as in the already known Budapest 1557 copy. Of course I'm
>> >speaking from the point of view of those who translate the text and then
>> >start interpreting.
>> Understood. If you feel that "your" exemplary is more trustworthy
>> than the Budapest (i.e. Chomarat's) exemplary, that's fine with
>> me, even though I have not yet seen your exemplary. And I also
>> understand that you do not subscribe to the notion that
>> Nostradamus' apparent printing errors are not printing errors but
>> are the product of his anagrams.
> I do not subscribe to it, sorry to say. I think it is best for you to
> order a microfilm from the Utrecht University library, because text is
> shining through which causes the reader of a photocopy to be misled
> sometimes to read "ë" into e for example. And some of the typefaces have
> not reached the paper in a sufficient way, vague shadows of which can be
> only traced on microfilm which is clearer and bigger. And there remains
> some doubt between some points and commas.
Understood. But I take it that you will endeavour to "paint in"
the too-faint-to-be-seen fragments, no?
>> Understood. That was an argument made by Ruzo and Benazra, I
>> believe. You could have added that there was no point for
>> Nostradamus to have published in 1568 (after his death) a letter
>> dated 1558 and addressed to King Henry II who died in 1559, and
>> that this fact can point to an earlier publication of said
>> letter. Of course, this argument is most reasonable... unless one
>> knows that the so-called Letter to Henry is a (now decrypted)
>> cryptogram addressed to the France of 2017. But I know that you
>> do not subscribe to that idea either. ;-)
>
> Not as long as it is still about future about which nothing can be
> proved. Nostradamus was always flattering to upper class people when
> addressing them, with as his only limit the point where he runs short of
> superlatives. Why predicting his soon death there?
Ooops! I don't understand the question, Wouter.
>> So the guy who says that his copy of the Centuries was based on
>> the 1555 (non extant?) Avignon edition may have been mistaken,
>> and may have lifted the quatrains from the Chomarat 1557 edition.
>> In which case the 1590 Antwerp guy would never have seen "your"
>> 1557 edition either (as it contains VII-41 and VII-42) and did
>> not print these two quatrains. But Antwerp and Utrecht are much
>> closer to each other than is Antwerp to Avignon. « A beau mentir
>> qui vient de loin ! »
> I hope I was clear enough in stating that the finding place is Utrecht
> University Library, but the place of publication is Lyon: Antoine du
> Rosne. I think a 1555 Avignon edition used as source copy clearly shows
> in its frontispice where and when it was published.
Understood: the place of publication was Lyon. I was just joking
about the Antwerp publisher who said that his edition comes from
a 1555 Avignon edition, indicating that - if he lied about that,
then it would be easier for an Antwerp man to lie about Avignon
than to lie about, for example, Utrecht.
>> >A complete list as you would like it, to the letter, I will not make,
>> >sorry to say.
>>
>> Sorry to read this. Benazra made such a complete list (even
>> including minute typographic differences) when comparing the Albi
>> and the Vienna copies of the 1555 edition. A less comprehensive
>> list would have been on his part an editorial. Even if you do not
>> subscribe to things you do not understand, Wouter, the act of
>> suppressing information because it does not fit with your pre-
>> conceived notions is not that of a true researcher, but that of
>> an advocate. And your book would then be a piece of
>> disinformation. Unless that is what you intend to do, I would
>> advise you to change your mind about this.
> That thing about disinformation is your opinion, so "advise" is not the
> rightest word to use. I could easily take this as an insult and get
> angry, but I think it is wiser not to waste my energy in comparing
> apples with pears. You are so convinced of the results of your own
> approach that you think everything else is wrong. Just let the future
> events speak and we will see if your anagrams will need some very minute
> re-anagrammizations or not. The list of mine will be destined for the
> historical-critical method, at least to put some limit to the seemingly
> endless number of variants in use. And why would you need a book with
> variants anyway if you are completely convinced of the text of one
> edition per quatrain?
I was not seeking to insult you but to point out to you that
whatever you do which does not reflect the total reality of the
differences between said editions is an opinion, a point of view,
an editorial on your part. If you list ALL these differences,
then you would allow your reader to make up his mind about any or
all of these differences. If you select for him/her the
differences he/she ought to know about, you are - unwittingly
perhaps, playing the disinformation game. If you let your reader
the freedom to decide for him/herself what is important and what
is not, you will have produced an impeccable work, from a
researcher's point of view.
You seem to be obsessed with the anagram issue. Forget that
issue. Just think for yourself, don't bother thinking about what
I may think. I am not important. Nostradamus' prophecy is. And
his original texts are.
> Let me add some minute things to Benazra's list which were overlooked:
> I.60 Qui à (1555V); Qui a (1555A)
Glad to know that Benazra was not as complete as I had thought
him to be.
>> If Benazra was smart enough not to change anything, and to
>> indicate every little difference between his two copies, you
>> surely can do the same, Wouter.
> Benazra's list reflects the utter joy of having at last found back the
> 1555 copies. And in such case who would not love to describe it in
> detail, also necessary because of the fact that the one is a correction
> of the other, with most of the typefaces of the first one still at the
> same place as in the second one. As we see, Benazra's interest does not
> exclude bibliography at all. Now this would be really re-inventing the
> wheel when I re-published that list. It is not for bibliophile
> purposes.
You would most certainly not be re-inventing the wheel if you
were to list the differences between the two 1557 editions,
that's for sure!
>> > I will only pick out variants which change in gender,
>> >number, sense of the word. But you are already familiar with the 1555
>> >and 1568 copies. I assume that the only thing that would be interesting
>> >to your approach are the quatrains IV.54 to VII.42.
>>
>> Not really. Everything is important, even that which we do not
>> understand. That is the mark of true intelligence. So, even if
>> you were to publish only "your" 1557 edition, with no comment
>> added, it would be great. But if you plan to make comparisons, as
>> I said earlier, compare "original Nostradamus" editions with
>> "original Nostradamus" editions. And please, compare everything,
>> not just what YOU think is important.
> And what YOU think is important too will clog up the list of variants so
> that it is a hell of a job to pick out for those who will be interested
> in it. And if YOU are so convinced of YOUR truly intelligently conceived
> "truth", it would sound rather strange to me if you would accept that
> people ever would use a text not accepted by YOU as the true
> Nostradamian one. I had the plan in mind already to state that my list
> of variants are based on the sense of the word and that they are
> transcriptions.
You are still too much concerned with my own person, Wouter.
Forget what I may think is true, and what I may think is not.
Just keep your eyes on the ball, and the ball in this case is:
what did Nostradamus publish or intended to have published on his
behalf? Forget the anagram issue.
>> >I think for those who translate the text as it is, the other editions
>> >thought to be close to the source are still of importance. I will
>> >mention variants and from which edition they come, so the editions
>> >preferred by you are included anyway. I just want to show the readers
>> >that there is the mentioned 1590 edition which has relatively much in
>> >common with the 1650 Leiden and 1668 Amsterdam edition. They seem like a
>> >family of variants, roughly. The 1650 and 1668 editions of this family
>> >have a title which states explicitly that the source copy of it are
>> >editions from 1556 and 1558. The 1556 and 1558 editions are now not
>> >extant as far as is known publicly, so if this is the only indication to
>> >what their text may have looked like, I think it is best with the
>> >present state of knowledge that we just would have to include it.
>>
>> Understood, if by your expression "the present state of
>> knowledge" you exclude the notion that Nostradamus' prophecies
>> are a gigantic cryptogram.
>
> You would not even accept their variants because they are clearly second
> hand and posthumous, In fact I'm surprised about your indignation to be
> excluded from it. It is very clear that they are thought to be second
> hand copies of lost editions, a thing which you are not interested in at
> all.
But that is the very point, Wouter: how do you KNOW they are
second hand copies of lost editions? You may be correct, but only
if and when these "lost" editions are found will we be able to
say - as you do say above, that they are.
And it is my exprerience that very few people have the
intellectual predisposition to transcribe - letter by letter,
even repeating what appears to them to be printing mistakes, an
entire book. All "post-Nostradamus" editions have changed
something from the originals we now have. And I do not see why
this ought not to be the case of the ones you have mentioned; in
fact, it would be very unusual if they had not changed anything.
>> >What if for example we will ever discover another 1555 and/or 1556
>> >edition edition WITH 7 Centuries, and what if there is a 1558 edition
>> >which shows greater similarity with the 1650/1668 family than the 1568
>> >editions? But the only clues on their possible existence are the later
>> >editions mentioned.
>> Understood. There is nothing wrong at discovering new "original
>> Nostradamus" editions. The more the merrier. It is these "post-
>> Nostradamus" editions which worry me, not the other way around.
>>
> Perhaps all of those nonextant and posthumous ones may worry us one day,
> including you.
No posthumous (excluding the so-called 1568) edition has the
potential to worry me. The non-extant 1556 and 1558, if they are
found, will not worry me at all. Just as "your" 1557 edition does
not worry me at all. In fact, I welcome it.
>> But there is NO point wasting time comparing "post-Nostradamus"
>> editions, is there? Isn't the whole purpose of the exercice to
>> find what Nostradamus published or wanted published, not to find
>> out how others screwed it up?!
>>
> I just hope they are reliable.
But by definition they aren't! They can't be. Very few people
have the intellectual fortitude to copy letter by letter
something which appears to be a mistake: they all "correct" it!
And they all have good reasons to do it.
>> >If one chooses to skip them, one can pick out what is wanted looking for
>> >variants followed by the mention of the copies wanted. To your approach
>> >the 1590, 1650 and 1668 editions would not matter, and I know that you
>> >are convinced that this approach is the only true one.
>>
>> No Wouter. There are only two possible approaches. Either the
>> entire prophecy is a cryptogram, or it is not. That's two
>> possible approaches.
>
> To you there is only one true approach, yours. What is not "true" is put
> into the cloudy land of "untrue" in your eyes. If one sees one quatrain
> as cryptogram (Hewitt/Lorie) and another reads it like a poem without
> anagrammizing, we have three already.
Again, Wouter, you are obsessed with my own person. Forget it.
Just use your brain independently from my own views. As I have
said: "Either the entire prophecy is a cryptogram, or it is not."
Is that so difficult to grasp?
>> If the cryptogram took more than 400 years to be discovered, it
>> is precisely BECAUSE there are too many know-it-all smart asses
>> in the Nostradamus field who have elected to publish only certain
>> things and not others, because it did not fit with their pre-
>> conceived notions. Thanks to Les Amis de Nostradamus in Lyon, we
>> now have access to some originals.
> It is not because they were selective, but because of lack of knowledge
> in one or several fields, and lack of access to original texts or
> transcriptions of them.
Agreed and understood. But many of them never searched for
original texts BECAUSE they did not see the point of it. After
all, they had the prophecy, right? And Belfond - to name one, had
no excuse whatsoever not to publish the Letter to Caesar in its
many reprintings (over a period of about 15 years) of Serge
Hutin's work.
[ snip ]
> I'm really amazed by your astonishing anagrammizing as such, I've read
> them. It does show great intelligence, but what makes you so certain
> about what event it must be about? That is where I lose you.
It is my view that ALL of Nostradamus prophecy concerns only one
event, i.e., the accidental destruction of Paris. That is the
only certainty I derived from these anagrams. As to past events,
only because they are past events do I know that the anagram is
probably correct. As to other events of the future, as Jean likes
to say... only time will tell.
> Did you read the LEGIS CANTIO, VII.41 and VII.42 posted by me on your
> request?
> Wouter
Most certainly and I congratulated you wholeheartedly in a
previous post. And to thank you, I even gave you a few anagrams,
courtesy of Nostradamus (!), hidden in these hitherto unknown
texts.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Claude Latrémouille % "Claude! There ain't no stinkin' %
Le 12 novembre 1998 % cryptic anagrams in them dang verses, %
APNCL#1087 % ya hear?!" (A chorus of a.p.n. voices) %
Claude Latremouille
Wouter Weyland <wwey...@xs4all.nl> wrote about what
Claude Latremouille wrote:
[ my snip ]
>> Is it my birthday, or what ?! I shall read the remarks as well,
>> Wouter.
> If so, congratulations!
No, it wasn't. Not that I have anything against Scorpio (some of
my best friends are Scorpio), but I would have thought that by
now absolutely everybody in a.p.n. would have guessed that only a
hair-splitting Virgo like me could ever find these damn anagrams!
[ snipping the faithful quote by Wouter ]
>> I cannot resist, Wouter! Such a faithful reproduction (I know,
>> because Peter has kindly posted the image of the original.) So,
>> what should I do to thank you?
> Oh, I do it with pleasure. We both have trust in our approaches, you
> deserve good tools as well as me. I'm glat that you see that if I want I
> can be very precise in citation. The re-published text itself by the way
> will be like this, and even in a self-designed font which supports all
> those old typefaces too (adapted to the style of my own typeface of
> course).
Oh, what a disappointment. I thought you were to follow the
example of Les Amis de Nostradamus in Lyon and reproduce
photographically your now famous 1557 edition. Not that I doubt
your ability to transfer one to the other, but a look at the
originally printed page is worth a thousand words. What on Earth
made you decide against reproducing the original
photographically, rather than copying its text as faithfully as
you can?
[ another little snip ]
>> LINE 1 L E G I S C A N T I O
>> LINE 2 contra ineptos criticos.
>>
>> LINE 3 Quos legent hosce versus maturè censunto,
>> LINE 4 Profanum vulgus, et inscium ne attrestato:
>> LINE 5 Omnesque Astrologi Blenni, Barbari procul sunto,
>> LINE 6 Qui aliter facit, is rite, sacer esto.
>>
>> LINE 1 À L A D I G N E C I T É
>> LINE 2 de Paris, occise à tort : Ton
>>
>> LINE 3 très Cher Amy, le si Bon U S, te tue auecques son
>> LINE 4 Atome au Plutonium, et tes Gens ont osé rire
>> LINE 5 du très long poësme qu'un brillant Torontois aura
>> LINE 6 traduict et que tu ne croiras iamais !
> My goodness, did you anagrammize this in this short period of time or
> were you already familiar with its text? Whatever, it is really
> astonishing this anagrammizing of yours.
Actually, as soon as the composite page sent by Peter was
printed, the anagrams were already jumping out of the page! You
see, Wouter, I have an eye for these; and as soon as I realized
that the "LEGIS CANTIO" was on a line different from the "contra
ineptos criticos.", I knew that I had a sentence slightly
different from the one which the 1568 LEGIS CANTIO had produced.
So, in less time than it takes me to reply to your posts, I had
found that slightly different hidden text above. Its last two
lines are identical in both editions, and its anagrams are
identical. You will note that the "attrestato" of LINE 4 is
different from the "attrectato" of the 1568 edition. That is
because Nostradamus needed an additional "s" in the 1557 hidden
sentence, and "attrectato" would not supply him with that "s".
So, "attrestato" it is!
You see, Wouter, the Lemesuriers of this world would move
mountains to blame the 1557 printer for another stupid mistake.
But my respect for Nostradamus leads me to say that he did it for
a reason. And the reason? "It's the anagram, stupid!" (No insult
intended, just an adaptation of a now famous Clintonian
expression... it's the economy, stupid!)
> I guess the whole poem is about the destruction of Paris supposedly to
> be taking place in 2017, or also about its causes and context? I guess
> it can be found in a book that you are about to publish?
Quite so... and also in about a thousand posts in a.p.n. ;-)
>> That's what Nostradamus was writing! Here is some more:
>>
>> LINE 7 F I N.
>>
>> LINE 8 Acheué d'imprimer le .6. du moys
>> LINE 9 de Septembre. I557.
>>
>> which becomes:
>>
>> LINE 7 F I N
>>
>> LINE 8 de Mon Cher Paris, cuyt en MM Dix
>> LINE 9 Sept, ma rude idée !
>>
>> You see Wouter, there is no escape: Nostradamus speaks of the
>> destruction of Paris absolutely everywhere in his prophecy.
> The anagram fits such an event, but if it's Nostradamus who predicted it
> I'm still not convinced of. Did you try to pick out any event from
> history and try the same method? Just one to check, like the beheading
> of Louis XVI?
Actually, the discovery of the omnipresence of the Paris event
was not made when I found the anagrams for the 5-line text in
Latin from the 1568 edition, but had been made quite some time
before. These anagrams are but the icing on the cake. And before
finding these anagrams about the Paris event, I too thought that
the most dramatic future event Nostradamus might have seen in his
visions was indeed the beheading of Louis XVI. Now that I know
the prophecy, I know why Nostradamus insists on that event: it is
not the act of slicing the King's head which matters, but the
place where it occurred. Why? Because the ICBM which nukes Paris
is targeted exactly to explode above the Place de la Concorde,
i.e., the Place de la Révolution, i.e., the Place Louis XV, where
the revolutionary guillotine was installed. That is how
Nostradamus proceeds: he uses what we know to lead us to what he
wants us to discover.
So, to answer directly your question: I never "tried" to find the
Paris event, because I knew nothing of the Paris event when I
started to find these anagrams. And because I never tried to find
the Paris event, the fact that I did find it is to me evidence
that it was put there by someone else.
It would be impossible for me to show that the same can apply to
the decapitation of Louis XVI, because... I knew about it when I
began the decrypting job. And, after the fact, i.e., after having
realized that the sole purpose of the prophecy was to warn Paris
of its unintended destruction, it became obvious that absolutely
everything in the prophecy is an anagram about that event,
nothing else. So, finding it - after that discovery, in the
titles, or in the "Achevé d'imprimer", of all known original
editions was just kids play at that point.
The test to prove otherwise would be to translate (Nostradamus'
verb, not mine) the entire prophecy into anagrams about another
single future event, not to translate just a few snippets of the
prophecy as an amusing diversion. All 7000 lines of it have to be
translated to point to a single future event which is not the
Paris event, to show that it is by pure chance that all these
anagrams turn out to refer to the Paris event.
Problem: the prophecy ends with the destruction of Paris, in
2017. So, pretty darn difficult to find another future event as
dramatic as the killing in peace time of 3,000,000 innocents in
one stupid mistake to match this one in anagrams. If the entire
prophecy deals with another holocaust of that type, then
Nostradamus would certainly have written about it. But where
could he have written about it, if the space is already taken by
the Paris event?
So, even if the few lines above can be solved differently in
anagram, I doubt very much that all 7000 lines of the prophecy
(my approximation) can all be solved to produce other anagrams
ALL dealing with any other future single event.
And, of course, the fundamental issue has to be addressed:
whatever is found in anagrams has to come from the author of the
published text, so as to constitute his prophecy. If it does not,
it cannot be termed Nostradamus' prophecy. Fortunately for us,
Nostradamus has left enough clues in his original poetry to allow
most of the elements of the Paris event to be seen through this
"meaningful gobbledygook", as I like to refer to the original
text. Here is one, from IX-11, linking the location of the
plutonium plague of 2017 to the location of the 1793 decapitation
of Louis XVI:
SI GRANDE PESTE EN CE LIEU VIENDRA NAISTRE
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Claude Latrémouille % "Claude! There ain't no stinkin' %
Le 13 novembre 1998 % cryptic anagrams in them dang verses, %
APNCL#1088 % ya hear?!" (A chorus of a.p.n. voices) %
Gary Somai
>ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
>>Peter Lemesurier (lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>>: ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
>>
>>: >On Mon, 09 Nov 1998 12:21:18 GMT,
>>: >lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk (Peter Lemesurier) wrote about what
>>: >
>>: >ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
>>
>>[ my snip ]
>>
>>(About the September 1557 edition versus the November 1557 edition)
>>
>>: > is identical to the typeface used in the
>>: >Chomarat 1557 edition. Why would both editions not have been
>>: >produced in the same printing shop some two months apart?
>>
>>: Interesting observation! In fact, though, to my eye the arms of the
>>: 'E's in the Chomarat edition look relatively shorter. In fact I can
>>: confidently say that they ARE shorter!
>>
>>We all know what your confident statements are worth, Peter. Not only
>>are the "E"s identical, but so is everything else on that line, the
>>leg of the "R" in particular, It is the same damn typeface.
>Yes, I noticed that bit, too. But in the case of the 'E's I'm afraid I
>am not responsible for the standards of your optician/optometrist.
>>
>>: If you were right, then one would have to start asking whether Du
>>: Rosne himself knew anything about it, such is the drop off in standard
>>: of the Chomarat edition!
>>
>>That is a very good point. I was thinking the same thing myself. Some
>>apprentice freelancing in his master's shop? But the anagrams in both
>>editions preclude that Nostradamus was unaware of either edition. He
>>knew of both editions.
>Whatever you say, Claude.
>>
>>: Possibly, though, it would make more sense to ask where both printers
>>: got their fonts from...
>>
>>Both printers? We have not established that there were two printing shops
>>yet, Peter...
>Well, YOU seem to have made up your mind...
>>
>>Bottom line: the fact that Chomarat's 1557 edition looks stupid in
>>many respects does not mean that it is a pirated edition.
>Did I say categorically that it did?
>>
>>I still would like to know if you know to what extent Chomarat has
>>retouched (not falsified) his working copy before printing it. That
>>would be a useful piece of information to share with a.p.n. readers,
>>Peter.
>I would have thought that, since you obviously know everything else,
>you would have known that as well.
>>
>>Because to my untrained eye (I am not a printer) his book looks as if
>>it had been retouched from cover to cover. If I am wrong, I would like
>>to know. And if I am right, then YOU should like to know! ;-)
>But how could you possibly be wrong, Claude? ;)
>--
>Peter
For what its worth, i'd say there was a pretty good chance that it has
been touched up. All you would need to do in order to back-up this
theory Claude, is to look at how the average human mind works, or ask
a doctor. Maybe this is a case for the good ole Doc himself.
But trying to prove it to be one way or the other, would become a
delusion brought upon by vanity.
(-:Y:-)
Gary S
___________________________________________________________
For Spiritual Enlightenment and Prophecy Awareness
Come and visit http://www.personal.u-net.com/~eyedeal
___________________________________________________________