|
In
nr. 11 (Dec. 2005 - Jan. 2006) of the online-magazine Grande
Conjonction, edited by Jacques Halbronn D.Litt, the section Estudes
Nostradamiennes contains three articles, written in English,
which are connected to each other.
In Roy de Blois en Avignon regner, Halbronn, basing
himself upon two publications, written by the Frenchman Antoine
Crespin, dating from 1571 and 1572, and analyzing the fortune of
the Jews in France in those years, especially in Avignon,
discussed the way in which he considers the Centuries
have been constituted in the 1570's.
The article Réplique de Peter Lemesurier is a back and
forth debate about Halbronn's arguments between Halbronn and the
British Century-scholar Peter Lemesurier. One of their discussion points was
if the Centuries are homogeneous (written by one person)
or heterogeneous. In the article Homogeneousness vs
heterogeneousness of the Centuries, which is now available
on this site, I have described why, as far as I am concerned,
the possibility of heterogeneousness of the Centuries
seriously has to be considered. |
|
|
Regarding
the compilation history of the Centuries, the Preface to Cesar
and the Epistle to Henry II, the main thesis of my book Nostradamus,
astrologie en de Bijbel, published in 2002, was that as far as the
quatrains are concerned, all mentioned astrological data could be traced
back to the period October 1524 – December 1553, and that fulfilment
data could be calculated by means of a progression system, based upon
the retrograde movement of the Caput Draconis. This would mean that the
visions regarding events, have taken place in that period.
As
for the overall structure, the thesis was that a millennium model was at
stake, running from 4174 BC up to 3827 AD.
In
June 2005, I published an article on the creation years, resulting from a
number of Almanachs.[1]
At the end of this article, a distinction was made between on the one
hand the creation year 3967 BC, which can be derived from a substantial
number of volumes of the Almanachs, and the creation years which
can be derived from the Preface and the Epistle.
The question is if a homogeneous time structure is present, in which the
quatrains of the Centuries are embedded.
The embedding of the quatrains is rather peculiar. The Preface contains
references to the cycle of Great Years of 354 years and 4 months.
References to this cycle are only present in some quatrains in the first
four Centuries.
The Preface as well as the Epistle contains references to millennia, but
different types of millennia are present, i.e. millennia with different
backgrounds.
It is said by some that the year 3797, mentioned in the Preface, is the
result of adding 2242 to March 1, 1555, meaning that 2242 AD is the
actual year in which the world turns to an end, as suggested by Roussat
by means of the cycle of Great Years. The peculiar thing is that the
first biblical chronology looks to be a part of a 7000 year structure,
running from 4757 BC to 2242 AD.[2]
However, the cycle of Great Years, as formulated by Roussat / Turrel,
started in 5199 BC. This can not be blended with a creation year 4757
BC. Next, the second biblical chronology seems to be a part of an 8000
year structure, running from 4174 BC to 3827 AD.
In my eyes, it is quite remarkable that not one element of the cycle of
Great Years is present in the quatrains which are part of the 8th up to
10th century, and on the other hand, it is also remarkable that only the
tenth century contains one quatrain (10-74) in which elements can be
found, which can be matched to the biblical scenario of the beginning of
the kingdom of 1000 years.[3]
As for the derived creation years of all Nostradamic documents, I
emphasize that no concrete year is given in any of these documents. They
all are derived by the readers, they are not given by the author.
In
my eyes, we face a structure, present in a series of Almanachs
which compilation covers more than 10 years and contains 11 volumes, a
structure, which points to 3967 BC.
The creation years which can be derived from the Preface and the
Epistle, do not correspond with 3967 BC. For me, the main question is:
why do they not correspond?
The sources, used/quoted etc. in the
Preface, are not present in the Epistle, and those, used/quoted etc in
the Epistle, are not present in the Preface. To me, this means that we
seriously have to consider the possibility of a heterogeneous character
of the Centuries, the Preface and the Epistle as we know them
today and it will not surprise me if actually a number of authors is at
stake.
De
Meern, the Netherlands, January 29, 2006
T.W.M.
van Berkel
Notes
-
Van Berkel: The
creation years which result from the Almanachs for 1557,
1559, 1562, 1563, 1565, 1566 and 1567. [text]
-
Van
Berkel: The Epistle to Henry
II: elements of the biblical chronologies. [text]
-
Van
Berkel: Quatrain 10-74: transition into
the eighth millennium. [text]
|
