NOSTRADAMUS, ASTROLOGY AND THE BIBLE
research results
The creation years which result from the Almanachs for 1557, 1559, 1562, 1563, 1565, 1566 and 1567
- T.W.M. van Berkel -

Nederlandse versie 

 Index RESEARCH RESULTS

Creation years in the nostradamic oeuvre
One of the enigmas in the nostradamic oeuvre - a part of this oeuvre is not preserved - is that from this oeuvre not one year results in which the world is supposed to have been created, but several ones. 

a. Brind'Amour (1993) 
According to the late professor Brind'Amour (Nostradamus astrophile, Ottawa, 1993), the number of creation years which results from the nostradamic oeuvre, is five: 5757 BC, 5000 BC, 4173 BC, 4056 BC and 3967 BC. Two of them, 5757 BC and 4173 BC, result from the biblical chronologies in the Epistle to Henry II. The remaining creation years, 5000 BC, 4056 BC and 3967 BC, result from preserved Almanachs or Almanach-translations.
In connection with these five years, Brind'Amour has supposed that Nostradamus, despite his interest in the sequence of persons and events in the Old Testament, did not manage to find a way in the variety of data he read. In favour of Nostradamus, Brind'Amour noted that in the 16th century, there was no general agreement about the year in which the world was supposed to have been created.[1] 

b. Lemesurier (2005)
The opinion of some Century-scholars about the presence of five creation years is that this presence is characteristic for the careless and/or non-professional way in which Nostradamus worked. Recently, this was emphasized by the British Century-scholar Lemesurier.[2]  

The intentions of Jean Brotot
A letter to Nostradamus, written by the Lyonese publisher Jean Brotot, its published version dated on September 20, 1557, lead to the study upon which this article is founded. Brotot wrote a.o. that he intended to add tables, lunar phase data, days of saint's feasts and "philosophical lines" (the monthly quatrains) to a series of predictions by Nostradamus, in order to please him. This intention might mean that not all data in Almanachs originate from Nostradamus.[3] 
In connection with this letter, I asked myself who supplied the time data in the Almanachs from which creation years can be derived, considering the fact that the authenticity of some of the Almanachs which carry the name of Nostradamus can be contested.

Seven creation years
In this article, not five, but seven creation years are discussed which result from the nostradamic oeuvre, with the emphasis on the creation years which result from the preserved Almanachs and Almanach-translations. This is a larger number of years than the number of years which were studied by Brind'Amour. In some cases, the studied years differ from the years, studied by Brind'Amour.
The differences between this study and the one by Brind'Amour are caused by (a) the involvement of quatrain 01-48 and some parts of the Preface to Cesar and (b) an interpretation of time data in the Epistle to Henry II, which differs from the one by Brind'Amour.
Throughout this article, the expression "creation years which result from the nostradamic oeuvre" is used. Strictly speaking, the nostradamic oeuvre does not contain creation years. These years result from chronologies, conversions and echoes of other publications. The statement which one can read once in a while that there are -x- creation years in the nostradamic oeuvre, is entirely wrong.

a. The Preface to Cesar and quatrain 01-48: 5200 BC
The Preface to Cesar contains fragments which are echoes of astrological time structures, described by e.g. the French canon Richard Roussat in Livre de l'estat et mutation de temps (Lyon, 1550 [1549]). This book is a revision of Le periode c'est a dire la fin du monde, written by the French rector Pierre Turrel (Dijon, 1531).
The Preface to Cesar contains a reference to successively Mars, the Moon, the Sun and Saturn, and it is mentioned that the rulership of Saturn returns.[4] These are echoes of fragments in part 2 of Livre de l'estat..., in which the series of seven Great Years of 354 years and 4 months are discussed. Each one of the Great Years is ruled by a planet. The sequence of the planets in a complete series of seven Great Years: Saturn, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars, the Moon and the Sun.[5]  
According to Roussat and Turrel, the cycle of series of seven Great Years started in 5200 BC, the year in which, according to Bede, Adam was created.[6] In the third series of seven Great Years, the Great Year which is ruled by the Moon, runs from June 1533 until October 1887, according to calculations by Roussat. Next comes the seventh and last Great Year, ruled by the Sun. This Year runs from October 1887 until February 2242.
Quatrain 01-48 contains allusions to all this.

The first line of this quatrain can be interpreted as a reference to twenty years of the Great Year which is ruled by the Moon, a Year which, according to Roussat, started in June 1533. Because of this, the second line can be interpreted as a reference to the year 7000 AM (AM: Anno Mundi, counting from the creation of the world). Counting from 5200 BC, the year in which Adam is supposed to have been created, the second line refers to 1800 AD. The rulership of the Moon runs from June 1533 until October 1887, i.e. beyond 1800 AD. 
The Great Year, ruled by the Moon, is succeeded by the Great Year which is ruled by the Sun. This Year runs from October 1887 until February 2242. The third line of quatrain 01-48 can be interpreted as an allusion to the end of the rulership of the Sun in 2242 AD.
The Preface to Cesar also deals with the seventh and the eighth millennium.[7] The part of the Preface in which these millennia are discussed, contains echoes of what Roussat wrote about the seventh and the eighth millennium. [8] From these echoes too, the year 5200 BC results, the year in which, according to Roussat and Turrel, Adam has been created.
Summary: the Preface to Cesar, together with quatrain 01-48, contains three references to the creation year 5200 BC.

b. The Epistle to Henry II: 4757/4758 BC and April 25, 4174 BC
From the time spans in the first biblical chronology in the Epistle to Henry II, it can be derived that Adam was created in 4757 BC or 4758 BC. The research of the first biblical chronology did not show the impact of the margin of one year. This is why henceforth these years are given as a couple: 4757/4758 BC.[9]  
From the time spans in the second biblical chronology in the Epistle to Henry II, it can be derived that the world is supposed to be created around April 25, 4174 BC.[10] 
Summary: the number of creation years which results from the Epistle to Henry II, is three.

c. The Almanach pour l'an M.D.LXVI (1566-Almanach-F): 4056 BC and 3967 BC
From the Almanach pour l'an M.D.LXVI (the 1566-Almanach-F), two creation years result. The first creation year results from a biblical chronology, compiled according to "calculations by the Hebrews". From the time spans of this chronology, it can be derived that the world has been created in 4056 BC.[11]
The second creation year which results from the 1566-Almanach-F, is the result of a conversion of the year 1566, the year for which the 1566-Almanach-F was compiled, in the year 5533, counted from the creation of the world, according to "the perfect calculation of time scholars". From this conversion, it can be derived that the world has been created in 3967 BC. Brind'Amour notes that this year is based upon the assumption that Jesus died in 33 AD, which means that the time span of the period Creation world - death of Jesus is exactly 4000 years.[12]

d. The Almanachs for 1557, 1559, 1562 and 1563: 3967 BC
The year 3967 BC, which results from time data in the 1566-Almanach-F, also results from time data in the 1557-Almanach-F, the 1559-Almanacke-GB, the 1562-Almanach-F and the 1563-Almanach-F. No other creation years can be derived from these four Almanachs, in contrast with the 1566-Almanach-F.[13] 
These summing ups show that the creation year 3967 BC results from four Almanachs and one Almanach-translation. From the 1566-Almanach-F, a second creation year results: 4056 BC.

e. The Almanachs for 1565 and 1567: 5000 BC
The year 3967 BC does not result from time data in the 1565-Almanach-F and the 1567-Almanach-It, the Italian translation of the 1567-Almanach-F. The creation year which results from the time data in these Almanachs, is 5000 BC. Regarding this chronology, Mario Gregorio, a member of the international Nostradamus Research Group and the author/webmaster of www.propheties.it, observed that, counting from 5000 BC, the seventh millennium would end in 2000 AD.[14]
This means that the year 5000 BC results from one preserved Almanach and one preserved Almanach-translation.

f. The Pronostications
Besides Almanachs, Nostradamus also wrote Pronostications, which also contain predictions for a certain year.
The preserved Almanachs contain paragraphs with various data regarding the years for which the Almanachs are compiled, such as the conversion of the year in a year, counted from the creation of the world; the connection of the year to the birth of Jesus, the Golden Number, the Solar Cycle and the Epacta. These Almanachs also contain the dates of a number of fixed feasts such as Ash Wednesday, Easter, Ascension Day, Whitsunday and the first Sunday of the Advent. 
At the end of two Pronostications, the 1557-Prono-F and the 1558-Prono-F, are paragraphs which are entitled Almanach (in the 1562-Prono-F, published by Barbe Regnault in Paris, this paragraph is at the beginning, on p.2).[15] These paragraphs contain the year data and the dates of a number of fixed feasts, facts which are also listed in the Almanachs. 
In the three Pronostications which are mentioned above, the years for which these Pronostications were compiled, are not converted in a year, counting from the creation of the world. The years of compilation are also not related to the birth of Jesus. In the preserved Almanachs and Almanach-translations however, these facts are mentioned.
The number of preserved Pronostications is too small to conclude that the conversion of the years of compilation in a year, counting from the creation of the world, and the relation of the years of compilation to the birth of Jesus, is only mentioned in the Almanachs and not mentioned in any Pronostication.

Three separate publication categories
The facts, mentioned above, lead to a division of the publications from which creation years result, in three separate categories.

Category 1: the Almanachs
This category consists of two parts: a part which contains publications, from which the creation year 3967 BC results (1a) and a part from which the creation year 5000 BC results (1b). 
Within the Almanachs which are part of category 1a, the 1566-Almanach-F is an outstanding one, because not only 3967 BC results from this Almanach, but also 4056 BC (1a-2).

Category 2: the Preface to Cesar and quatrain 01-48
The creation year which results from this category, is 5200 BC.

Category 3: the Epistle to Henry II
This category consists of two parts: a part from which the creation year 4757/4758 BC results (3a), and a part, from which the creation date April 25, 4174 BC results (3b).

There is an exclusive relationship between on the one hand a creation year and on the other hand a category. The creation years which result from the category Almanachs do not result from other categories. The creation year which results from the Preface to Cesar and quatrain 01-48, also does not result from the other categories. The same goes for the creation years which result from the Epistle to Henry II. In other words: during the compilation of the Preface to Cesar, no use has been made of the creation years which result from the Almanachs or the Epistle to Henry II; during the compilation of the Almanachs, no use has been made of the creation years which result from the Preface to Cesar or the Epistle to Henry II and during the compilation of the Epistle to Henry II, no use has been made of the creation years which result from the Almanachs or the Preface to Cesar.
Some creation years seem to have connections to time structures in a category and prediction systems which result from these time structures. In the case of the Preface to Cesar, for example, a time structure might be at stake which run far into the future and which is based upon the assumption that the world has been created in 5200 BC. In the case of the Epistle to Henry II, two time structures might be at stake, both running far into the future. The time structure which includes the first biblical chronology, is based upon the assumption that the world has been created in 4757/4758 BC. The time structure which includes the second biblical chronology, is based upon the assumption that the world has been created on April 25, 4174 BC.
In the case of the Almanachs, the calculation of the number of years which have passed since the creation of the world is not a part of a time structure which runs far into the future. The predictions in the Almanachs are based upon the astrological aspects of the planets as they occur in the years for which the Almanachs are compiled, except for some predictions to which impacts are attributed which reach beyond the compilation year.

Two groups of Almanachs
The category Almanachs is divided in two groups. The first group (1a) contains the Almanachs from which the creation year 3967 BC results (the 1557-Almanach-F, the 1562-Almanach-F, the 1563-Almanach-F and the 1566-Almanach-F) and one Almanach-translation (the 1559-Almanacke-GB). The second group (1b) contains one Almanach from which the creation year 5000 BC results (the 1565-Almanach-F) and one Almanach-translation (the 1567-Almanach-It). These Almanachs are the ninth and the last Almanach in the series of eleven Almanachs in the period 1557 - 1567.[16]  
In connection with the intentions which Brotot described in his letter, it was verified who published the preserved Almanachs. 
The Almanachs from which the creation year 3967 vChr results, are published by several publishers. The Nostradamus-bibliographies by Benazra as well as by Chomarat/Laroche, do not contain information about who published the 1559-Almanach-F.
The copy of the 1565-Almanach-F which was studied by Brind'Amour, was published in Lyon by Benoist Odo. The copy of the 1567-Almanach-It which was studied by Brind'Amour, was the Italian translation of the 1567-Almanach-F, printed in Mondovi by L. Torrentino. In 1904, Henri Douchet reproduced a copy of the 1567-Almanach-F, owned by the French abbot Rigaux. The 1567-Almanach-F too was published by Benoist Odo.[17] 

From the Almanachs  for 1557, 1562, 1563 and 1566 and from the 1559-Almanacke-GB, the creation year 3967 BC results, not the creation year 5000 BC. These Almanachs were published by several publishers. There is no information in the bibliographies by Benazra and Chomarat/Laroche that these publishers were involved in the publishing of the 1565-Almanach-F and the 1567-Almanach-F.
From the Almanachs for 1565 and 1567, the creation year 5000 BC results, not the creation year 3967 BC. These Almanachs were published by Benoist Odo. There is no information in the bibliographies by Benazra and Chomarat/Laroche that Odo was involved in the publishing of the Almanachs for 1557, 1559, 1562, 1563 and 1566. Odo was not one of the regular publishers of the nostradamic oeuvre. He probably died between 1566 and 1573, because in May 1573, a booklet was published, entitled Ordonnance du Roy: pour le reglement general de ses monnoyes. This booklet was published by Odo's widow, who was settled in Lyon in the Rue Merciere.[18] In 1610, on the corner of the Rue Merciere and the Rue Ferrandiere, Pierre Rigaud was settled, who published around 1600 a two-volume set of the Centuries.[19]

A sort of the creation years, founded upon the publishers, unveils a peculiar fact. The creation year 3967 BC results from the publications by Kerver, Le Noir / Bonfons and Roux. The creation year 5000 BC results from the 1565-Almanach-F, published by Odo. Then, the creation year 3967 BC results from the 1566-Almanach-F, published by Volant / Brotot. Then, the creation year 5000 BC results from the 1567-Almanach-F, published by Odo. In other words:

• The creation year which results from the ninth Almanach in the series of eleven, differs from the creation year in the preceding Almanachs. The ninth Almanach (the 1565-Almanach-F) was published by Odo.

• The creation year which results from the penultimate Almanach is the same year as the creation year which results from the Almanachs which were published prior to the 1565-Almanach-F.

• The creation year which results from the last Almanach, published by Odo, is the same year as the creation year which results from the 1565-Almanach-F, which he also published.

The question is which creation years result from the non-preserved Almanachs (the Almanachs for 1558, 1560, 1561 and 1564). My expectation is that this creation year will be 3967 BC. The creation year which results from the Almanachs, published by Odo, is in my opinion not an example of a Nostradamus being careless or non-professional. It is the result of a contribution (in whatever way) by Odo. On the other hand, chances are that the time data from which in the Almanachs from 1557, 1559, 1562, 1563 and 1566 the creation year 3967 BC results, are supplied by Nostradamus; this year results from subsequent publications, published by several publishers.

Correspondences with Halbronn's analyses of the1565-Almanach-F and the 1567-Almanach-F (1999 en 2003)
From the Almanachs , published by Odo, a creation year results which differs from the creation year which results from the other Almanachs, among which the 1566-Almanach-F, which is between the 1565-Almanach-F and the 1567-Almanach-It. We therefore observe a separation between on the one hand the Almanachs, published by Odo, and on the other hand the remaining Almanachs.
In his thesis Le texte prophétique en France. Formation et fortune (Nanterre, 1999), J. Halbronn D.Litt comprehensively discussed the Almanachs en Pronostications. Halbronn observed a number of differences between on the one hand the Almanachs for 1565, 1566 and 1567 and on the other hand other Almanachs.
Halbronn observed that Nostradamus applied a certain clue in the quatrains in the Almanachs, compiled for the years in the period 1557 - 1564, which deals with two parties: the "red", which party seems to indicate the Catholics, and the "shaven" or "black", which party seems to indicate the Protestants. Nostradamus foresees the debacle of the "shaven". In the quatrains in the Almanachs for 1565, 1566 and 1567, these parties are no longer mentioned, according to Halbronn. These quatrains contain lots of agricultural prognoses about rain, wind, temperature, growth.
About the 1565-Almanach-F, Halbronn writes that the quatrains are not above the monthly calendars, which was the case in the preceding Almanachs, but above each prediction for each month. Halbronn supposed that the author of the 1565-Almanach-F probably thought that such a layout was preferable and that this author decided to entitle these quatrains with the word Présage. In the 1566-Almanach-F, the quatrains are situated at their usual place: above the lunar calendars.
In his thesis as well as in an article, published in 2002, in which he dealt with the methods, employed by Century-scholars, Halbronn noticed that the picture on the front page of the 1565-Almanach-F is atypical, compared with those of other Almanachs: a picture of someone, walkiing in the field under a starry sky, instead of an astrologer, sitting at his desk.
Next, Halbronn observed that above the prediction for January 1565, two quatrains were given in such a way that it was suggested that both these quatrains referred to January, whereas the first quatrain actually referred to the year 1565 in general, something which later was corrected in the Ianus Gallicus. Next, Halbronn gives a number of differences between the text of the quatrains in the 1565-Almanach-F and those in the Ianus Gallicus.
In the case of the 1567-Almanach-F, published after the decease of Nostradamus, Halbronn again observed differences with preceding Almanachs. The quatrains in this Almanach raise the impression of being artificial, as if one, during the compilation of these quatrains, used key words from a chapter in an astrological manual, dealing with the meaning of the twelve houses in a birth chart. According to Halbronn, these quatrains are probably not written by Nostradamus. For each quatrain, Halbronn notes the key words which are connected with the houses, e.g. (January 1567): prison (XII), death (VIII); (March 1567): open enemies (VII), marriage (VII), death (VIII).[20]
Until today, Halbronn maintains the thesis that the 1565-Almanach-F and the 1567-Almanach-F have atypical features, which is reason for him to contest the authenticity of these Almanachs.[21]
According to my opinion, Halbronn's observations regarding the atypical features of the Almanachs for 1565 and 1567 are confirmed by the fact that the creation year which results from these Almanachs, differs from the creation year which results from the other preserved Almanachs or Almanach-translations. This enforces the contest of the authenticity of these two Almanachs and reduces the number of resulting creation years from seven to six.

The year 4056 BC and the biblical chronology in the 1566-Almanach-F
According to the conversion data in the 1566-Almanach-F, 3967 years went by between the creation of the world and the birth of Jesus. This fact also results from the Almanachs for 1557, 1562 and 1563 and from the 1559-Almanacke-GB, in other words: from about half of the number of preserved Almanachs. 
One preserved Almanach, the 1566-Almanach-F, contains a biblical chronology. Such a chronology is not included in the other preserved Almanachs. The preserved Pronostications also do not contain such a chronology.
The previous paragraphs showed that the creation year 3967 BC can be derived in one and the same way: the conversion of the year for which an Almanach is compiled. This goes also for the 1566-Almanach-F. For this reason, I am convinced that at the beginning of the 1566-Almanach-F, a biblical chronology has been added as a kind of "extra", without an impact on the conversion in the next lines. The remark Les eages du monde selon les computations des Hebrieux (tr.: the ages of the world according to the calculations of the Hebrews) which precedes this chronology, might very well indicate the difference between the calculations of the Hebrews (from which the creation year 4056 BC results) and the calculations upon which the conversion 1566 / 5533 is founded, which is done by "time scholars".  
The 1566-Almanach-F also contains another "extra": the date of the Jewish Easter in the summing-up of fixed feasts. This summing-up also contains the date of the Christian Easter. In the 1557-Prono-F, the 1558-Prono-F, the 1559-Almanacke-GB, the 1561-Almanach-F and the 1562-Prono-F, only the date of the Christian Easter is given.[22]

Miscellany
According to Halbronn, there is a great chance that each of the biblical chronologies in the Epistle to Henry II is borrowed from an almanac in the pure sense of the word. [23] He writes that it is not uncommon that an almanac contains a chronology. Besides the 1566-Almanach-F he discusses the Almanach pour l’an MDLXXXVII (1587), written by Himbert de Billy and published by Benoist Rigaud. In the paragraph Observation sur la présente année 1587, it reads: Et depuis la création du monde suivant la vraye & parfaite supputation des Chronographes l’an 5549 (tr.: and since the creation of the world according to the true and perfect calculation of the time scholars the year 5549). I observe that the creation year which result from this almanac, is 3961 BC, which corresponds with the creation year according to the present Jewish calendar.
In the Almanach ende Pronosticatie vanden Iare M.D.LXVI (1566-AlmPro-NL),a Dutch almanac, which is probably translated from the French and which falsely carries the name of Nostradamus as the author's name, it reads: Het Jaer naer tsceppé des Werlts 6765 (tr.: the year after the creation of the world 6765. In other words: between the creation of the world and the year 1566, there are 6765 years. The creation year which results from this conversion, is 5200 BC, which year also is maintained by Roussat and Turrel. The way in which in the 1566-AlmPro-NL the time span of the period between the creation of the world and the year 1566 has been calculated, corresponds with the way of calculation in the 1566-Almanach-F. However, there is no reference in the 1566-AlmPro-NL to "true and perfect calculations by time scholars".[24]

Summary
This article started with the description of Brind'Amour's study of the backgrounds of five creation years which result from the nostradamic oeuvre, and a remark of a.o. Lemesurier that the presence of five creation years is an example of the careless and/or non-professional way in which Nostradamus worked.
In connection with intentions regarding the compilation of a publication of predictions, submitted to Nostradamus by the Lyonese publisher Brotot, it has been studied whether or not there are connections between on the one hand resulting creation years and on the other hand publishers.
From the nostradamic oeuvre, seven creation years result. In this article, emphasis has been laid on three creation years which result from preserved Almanachs and Almanach-translations. They doe do not result from the Preface to Cesar or the Epistle to Henry II (by the way: the creation years which result from the Preface and the Epistle, do not result from the Almanachs). 
I assume that the reference to the creation of the world deals with time structures and prediction structures for certain types of publications (Almanachs, Preface to Cesar, Epistle to Henry II). In the case of the Almanachs, no time structure or prediction structure is present, but a legenda.
In connection to the number of preserved Almanachs en Almanach-translation, my expectation is that, normally speaking, 3967 BC is the creation year which results from the A. Given the number of publishers, the chances are Nostradamus supplied the involved time data. In the case of the 1566-Almanach-F, two creation years result: 3967 BC and 4056 BC. The year 4056 BC results from a biblical chronology which is part of this Almanach. According to my opinion, this biblical chronology is added as an extra, without any impact on the usual conversion of the Almanach-year in a year, counted from the creation of the world.
Regarding the creation year 5000 BC, which results from the Almanachs for 1565 and 1567, my assumption is that this year results from a contribution (in whatever form) by Benoist Odo, the publisher of these two Almanachs. In the series of Almanachs, the creation year 5000 BC is atypical. This enforces Halbonn' observations regarding the atypical character of these two Almanachs, and his contest of their authenticity.

Further research
In this article, the question has been asked which is asked by so many Century-scholars: why does not one creation year result from the nostradamic oeuvre, but more than one? If the assumption that from the Almanachs, normally speaking, the creation year 3967 BC results, this question can be rephrased:  

In my further study of creation years, time structures and prediction structures, I will try to find an answer to this question.

De Meern, the Netherlands, June 2, 2005 
T.W.M. van Berkel
actualized on May 29, 2006

Expression of thanks
The author wishes to thank J. Halbronn D.Litt (Bibliotheca astrologica, Paris) for sending copies of the 1559-Almanacke-GB, the 1566-Almanach-F and Turrel's Le periode cest a dire la fin du monde.

Notes

1. Brind'Amour 1993a, p.174-177. [text]

2. Lemesurier: In the course of his various writings, for example, he advances no less than five different and incompatible dates for the creation of the world - two of them in the self-same document (the Letter to Henri II) (Nostradamus: the Halbronn hypotheses, March 2005). [text]

3. The letter from Brotot: Brotot: Dupèbe, p.31-32 (Latin text and French summary) and Amadou, p.64 (French translation).
   Van Berkel discussed this letter in a.o.:
   -  Astrological anomalies in Almanachs, Pronostications and correspondence;
   -  Contribution to a Nostradamus-workshop, symposium L'astrologie et le monde, Paris;
   -  Comments on Lemesuriers Nostradamus: the Halbronn hypotheses.
   In connection to the persons to which the manuscripts, sent to Brotot, were dedicated, Halbronn posed the question if Brotot's letter was written in 1554 and dealt with predictions for 1555 (Halbronn: Observations sur la Correspondence Nostradamus). [text]

4. Facsimile-Chomarat-2000, p.34: Car encores que la planette de Mars paracheue son siecle [...] que sommes conduict par la Lune [...] le Soleil viédra,& puis Saturne. [text]

5. Roussat, p.95. Roussat and Turrel, while mentioning the first Great Year in the fourth series of seven Great Years, which Year is ruled by Saturn, made the reservation that meanwhile the world might have come to an end (Roussat, p.95; Turrel, Fo. XVIII).  [text]

6. Roussat, p.68; Turrel, Fo. XI. [text]

7. Facsimile-Chomarat-2000, p.35: qu'encores que nous soyons au septiesme nombre de mille qui paracheue le tout, nous approchát du huictiesme [...] [text]

8. Roussat, p.139-140. [text]

9. Van Berkel: The Epistle to Henry II: the first biblical chronology. [text]

10. Van Berkel: The Epistle to Henry II: the second biblical chronology. [text] 

11. In the present Jewish calendar, a creation year is mentioned that is equal to the year 3961 BC [text]

12. Brind'Amour 1993a, p.176. [text]

13. Brind'Amour 1993a, p.176-177 and 477-487.
    L'astrologie de Nostradamus - dossier contains a reconstruction of the 1561-Almanach-F, published in Paris by Guillaume le Noir. The fragments which are used for this reconstruction, originate from three copies of this Almanach. Many pages are severely damaged. Because of the damaging of page 2, which contains the fixed feasts and the conversion data of 1561, it can not be traced what has been the year, counting from the creation of the world, in which 1561 was converted. It can be traced that the text read that from the birth of Jesus,1561 years passed (Amadou, p.432-454; see p.434 for the fragment of p.2 of the 1561-Almanach-F). [text]

14. Brind'Amour 1993a, p.176; Gregorio in the Nostradamus Research Group message board, May 28, 2006. [text]

15. See:
    -  Chevignard, p.417 (1557-Prono-F) and p.441 (1558-Prono-F);
    -  www.zannoth.de (1562-Prono-F, p.2). [text]

16. Halbronn: Petite contre encyclopédie Nostradamus. [text]

17. Brind'Amour 1993a, p.486. [text]

18. See the online-catalogue of the Lyon Municipal Library. [text]

19. Benazra, p.147. [tekst]

20. Halbronn:
    - Le problème des trois derniers almanachs, in: These de Jacques Halbronn, the online-version of his thesis;
    - Réflexions sur les méthodes de travail des nostradamologues (2002).
    See also Chevignard, p.113-190, for a comprehensive description of the texts of the quatrains in the Almanachs and the texts of these quatrains in the commentaries which are attributed to De Chavigny. [text]

21. Halbronn: Un Nostradamus schizophrène, December 23, 2003. [text]

22. See:
    -  Amadou, p.434 (1561-Almanach-F);
    -  Chevignard, p.417 (1557-Prono-F) and p.441 (1558-Prono-F);
    -  www.zannoth.de (1562-Prono-F, p.2);
    -  1559-Almanacke-GB, p.1;
    -  1566-Almanach-F, paragraph Les festes mobiles, line 3: Pasques, 14.Auril.; line 9: Pasques des Hebreux,ieudi, 17.Auril. 
    The date of the Jewish Easter in the 1566-Almanach-F is the result of a printer's error. In 1566, the Jewish Easter occurred on April 4 (Thursday), Julian calendar, Nisan 15, 5326, Jewish calendar. In 1566, the christian Easter occurred on April 14 (Sunday), as mentioned in the 1566-Almanach-F.
    In the 1562-Almanach-F, it reads that the jewish Easter is celebrated on Saturday, March 21 (see: www.propheties.it/nostradamus/biblio/almanacco1562.htm). This date corresponds with the jewish date Nisan 15, 5322. [text]

23. Halbronn: La Préface à Cesar: des Vaticinations Perpétuelles aux Quatrains astronomiques. [tekst]

24. Van Berkel: The Almanach ende Pronosticatie vanden Iare M.D.LXVI (1566). [text]