 |
   
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
This epistle was written in the style of the fifteenth century. Punctuation, when it was there, was obscure, without any rules. The whole document was written as two paragraphs; not surprising as in his day, the French language was not taught in schools but rather had to be taught at home. That, plus the convoluted nature of the prophecies involved made interpreting the epistle an extremely difficult proposition at best. For the modern reader’s appreciation and understanding, I have divided the epistle into various paragraphs that seem to agree with the flow of the document.
Due to the nature of the prophecy, it is not surprising that nobody has accurately understood it up to this day. Its obscurity is so complete that it has confounded and confused many translators. Some have even given up, not even trying to translate it. A few, most notably Theophilus de Garenciéres wanted to remove it completely. I have included the introduction by Garenciéres as an example of how confusing it is.
That I have succeeded, in an area where most people have failed, is due to either divine intervention or random chance. I will not claim either, but will let the reader be the judge. However, I will state that it was inevitable that someone would either stumble upon or figure out the accurate beginning of the first time-line. In doing so, they would likely figure out the entire prophecy from beginning to end or at least the parts of it that have been fulfilled with those parts that have not yet been fulfilled becoming more understandable. I believe myself to be that someone, but I am convinced it could have been anyone.
This epistle made its first appearance either in 1566, published by Pierre Rigaud or in 1568 published by Benoist Rigaud. In general, differences between the two editions is minor, but there is one very notable distinction. It is the fact that the Pierre Rigaud edition may be a forgery. Why do I state this?
The big reason that the Pierre Rigaud edition is likely a forgery is the fact that Pierre Rigaud was the son of Benoist Rigaud. Almost certainly the 1566 publication faceplate is spurious. That said, there are two things that may indicate otherwise. First of all, it is possible that Pierre the son was named after an uncle who was also a publisher. The other possibility is that the Pierre edition was using a faceplate of a lost 1566 Benoist edition. Because of these possibilities, and because of the fact that so many copies of accurate Nostradamus works have been lost, it is all but impossible to claim, with absolute certainty, that there was never a 1566 edition, either by a Pierre who was brother to Benoist or by Benoist himself. I therefore content myself with giving you this information and letting you, the reader, be the judge.
This of course leads to an interesting claim. Commentators in general claim that this was written for a future king, Henri, fifth of that name. It is true there is some evidence in favor of this, but it is not conclusive. The date it was completed, the 17th of June, in the year 1558, used by commentators to prove it was written to the future king clearly allows it enough time for King Henri II to have read it. The way it is written in the Benoist Rigaud edition, to Henri of France II, does indicate that it will be to a king of a Second France. However, it is highly probable the king commanded Nostradamus to put to paper what the future held in a somewhat orderly fashion; with this epistle Nostradamus complied with Henri’s order, even though it was written in such a way that would not only shock the king immeasurably, he would not understand what was written.
So the question remains unanswered. Was this written to Henri II, King of France and delivered to him in time for him to read it before he died in that infamous joust with his friend, Montgomery? Was it written instead to a future king of the same name, Henri, who will give birth to a second France after the first finally perishes? Or was it written to both Henri’s? To this day we cannot truly know – the answer remains locked in the mind of Michael Nostradamus.
However, now that so much of the epistle is interpretable, several details have become apparent. While I will leave most of the details to the commentaries I have included, two must be stated now. The first detail concerns the epistle itself: it contains three timelines that describe events from the period of 1789 to the end of Armageddon. The first one is the major one and includes almost all of the events. It starts in 1789 and continues to the end of the War of the Anti-Christ. To keep it more convoluted, this first timeline leapfrogged, if I may use the term, jumping back and forth, mainly by declaring that this or that government will cause these or those events, or that before this already stated event occurs, this other event that is now being read will have to occur to its completion. When this is carefully understood and taken into account, the timeline is remarkably linear and accurate, especially as far as the parts that have already occurred. The second one also starts in 1789, is much shorter, and deals with Italy and the Catholic Church through the war of the Anti-Christ, mainly through the Secondary Anti-Christ. The last one deals exclusively with the War of the Anti-Christ though it likely continues on to Armageddon.
Because of this, I can honestly assert that there are not three Anti-Christ’s, as so many commentators believe. There are only two who will appear at about the same time: The primary one is an individual who comes from the Middle East. There is also a secondary one, a set of temporal laws that tries to deal with the Catholic Church and all of Christianity in a permanent basis.
Please note: I have italicized all of the translated words of Nostradamus. Those passages that are written in Latin are written in SMALL CAPS. My interpretations and commentary are in normal type.
For those who are knowledgeable about French, please note that the very first line, if literally interpreted, would read: TO THE INVINCIBLE, VERY POWERFUL, AND VERY CHRISTIAN HENRI, KING OF FRANCE THE SECOND. The deliberate translation of tres into most instead of the more accurate very comes to us from the first one who translated the Prophecies into English. Theophilus de Garenciéres, the French born Doctor who translated the work, knew the literal translation. He also knew how French and English kings were traditionally greeted, the differences in verbiage that ultimately gave the same meaning. In writing it the way he did, he gave us not a literal translation but the literal meaning behind the words – he translated it into how Englishmen would glorify their king. As far as I know, every translation since has followed the lead of Garenciéres. I did the same.
One last thing. With the translated version of the epistle that I provided without commentary I have included Theophilius' own introduction. I include it here as a curiosity in part for historical reasons and in part because interpreting the epistle was so very hard to do.