 |
 
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
As a result of the publication of the Prophecies, Nostradamus was famous. Whereas before he was famous throught Provence for his medical skills, he was now Nostradamus, the celebrated prophet of France. Such was his sudden fame that he was summoned to Paris. Housed (and protected) in the Hotel de Sens under the care of the Cardinal de Bourbon, he met the king, Henri II, and his wife, Catherine de Medici. There also he met various members of the ambitious House of Lorraine, the king’s Constable the duc de Montmorency and other noble notables who would play such a large part in the upcoming troubles.
First would be the interview with the king. Many commentators have claimed that Henri II was disinterested in what the prophet said. I happen to disagree with them. Henri seems to have been a very intelligent person, interested in expanding his influence and in improving the lot of Frenchmen. The innovation of the patent was his idea, one that has revolutionized what inventors gain. His primary focus would be, of course, France. As Nostradamus had things to say about the future of France, Henri would be interested. What was said between king and prophet is unknown to us, but we can speculate. It is certain the king would be interested in the news that France would gain Calais soon, and that the advance towards the Rhine would meet with success. But when questioned about Italian lands, an area dear to the hearts of the French kings of the time, Nostradamus would be naturally opposed. Yet he may have stated that within a hundred and fifty years, a direct male descendent of Capet would ascend the Spanish throne, and that a few hundred years after that, another descendant of Capet would finally unify Italy, both of which did happen; this the king would hear with joy mixed with astonishment and a certain measure of disappointment. It is also likely the prophet told the king other things, both bright and dark, concerning the future of France. Of course, it is likely that prophecy was not the only thing that Nostradamus and the king would talk about. Nostradamus was a Doctor of Physique, trained at Montpellier. He probably was asked for his informed medical opinion on a certain medical condition that Henri had at the time. Regardless, it is likely the two talked for a long time, breaking only because Henri knew that his wife, Catherine, was determined to see Nostradamus.
The meeting with Catherine de Medici would be next. She was the one who most likely fought to get the prophet summoned to Paris. She was an experienced astrologer in her own right and had also hired the court astrologer, Ruggiero. She naturally wanted to know what the good doctor had to say. She would not be interested in the distant future, her immediate future, her power and the likely fate of her family, this is what would have interested her. Nostradamus would have to have been very careful with her, she would be more focused, more willing to seek gain without understanding the broad future that was to come. Yet there may be evidence that he did influence her. During the time of her power, the terrible Religious Wars struck France savagely. Both the house of Lorraine and the house of Bourbon made power plays to control the country. Many a ruler would have struck back with savage fury. Yes, she struck and hard, the savagery of the infamous Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre can be partially attributed to her, but her overall moderation and prudence may have spared many lives during this long dark time in France. As Henri IV would later admit, with all the turmoil and tribulations that would befall her, it was amazing that she did not do worse than she did.
The king’s sister, Marguerite, would see the prophet. Marguerite would most likely be one of the few who truly valued the prophet as a person, there was not a more democratic person in the royal family. She would, of course, be interested in her future. But she would value what Nostradamus said, not as a noble valuing what a prophet said, but as a person valuing what another person said. In all probability Nostradamus was friendliest towards her. Maybe he taught her things he would not teach any of the others of the royal family or the noble houses.
Almost certainly the most tormented visits came from the ambitious House of Loraine. Because this house could trace its lineage back to King Louis IX, known as Saint Louis, and claimed descent from Charlemagne, the members of this house had royal pretensions. Charles Duc de Loraine, Claude Duc de Aumale, Francis Duc de Guise, René Marquis de Elbeuf and Charles Cardinal de Reims would be interested in what the prophet had to say. Who knows what this ambitious and worldly family asked him. Nostradamus would have to be very careful with this family, for they could turn on him and destroy him if they did not feel they were being blessed by the prophecies. It is certain that Nostradamus would have used the knowledge that France would not go over to the Protestant side as a shield to protect himself from any anger the house could have given him. Also, the fact that they were descendants of Bourbon through their mother, Antoinette de Bourbon, may have played a moderating influence if Nostradamus stated that their house would have to bend their knees to a descendant of Bourbon. Yet I cannot help but feel he pulled Francis de Guise aside and gave him a cryptic message, a message the Duc would remember when, retreating from Italy in defeat, he would suddenly look to Calais!
Doubtless, there were other people he saw. Among them would be Diane de Poitiers, the mistress of Henri. Also there would be Gabriel Montgomery, the captain of the king’s Scottish Guard. Duc Anne de Montmorency, the Constable of France, would make an appearance. The Duc Nicholas de Mercœur, supposedly also tied to the House of Loraine would want to know what the prophet said. This list would probably be but a small portion of those whom he saw in his stay in Paris.
Of course, he would have many detractors. The Protestants would be up in arms about him. Gaspard de Coligny, the Admiral of France, would have little good to say about him. Louis de Bourbon, the Prince de Condé, who was the recipient of one of Nostradamus’s most virulent quatrains, would feel nothing but animosity towards the prophet. Many of the negative stories about Nostradamus seem to originate from about this time, they seem to have their origin with the Protestants who hated the prophet. But not all of Nostradamus’ opponents were Protestants; supposedly several of the court astrologers found fault with Nostradamus and his work. Whether this was due to jealousy or serious doubt is unknown to us, but professional jealousy even today seems to constantly raise its ugly head.
He reputedly journeyed to Blois to see the royal children, though there is some doubt as to whether he actually did journey there. If he did, who knows what was said there. We have stories, including one where he foresaw that there would be four kings. Whatever was really said, if it was said, only the nurses, Catherine and Nostradamus know. Their graves hold their secrets.
If he did go to Blois, he would have seen the Queen again upon his return. Then, he would have done as he know he did, dealt with other people while waiting for the King to summon him again. Some, of course, would be rich and powerful, they would get priority to see the prophet. Still, it is very likely many who were not so rich or powerful came to ask for his special aid. Nostradamus may have had to be careful with the rich and powerful, but others, average people like most of us, would be more in awe of the prophet. Not spoiled by greatness, they would be more willing to accept negative prophecies than the powerful would. Most likely Nostradamus would be more open and honest with these. Who knows how many were forewarned, consequently able to settle their affairs before disaster overtook them, or made choices that benefitted their lives because they talked to the prophet.
Towards the end of his stay, he came down with something. Likely, it was a flair-up of the gout, a condition he had for a long while. In Paris, the rich foods would have acted upon it in a malevolent way. The Catholics of Paris would naturally be concerned while the Protestants of Paris would be overjoyed, thinking that divine wrath had finally appeared to strike down the charlatan. Regardless, Nostradamus finally got better. Yet, he was tired. He most likely wanted return home to the simple life and simple cooking he preferred. Finally, it is likely that some authority (most likely a protestant one) was looking into his “magic practices.” It was time for him to leave.
Before he went, he obviously saw the King a second and last time. Of course, he could not just up and leave, neither could he just go in and see the King, neither was acceptable practice even if Nostradamus was a true prophet. Nostradamus as a commoner would have to wait for the King to summon him and he could not leave before that summons, so he likely waited for at least a few days. But he was eventually summoned.
Just what was said when the two finally got together for this last interview remains between king and prophet. However, there is one indication. In the great Epistle to Henri, towards the end, Nostradamus wrote the following:
But I only request, O Most Clement King, by this singular and careful humanity of yours, to hear only the desire of my courage and the sovereign project which is in obedience to your most Serene Majesty....
In obedience! But to whom? Most commentators have claimed that this epistle is to the future King, Henri, fifth of the name of the house of Capet. Does this singular note refer to this future king Henri? If we accept this claim, we would have to accept that somehow the future king came back into the past and commanded Nostradamus to write this. How could the future king command him to do such a project? And, to deal with another possibility, we must consider whether it was God, the “King of the Universe”. But this leaves open the question why Nostradamus would write it down like he did. The only answer possible is that it had to be Henri II who commanded Nostradamus to write what became the Epistle to Henri. Very likely the King would have thought long and hard on what the Prophet had told him earlier. It is very likely he would have wanted something put down with the events written in a more linear fashion, not scrambled, so that people could check off a check list. Yes, this has happened. Yes, this happened afterwards, exactly as written here. Henri II wanted a more detailed and ordered prophecy. Nostradamus would, likely, have then told the King that to make such a list would probably destroy the efforts he was doing, it would likely spell disaster in the distant future. Accurate knowledge of what was to be would allow the enemy to change the course of the future and destroy France. The King would almost certainly have given way on that much, but would still have insisted on an orderly, if obscured, frame of reference, with the end somewhat and deliberately made vague so that the conclusion be protected. This would be a command: Nostradamus therefore obeyed.
Monarchy may be one of the traditional forms of government and it does have a long history behind it. However, it has not been a particularly peaceful or nice history.
The power and effectiveness of a monarchial form of government has always depended on the strength and character of the monarch in charge. The morality of the monarchial form of government likewise depends on the monarch in charge, only this time it depends on the moral nature of the monarch. Thus when the monarch was strong and moral, there tended to be good government and the people as a whole would prosper. But when the monarch was strong and immoral, the government would be strong but the people would suffer. A weak government usually did not benefit the people in any way, though a weak monarch who was moral usually did not do any harm to the people. Nevertheless, the weakness of the monarch inevitably played out in the replacement of the monarch by one who was stronger.
Henry II of England and Henri IV of France were two classic examples of strong monarchs who were very moral. Known as benevolent despots, they worked for the betterment of their lands and their people. the one striving to give his people a just law, the other striving to give his people peace and respect. Of course, the right of the monarch to be a strong and good monarch was not limited to just the males: Maria Theresa of Austria was equally as strong and as moral for the Austrian Empire as Henry and Henri were for their respective nations. Thanks to her, the Hapsburg lineage was extended for several centuries.
It is hard, of course, to find the name of a monarch who was strong yet vile. Still, Ivan IV of Russia, known as the Terrible in the English speaking world but better known as “The Dread” has a nasty reputation and deservedly so. But when one looks to understand why his reputation is so bad, one has to be careful. Yes, he had his wars with the Boyars, the nobility of Russia but nobles as a rule cared not for the people they governed but for their own rights and power. Consequently Ivan’s struggle with the Boyars is, if not good, at least explainable in ways that do not detract from his true reputation. Henry II of England had similar struggles with the nobility, though it was not as violent. So the struggle with the Boyars cannot be used as an excuse to declare Ivan bad. But what can be use was his fondness of burning and frying thousands of people at a time, his love of watching executions and his paranoid suspicions. He reputedly built walls around his capitol to keep the people from escaping – this is telling as to how bad it was under his reign.
Another example of a vile king, though not as vile as Ivan, was Charles X of France. He did not care about any just laws, or in governing, he cared only about his power and position. This lead him to commit some vile acts, decrees that would bring him down with surprising rapidity.
But probably the majority of the strong monarchs were somewhere in-between, neither very moral nor very immoral. Louis XIV, the Sun King, is perhaps a classic example. In many ways he did many good things and if he had focused on these he could have been considered one of the greatest monarchs of all times. But he also had a fondness of war, a fact he would admit to on his own deathbed. His love of war lead him to errors and acts that would ultimately harm his people.
And it must be pointed out that sometimes no matter what a monarch could do, bad things would happen and they would reflect solely on the monarch. John of England is the perfect example in this case. As a governor of the people he was actually fairly wise and sagacious, it is said that people wanted him to be the judge in their court cases because his judgments were both just and far-seeing. And as an administrator there is nothing that can be gainsaid about him. But he was hit by a series of events and problems that even his critics admit would have caused better kings to fly into fits of rage. John did do some terrible things during his reign but the terrible reputation he has is more a result of the terrible events he had to endure, the pressures he was placed under, and the issues he had to face, events, pressures and issues that few have ever had to endure. He literally reaped the whirlwind that his brother, Richard I, managed to avoid because Richard was a crusader and the aura of the Crusader protected him. John reaped the rage that the Nobility felt because his father, Henry II, had taken away from them their ability to rule their own lands for their own amusement and pleasure.
Weak kings, if they had a certain level of morality, could, if they were so inclined, appoint a person to rule in their name. Louis XIII, who was relatively weak willed, had enough presence of character to appoint a fairly strong willed individual to be his Prime Minster. Cardinal Richelieu may not have been one of the better governors, he had a fondness for war and strongly opposed anything that was not Catholic, but at least he had the strength of will to govern effectively and he was moral enough to leave the state of the nation and the people better off then they were when he began his stewardship, though the Huguenots had reason to claim otherwise. Still, France was better off with Richelieu than without him. But this worked only if the monarch was so inclined.
When the monarch was not so inclined, then disaster struck. Louis XVI was a well-meaning but very weak willed king who could not be a king. His government drifted with vague directions but was unable to do a thing effectively. When the French Revolution struck, Louis did the wrong thing every time, for all of the wrong reasons. Though he did not deserve the death he got, he certainly deserved to be deposed and deposed he was.
But in all of these cases, one single unifying trait stands out. At all times, under the governance of all of these monarchs, the people themselves had no say in what happened in their own nations, what happened to their neighbors, to themselves. The people were totally dependent upon the good-will and the strength of the monarch in question.
Nostradamus, in his dealings with royalty, was just another person who was totally under the thumb of the monarch in question. True Henri II was one of the better monarchs, but he still governed pretty much as he wanted to. The nobles around him did what they wanted to, often without a care or a concern for the harm they were giving the common people under their charge. Because of this, Nostradamus had to be very careful while he was in Paris.