 |
 
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
After his time in Lyon, Nostradamus settled in Salon, where he lived out the rest of his life. According to the claims, Nostradamus fell in love with the town of Salon, its location, its weather, its charm. Now it is possible he did, he certainly had been wandering for a long time and could have been looking for a place to settle down. But, I suspect that something else happened. You see, at this time Nostradamus got married for the second time in his life.
It is much more likely that Nostradamus saw Salon as any other village he had wondered through. The village of Salon was like most of the other villages of Provence. But we can speculate as to a few details. Going to the inn, or the tavern, he ordered a meal and there he met a young widow by the name of Anne Ponita Gamella. Likely they sat at a table and talked together while eating. While they talked, something happened – Nostradamus was stricken with at least a very strong infatuation that quickly developed into a deep and profound love. In this state of mind, which he likely would not have yet recognized in himself, the town, ordinarily like so many other towns, would suddenly would take on a luster all of its own – the air would be fresher, the trees sweeter, the village more charming. In other words, it was not that Salon was special in and of itself, it was that Salon was the home of a woman he was strongly attracted to.
Of course, he married her. Nostradamus would never have married unless he was deeply in love. This marriage clearly gave him the happiness that had long eluded him, the happiness he had lost when his first wife had died. So, thanks to a woman, Salon was the place where he finally settled down.
Salon was in a somewhat centralized location, from there he could easily travel throughout Provence in a short time. Combined with the small town charm and the clean, healthy conditions that most small towns and villages have, something big cities tended to not have, it was clearly the perfect spot for him to settle.
Nostradamus the doctor likely did not do much more traveling to dispense his cures any more. People would come from all over Provence to see him. As these would mainly be among the rich and powerful, it would be something of a source of good fortune to the people of the village who would quickly accept him as one of their own. As a more settled individual, it is likely he now did what many older physician did in those days, he would write books. It is almost certain that he wrote several books dealing with cosmetics, something that women of means would find particularly interesting. And he would write a book about proper nutrition - even in those days people recognized that eating right was important, even Plato had that much knowledge, but as the study of nutrition was still in its infancy, since nothing was known about the actual properties of food, Nostradamus would likely write in many of his wife's recipes as the proper means for balanced diets to prevent this or that condition. This was a standard practice in those days so what Nostradamus did here was quite normal.
It is said he traveled to Italy at this time, if so it was only to acquire the books he would put to use. But even though he did travel a few more times, it was not as if he had to travel as people came from all over Provence to see the celebrated doctor. Among them was Jean-Aymé de Chavigny, who reputedly became his firm friend. Most likely, Nostradamus introduced Chavigny to the quatrains. It may be that Chavigny helped Nostradamus prepare the first publication, lending support to speculation that Chavigny was Nostradamus’s secretary.
However, there is something that stands against this assertion. There is, as far as I can tell, no mention of Chavigny anywhere in the works of Michael Nostradamus' son, César, who wrote a fairly long biography of the seer. Now this may be explainable by the simple fact that Chavigny was always busy with what Nostradamus had him do, so he was simply a paid helper and not a member of the extended family. It could also be that César did not like Chavigny and deliberately wrote him out of the biography. Chavigny did write several important works that included the various quatrains of Nostradamus; I used his works to validate certain writings, most notably the quatrains of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and the various writings of the Sixains. César may have simply been jealous enough to "cut him out." But it is still curious. Maybe Chavigny was Nostradamus' friend, maybe not. Maybe he was Nostradamus' secretary, maybe not. Maybe there was some other connection between the two, some lesser connection. We cannot determine one way or the other. All we can and do know is that Chavigny was involved with the quatrains and he had information about Nostradamus' first wife and children. So there is a connection between Chavigny and the Doctor, we just do not know what type of connection there was.
Nostradamus completed two projects, both of which came out in 1555. The first project was an almanac, published yearly for a number of years, each of which had a number of prophetic quatrains. This was a very successful venture. Contrary to the claims of some, I can find no proof confirming stories that he started the almanac several years earlier as there seems to be no record of any before 1555. The second project was the first edition of the Prophecies, the celebrated Bonhomme edition. This first publication of the Prophecies was of the first three centuries of one hundred quatrains each, plus fifty five quatrains from the fourth century. These publications made his name famous throughout all of France.
Because they are so connected to him, we must pause here and ascertain why he wrote the prophecies and what the source of his inspiration was. Did he believe that he was writing what he had seen in vision, as justified by “judicial astronomy" – astrology for all intents and purposes, or was there some other reason? And if it was for some other reason, was he doing wild ramblings because he wanted fame or was there some other motive?
People do not normally try to interpret the Prophecies without believing that Nostradamus really had the ability to see events. Whether this power was from God or occurred naturally makes no difference to the assertion, that he had it is what matters. If he did have it, then we do not need to enquire any further. So, we must look at the opposite rationalization, the one that claims that Nostradamus did not have the ability to see the future.
Assuming that Nostradamus did not have the ability to see the future, there are two possibile reasons why he wrote the Almanacs and the Prophecies. The first possible explanation, believed by the doubters and determined skeptics, claims that Nostradamus wanted fame that he could not gain as a mere doctor. This assertion is certainly valid in and of itself; Nostradamus as the Prophet of France was famous to a degree that he could never have been as a mere doctor. But it does not agree with what we know of him, the doctor who fought the Plague in Aix for about a year, risking his life in an attempt to develop a cure. His time in Aix is almost proof that he was not interested in fame. Skeptics get around this by claiming that Nostradamus was actually an ignoramus, but there is no proof whatsoever that Nostradamus was as ignorant as skeptics assert. It is true that only a dedicated person uninterested in fame or an ignoramus would have risked his life as Nostradamus did, but the ignoramus would have done so without realizing the deadly nature of the risk he was taking. We can eliminate the ignoramus because his intelligence is quite apparent. This skeptical argument is therefore laughable at the very best and fraudulent at worst.
The other possibility better fits the facts as we know them. It accepts the claims that Nostradamus was a man of science, was highly educated and was not interested in fame. It accepts the belief, backed by evidence, that he was definitely advanced in his thinking and claims he was dismayed by the overly-superstitious times. It asserts that Nostradamus created the Prophecies as a way to insult or teach the superstitious people of his times. And unlike the claim that Nostradamus was an ignoramus, this claim is actually well thought out - presented first by the noted skeptic Edgar Leoni. This one does deserve some attention.
If either possibility is true, then it is highly likely that his predictions would be just random musings, with a hit or miss fulfillment rate with about 99% or more of the prophecies being a miss. The probability of those prophecies of his that state definite times, people or locations, sometimes a time and location in the same quatrain, would be extremely low – likely nil. Now it is true that some of his dated quatrains are definite misses, the worst was the case where he predicted a Pope would die in the year 1609, but at least one of them is right on the money, an accurate description of the Great Northern War that started in 1700.
The fulfillment rate of the quatrains indicates that he was extremely accurate, though he was not perfect. This demands the answer to a question, was it from God or of his own ability? To this, we can assert that it could not be from God, unless you strictly follow the Jeremiah/Jonah principle that indicates that only prophecies of peace must be fulfilled for them to be viable. Because of this principle, one not followed by most of the Judeo-Christian churches but one still written into the Bible itself, it is possible his gift was from God. That said, it is also possible that he had a latent ability that he used, an ability that can eventually be explainable philosophically and scientifically, though it must be admitted that even this can come from God. We do not have the understanding necessary to explain it, at this time. But just because we cannot explain it at this time does not mean that we will never be able to explain it – this must be left to the future. Regardless, it is evident that he truly believed he had the power to see the future; the huge number of fulfilled prophecies indicates that he did have this ability.
One thing is for sure. Nostradamus distained the protection of the powerful. His dedication was not given to a Pope, a monarch or some important noble. Instead it was given to his son, César Nostradamus through the now famous Epistle to César. If there is a greater display of confidence in his visions provided by the author, I know it not.
Prophecy! The word is a religious word with definite religious implications. Confirmed critics who display a marked prejudice against it always find ways to claim that nobody can possibly foresee the future. They utilize Occam’s Razor in such a way as to eliminate even the possibility that people can foresee the future. In doing so, they abandon the scientific methodology they reputedly support. They allow their prejudice to take over their thinking.
To show how this operates, lets suppose that someone in the 17th century foresaw Adolf Hitler and the Second World War in the 20th century. He writes about Hitler, calling him “the man with the funny moustache.” He foresaw the airplane, describing them as “swarms of metallic locusts diving down to cause immense explosions.” He foresees submarine warfare “fish that belch tubes that attack ships made of metal,” and tanks “strange metallic animals that belch flame and cause destruction.” He even sees the end of the war, “an explosion the equal of the power of the sun.” He writes it this way because he heard nothing, he only saw things and was trying to describe what he saw. Now, let us take our critic. What would the critic say? “I am so very sorry but it is clear that the man with the funny moustache can be anyone but Hitler, why Charlie Chaplain had a similar moustache so how could it possibly refer to Hitler? The swarms of metallic locusts can easily be a biblical reference, there is nothing to tie it to the Second World War or aircraft like blind supporters want to believe. A fish that belts out a tube that attacks ships, come on! Show me a fish that can shoot a tube and I will withdraw my objection. And a metallic animal? I have never seen a metallic animal in my life and there is no reason to believe that a metallic animal could possibly exist. Now this seer may have seen what he claims to have seen, but frankly I doubt it. All of his words are full of nothing but gobbledygook and hogwash and should be consigned to the dustbin of pseudo history.”
One of the core tenants of the so-called scientific approach is a quote by the renown Arabic thinker Alhazen, a philosopher of the eleventh century:
Now, let us use the wise words of Alhazen and re-examine the critic’s words, criticizing what the critic said in itallics. “I am so very sorry but it is clear that the man with the funny moustache can be anyone but Hitler, why Charlie Chaplain had a similar moustache so how could it possibly refer to Hitler?” But how does the critic know that because Chaplain had a similar moustache that the seer did not see Hitler, even though he implies that he did not? “The swarms of metallic locusts can easily be a biblical reference, there is nothing to tie it to the Second World War or aircraft like blind supporters want to believe.” An obvious, self-fulfilling conclusion. Since it is obvious that locusts do not operate like that, Occam’s Razor indicates that what is described is not really locusts but a simile that describes something metallic – the metallic portion fairly demands it. “A fish that belts out a tube that attacks ships, come on! Show me a fish that can shoot a tube and I will withdraw my objection.” And since fish do not shoot out tubes that attacks ships, it is apparent that the simplest explanation is that what was described is something artificial. With that thought, the submarine suggests itself and fulfills the rule of the simplest explanation quite handily. “And a metallic animal? I have never seen a metallic animal in my life and there is no reason to believe that a metallic animal could possibly exist.” And since metallic animals do not exist, one can assume that the author of this line also knew that metallic animals do not exist. So, what was he describing other than something artificial. Now military vehicles are metallic, one that shoots fire and causes destruction could be a gun. But an animal is self moved. So what is described could be a self-propelled gun or, more likely, a tank. “Now this seer may have seen what he claims to have seen, but frankly I doubt it. All of his words are full of nothing but gobbledygook and hogwash and should be consigned to the dustbin of pseudo history.” And since the critic has used his own prejudices to trash what was said without looking at his own prejudices, it is obvious that what came out was not an honest criticism but a prejudicial one, one that says nothing but what the critic wants to believe.
Scientists today are studying prophecy, or as they call it, Precognition. It is a very serious study that deserves close scrutiny. Even critics admit that there are instances of clairvoyance (the old name for precognition) that are uncannily accurate, even up to twenty years in the future. The scientists who study it are slowly laying the groundwork for what could be monumental discoveries in the near or distant future. But one thing it definitely does not deserve, is the attention of attention seeking critics who are not truly critical but simply applying their own beliefs and prejudices on what is seen.