The Preface: Reigns, Sects, & Religions (Part III)
As stated prior, the Latin words presented by Nostradamus are very similar to the Latin translation of the original Greek from the Book of Matthew (7:6). The original forms of those sources contain no punctuation, as punctuation was a later invention of Western civilization. The English translations publicly recognized (multiple versions) all present punctuation (of some type, but not all the same) at the same points that Nostradamus’ text presents punctuation. However, the use of punctuation in The Prophecies (letters and quatrains) cannot be read in the same manner that the application of syntactical punctuation is.
In the preface, the “quote” from Matthew 7:6 is divided into four series of words, with two commas presented before an ampersand. The method for reading Nostradamus calls for reading each word, in the order the words are written, and developing a complete understanding of the full-scope of meanings each word has, which is demonstrated in the multiplicity of translation possibilities. All of these possibilities are then connected to the multiple possibilities of the next word, so that the appearance of “sentence” structure is only an illusion that limits the full scope of meaning that a limited number of words create.
The original texts of the Holy Bible are written in the same manner, but it has become a practice to translate what was written without punctuation and add punctuation to it. In ways, this pares that which is written down to one important meaning, but in that process it can strip away peripheral meaning that is also intended to be read. This is how learning to read Nostradamus actually adds to how one can read the books of the Holy Bible, because although each book has different writers (just as Nostradamus is the writer of The Prophecies) all books are from the same higher source. This source cannot be limited by punctuation in the way “normal” syntax has been developed to restrict language to a narrowed point of focus. This means punctuation present anywhere in The Prophecies is for direction purposes only, never to restrict the verbiage.
With this perspective grasped, one can then see the colon at the end of the last series, following the word “Savior,” as a symbol indicating a clarification follows, which is then found to be a direct quote attributed to Jesus. It is “also” an example of the “truth” that will be found coming in the “future times,” which are the “times” of focus in The Prophecies. Further, those living in those “future times” must place importance (from capitalization) on “Considering” the meaning of the words that follow the colon, written in Latin, the divine language of Europe.
The first series contains four words, which as “Nolite sanctum dare canibus.” As a whole, this must be seen as a “truth.” Still, each word must be understood individually, with the word “Nolite” recognized as a capitalized word, thus bearing a level of importance that adds to the translation. The word “Nolite” is actually derived from the negative (ne) being applied to the word “volo,” becoming “nolo.” This root word means “that not to will, that not to wish, and/or that not to want.” The “-ite” ending (“Nol-ite) makes the word take on the form of the second person plural active imperative, meaning a plural “you” is implied, thus making the translation become, “You be unwilling.” This is an important understanding that must be grasped.
The quote from Matthew 7:6 is one of Jesus’ instructions given to the people who came to listen to him give his “sermon on the mount.” These instructions began with Matthew chapter five, and lasted until the end of Matthew chapter seven (29 verses alone in chapter seven, according to the KJV). This means Jesus was speaking to the “multitude” (from Matthew 5:1, KJV) that came to hear him speak. These can then be seen as the first Christians, as they were the first to hear the words of Jesus (as a Christ).
The capitalization shows the importance of speaking to Christians today, in the second person. That becomes a way of personally recognizing all of “you” who admit to this “religion,” but with the capitalization pointing directly to “You,” the reader of this, and the reader of the preface to The Prophecies. “You” are collectively and individually expected to “be unwilling” to accept the changes stated prior. This comes from your admitted “Savior,” and he tells “You” this in this letter, just as Jesus told those who saw him speak personally, who physically heard his voice. It is an important instruction about what “not” to “be willing” to allow. Further, as an example of “truth” for what will provide “Salvation” from the “Savior,” “Nolite” is telling “You” what the “Savior” is “unwilling” to accept from “You.”
The next word is “sanctum,” which is either a masculine or neuter singular form of the noun “sanctus,” which means, “that which is sacred, saintly, divine, pious, made inviolable, venerable, blessed, holy, and august [awe inspiring].” As a statement by itself, this word is a reflection on Jesus, Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit (the Trinity), as only that in connection with Yahweh can “truly” be deemed “holy.” This means the words spoken by Jesus were “divine,” while Jesus was “saintly” as a son of man. Still, it means each individual (“You”) is capable of being likewise “saintly,” as long as one maintains his or her own connection to Yahweh and Jesus, though the heart centre, which then leads the mind. This element is completely under the control of the individual, who needs “to be willing” to accept this connection to lead one’s life.
When one observes the Greek presentation of Matthew 7:6, the verse can be written in Aramaic form as, “me didomi ho hagios ho kuon.” This can literally translate to state, “God forbid you [pl.] to give that (most) holy to the dogs.” The element of “willingness” is implied through the word “me,” which can mean, “any but (that), forebear, God forbid, lack, lest, neither, never, no (wise in), none, nor, (can-)not, nothing, that not, un(-taken), or without” (according to Strong’s). This makes the Latin’s presentation of the word “Nolite” make the same negative statement, telling what should “not” be attempted, while adding the concept of “will.”
The word “will” is associated not only with the decision of an individual, as in possessing the “gift” of free-will, but also the future projection of what “will” happen, based on that free-will. The future is thus brought about by “will,” either from desired effort, or by allowing the desired efforts of others to supersede an individual’s, “willingly”. As such, “Nolite” is projecting a warning about the future, stating that one must “Not be willing” to allow in the future one’s “will” to endanger one’s connection with that which is “most holy.”
The Greek quote, presented in the original text of a first-hand witness to the sermon on the mount, does not include this element of “will” as a future warning. It presents it in the present tense, second person, as an address to those friends who have gathered to hear Yahweh’s instructions from their Messiah. At the time, it stated what to do then, in order to follow the Messiah’s lead, and to achieve the salvation of Heaven. Still, what was good during that present time remains good for all future times, making the presence of “Nolite” an addition that preserves those instructions for future generations. Thus, the purpose of writing a book like Matthew’s is to recall those lessons Jesus taught, in the present, for those later to come, in the future.
Following “Nolite” is the word “sanctum,” which is written in the masculine Accusative singular form, from the root word “santus.” It is also the same representation of that root in the neuter gender, in both the Vocative and Nominative cases, in the singular number. In all cases, “sanctum” is shown as the subject, with the Accusative making it the direct object of the verb, which comes next, “dare.” As the direct object of the verb, the word “Nolite” is leading one to the subject, as what one should “be unwilling” “to give” (the meaning of “dare”). The most general meaning of “sanctum” is “holy,” meaning that which is determined to be “holy” should “not be willed to give.” This is a statement about “holiness not being” something anyone but Yahweh can “give.”
When “sanctum” is read as a singular statement, it places focus on that which is “holy, saintly, sacred, pious, divine, made inviolable [invincible], venerable, blessed, and august [awe inspiring, majestic].” As the second word following “Savior,” this is the “truth” of Yahweh and Jesus. The word makes the statement that the “holy” does indeed exist. However, when linked to the capitalized word “Nolite,” it acts to make a statement about what the “holy, saintly, divine, and sacred” does “not will to be.” This projects that which is “holy” as being “not” by purposeful design to be unholy (or as stated prior what “will be finding” to come, recognized as “so evil, bad, wrong, sick or harmful” (from “si mal”). As such, the “divine is unwilling” to accept anyone who willingly accepts this unholy state of being.
The third word is “dare,” which has been stated to mean, “to give.” It is the present active infinitive of the Latin verb “do,” meaning, “to give, to offer, to render, to yield, to surrender, and to concede.” From seeing this full scope of meaning, it can then be seen how “to give” is more in line with “giving up,” or “giving in.” While it does imply the act of giving, which can include a goodhearted gift, the overall theme is of surrendering, with some element of sacrifice “willfully” done.
The final word in this first series of Latin is “canibus,” which is the Dative case plural number for the word “canis.” The word “canis” literally means, “dog, hound,” but as a reference to persons it indicates “abuse.” As a slang word for those who throw dice, a “canis” is the worst possible roll. Thus, the term literally means “to dogs,” as the recipient of action, but the word acts metaphorically to indicate the worst type of human beings, whose “abuses” are sensed, if not known.
When one takes the literal as having viable meaning, one knows “dogs” are animals. While they may be man’s best friend, lovable as pets, able to perform as trained workers, and showing some degree of intelligence to understand human beings and each other, they are incapable of differentiating “holy” from “unholy.” While “dogs” are excellent companions to children and the elderly, and act to save lives without being told to do so, some even sacrificing their own lives to save a family (human) member, “dogs” must be seen as guided by angels in such actions. A “dog,” given the company of humans (in a loving environment), will innately protect the pack. However, many “dogs” are trained to protect and attack on command, with others bred and trained to fight other “dogs,” with many unprovoked attacks reported, where “dogs” are known to have maimed and killed innocent human beings, who were in some unmarked territory protected by those “dogs.” Therefore, as a literal word attached to the flow of “You be unwilling
that which is holy to surrender,” “to dogs” can only mean “to animals.”
This makes “to dogs” most practical as a metaphor for humans; and in this sense, various statements can be interpreted from that warning. The least of those is a statement that says, “Do not allow obedience to be seen as saintliness.” Simply because someone is dedicated to serving “that which is holy,” a servant is symbolically a trained animal, like a service “dog,” who acts on command. The warning is not “to give” one’s “willingness” to follow a servant, lest one ends up lost. This interpretation can be understood as matching the path the Roman Catholic Church has taken, simply because of its “willingness to give” the reigns of a whole Church dedicated to Jesus (the Christ via Yahweh) to a human being who did little more than serve the Church and win popularity doing so. Still, as “dogs” can be led by angels to act to save lives, the matter of poor past popes, who meant no harm in their service, but acted innately while not chosen by Yahweh to act in that capacity, is not the lethal problem the Church faces today.
The lethal problem that this warning best suits, as a writing of eschatology, comes when one sees the symbolism of “abusers” being allowed positions recognized as “sacred.” When human beings (men) reach heights deemed closer to Yahweh and Jesus, titles of “holiness” (such as, “your eminence”) makes a human appear to be so connected. When these humans are anything but linked to such “divine” sources, with their leadership of the Church being purposefully to mislead it, the result is all of its followers being willfully led to ruin, following their leaders.
This degree of “abusers” has surfaced repeatedly over the ages, but it is the focus of The Prophecies to focus on this problem in the “future times” relative to the 16th century. In this regard, many of the quatrains link to tell one story of modern papal corruption (20th century), showing when the Church became incapable of connecting to Yahweh again. This condition will have had a top-down effect, making it a poisonous guidance become a constant creeping of disease, spreading to restrict the goodness maintained by individuals within the Church.
Those good servants are mere “dogs” who will not bite the hand of their true master, who is not Jesus, but a corrupt “abuser” that has risen to head the Church. The impact of the warning then has special merit as the Roman Catholic Church prepares “to be willing to award the title of saint to” Pope John Paul II. The quatrains of The Prophecies tell of him being but one of several “dogs” who murdered Pope John Paul I. The man named Karol Józef Wojtyła was primarily a political “dog,” to both Nazis and Communists, and never truly connected to Jesus. As part of a conspiracy, including the current pope (Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger), who took part in the murder and cover-up, John Paul II was made to appear most “pious.” It has been Ratzinger (a “dog”) who has completed the beatification of John Paul II (another “dog”), soon to make Wojtyla a “saint,” based on lies. All involved in this corruption have pretended to serve the Church, while only serving the god of evil and their own thirsts for power, control, and wealth.
Understanding this makes this warning, quoted from Jesus (a Christ by Yahweh), written into The Prophecies, state a sign of the End Times. Those “future times” will be when Christians will “be unwilling to stop dogs from giving abusers that which is saintly.” By being written in Latin, as linked to a quote
from Jesus (who is the true author of The Prophecies and The Revelation), this is a statement about the “future times” when “religion” can no longer be trusted to lead the lambs to safety. Instead, when that which is “holy” is led by “wolves” (abusive canines) the lambs will be led to slaughter. That is a major theme developed in the quatrains, and repeated throughout the preface and the explanation letter to Henry. The Latin signifies the source as “divine,” and the storyline acts to become the letter to the seven churches about where the corruption has crept in.
When this element is seen, as prefacing a major element contained in the quatrains of The Prophecies, one can also see how this Latin reference (from Jesus) goes further. It also acts as a statement that warns of corruption that will be known in “reigns” (the remaining royal line of significance – the British Crown) and “sects” (the last attempts by the common man to right its experiment gone wrong – American democracy). Those modern stories (in the 20th and 21st centuries, stretched over decades for each) also tell of murders and cover-ups, which show how Jesus-led influences will have forever been lost. Both of these stories is developed in the quatrains of The Prophecies and explained in the letter to Henry. Overall, it shows how the trinity of influences watches over the people (the shepherds for the lambs), “reigns, sects, & religions,” but the safety of that protection is dependent on all of those three groups maintaining a connection to Yahweh and Jesus.
When all three become “diametrically opposite” to the way they were intended to be, mankind will be set to fail. Those will be the signs of the times. All these corruptions, individually and collectively, will occur (begin) in one century of time (the 20th). Moreover, the times reflect the degradation of positions that require “holy” representation to protect the people, with power wielded for that purpose. However, the warning is how humanity should never want to find this power “willed, through surrender, to dogs.”
By seeing how this quote from Jesus acts to overview The Prophecies, thus appropriate to be placed in a preface, one can then begin to move through the remaining three series of words in this Latin segment. The previous section, in French, stated the theme of change that would come (and has since come) over the world to threaten its survival. This would involve the separation of beneficial “religions” from the people, while elevating commoners to the thrones of kings. The Latin of the first part states a negative warning, about how one must be “unwilling to surrender holy leadership positions to abusers.” The second part takes one further into the metaphor of the animal kingdom, with a second negative warning.
In the second series in this section, Nostradamus wrote, “nec mittaris margaritas ante porcos.” This can translate to state syntactically, “neither cast ye your pearls before swine,” as the King James translation shows; but this misses the focus of the root verb “mitto.”
The verb “mitto” is the active present infinitive, which can translate to mean, “to send, dispatch; to send as a gift; to fling; to shed; to utter; to let go, release, give up; to dismiss, discharge; and/or [to pass over] a subject.” The form presented, “mittaris,” is the 2nd person singular present passive subjunctive, making it bear the meaning, “you (plural) may be sent; you may be released; you may be cast; and/or you may be disregarded.” The passive voice means the action of the verb is done to the subject, which then becomes “pearls.” This means a better translation can be stated as, “nor may you (plural) be sent as gifts pearls in front of pigs.”
With this translation, it is easier to see how the first negative warning, “not be willing to give that which is holy,” is balanced by a second negative warning of what “not to give.” One can “give neither,” as it has not been ordained one’s right of ownership, making it possible to wrap something of Yahweh’s up and serve it to some ones unworthy of Yahweh’s blessings. The first part warned, “not to recognize abusers as holy,” and this second part means, “not to bow down and worship the swine” who lord over you (plural).
Again, just as with “to dogs,” one has to understand the literal and metaphorical definitions of “porcos,” which is the Accusative case (plural), meaning “to swine.” Literally, a “pig” is an animal that will eat both plants and meat (omnivore), just as humans. They are most known as domesticated animals, herded by those who raise pigs as a flesh crop. In the wild, they are known as boars. Pigs are said to be highly intelligent, and easily trained to do tricks. They are susceptible to lung diseases, such as influenza, and they have such a high level of parasites and worms in their intestinal tracts, undercooked pork can transmit diseases carried by pig parasites to humans. It is commonly known that pigs live in sties and enjoy wallowing in mud, and rooting in the dirt. In the Old Testament, pigs were specifically designated as “unclean,” and the children of Israel were forbidden from eating pork.
As a metaphorical animal, “swine” are recognized as people who are “brutish and contemptible.” When someone is called a “pig,” it is understood this is a slur, with the meaning being, “greedy, filthy, or ravenous.” When one realizes this use of “swine” is in Latin, and thus relative to biblical interpretation, the warning is restating the commandment against coming in contact with such unclean beings. This can then be seen as a warning against one becoming something of value “before the unholy.”
In the recount of Jesus healing a madman in Garasenes, demons resided inside the man, to such a degree his name was “Legions” meaning there were so many. These demons sensed Jesus approaching and requested he allow them to leave the men and enter “pigs” grazing nearby. Jesus allowed this “exorcism,” but once the demons were in the “pigs” they immediately ran and jumped off a cliff, into a lake where they all drowned. The people who raised “pigs” (Gentiles) asked Jesus to leave their region, which he did. The man saved requested to go with Jesus, but he was told to remain and tell others about what had happened.
This story mirrors the Old Testament laws relative to those who have had contact with “pigs,” as those who have touched “pigs” must never have contact with the king sitting judgment over that unclean person. To be found “giving oneself as a pearl found before a pig,” as a precious jewel worn around the neck of an unclean beast, one has become unclean, and therefore unworthy of coming in contact with the King. Therefore, the warning is that “you (plural) may not be sent as pearls before swine.”
Jesus is the true “pearl” and evil bows before Yahweh’s Son, knowing it will be found where it should not be, causing evil to beg for escape. Jesus made no contact with that evil, or the “swine” who took on those maddening sprites. Jesus left that area where people lived with “swine,” because he would not become a teacher of “pearls” of wisdom to unclean beasts who knew nothing of the One God. It is a lesson “not” to attempt to act as representing Yahweh, when one is standing “before the contemptible.”
The third part of this Latin section states yet another negative warning, which is “ne conculent pedibus.” This translates syntactically to say, “lest (or that not) all (plural) may be trampled under foot (or treated with contempt) to feet [as something given – Dative case].” In this, it must be recognized that the implied meaning of “feet,” in the act of “trampling,” makes the actual presence of the word “feet” seemingly redundant. Thus, the element of “feet” must be more closely examined, as if the saying were, “lest treated with contempt to feet.”
The meaning of “foot” (Latin “pes”) must be seen as the opposite of “head,” and thereby the lowest part of a being, rather than the highest. This means the warning is against a negative consequence (“lest”), which is the feared state one does “not” seek to be found, which is furthest away from the Godhead. Finding “conculcent” to be the present active subjunctive form of the verb “concluco,” it is a “would be, could be, should be” state of the infinitive, “to trample under foot,” or “to treat with contempt.” With “pedibus” seen as the Dative case, plural number, where the Dative shows that which is given to, one must see “to feet” as a result.
The series then transitions from a warning of what “not” to allow, to the possibility (“may be trampling under foot,” or “may be treating with contempt”) of actions that treat others as inferior or lesser in value, the result of those possibilities is having been given the lowest level possible (“to feet”). When this is seen as following (a comma indicates a separation of sequence) the prior warning, “neither you (plural) be sent as pearls before swine,” the consequence of such allowances is “that not” heeded leads (“lest”) to one becoming a “pig,” and seeing others as oneself, in a lessened state of “contempt.” One has then lower “to feet” status, or “base” in nature.
The final part of the section of Latin states, “conversi dirumpant vos.” This can translate to state, “turning around again they destroying you,” or as has been translated in the King James translation, “turn and rend you.” This syntactical translation gives a picture of a danger of being destroyed, and (again, through the adherence to syntax) makes this a result be “should” one “cast pearls before swine.” As stated previously, “pigs” are omnivorous, and (especially in the wild) have been known to attack humans, as well as eat the flesh of dead humans. Therefore, the meaning of a severe personal danger is to be understood, but that is only on a secondary level.
The primary meaning comes from completely understanding the meaning of each word, individually, before linking them together. As such, the King James Version has the Latin word “et” to translate, which is a conjunction that directly connects the last three words with the prior series of words. In the Nostradamus version in the preface, an ampersand is found replacing “et.” An ampersand only serves as a typical conjunction (like “et”) in a secondary sense. The primary meaning of an ampersand is to introduce something of importance. This means that following the second warning, “not you trampling under foot to base,” an importance is then introduced through the word “converse,” which means more than simply “turning again.”
The word “conversi” has been translated as a misspelling of the word “conversio,” which means, “to turn again.” It is not a form of that verb. Instead, it is the plural subjunctive perfect (as well as pluperfect) form of the verb “converto.” The change can be minor, as both verbs share a meaning relative to “turning.” The translation is an indication of the present, relative to the past or the future. As such, it is stating, what “you (plural) had turned,” or “you (plural) turned.” However, the word “converto” (or “convertere”) has other forms of “turning” that must be considered.
In English, the word “convert” comes from the same Latin root. When one links the Latin language in The Prophecies to a religious reference (a higher meaning that standard French yields), the word “conversi” becomes a statement about conversion, but not to Christianity, rather away. This means the ampersand points to an important “turning again,” which is away from the conversion to Christianity, as a new conversion to “religions” that place more emphasis on idolatry, where “dogs” are called “holy,” and “swine” parade along with the “pearls” of society, and all the riches power brings. Those of “you” (plural) who will be found to “have had converted,” or those in the act of “converting,” will be “destroyed.”
As a way of restating the theme of The Prophecies, the ampersand indicates an important “changing” foreseen, relative to “dogs” and “swine” taking the “reigns” of nations, as the “sects” of philosophy replaces the “religions” of the people. This “changing” is what will cause what “they may be breaking to pieces,” or “shattering.” This is the biblical element of the iron rod smashing the potter’s clay. Without Yahweh’s protection, through the willful acceptance of Jesus, while acting while filled with the Holy Spirit, “they may see the world destroyed” by those lusting for power and its earthly rewards. However, in the end it will be “you” (plural) who will be part of the fragmentation; as all elements of society will crumble before “you” (plural).
Tag Archives: Nostradamus main theme
The Main Theme of the Preface by Nostradamus (Part III)
Filed under Nostradamus
The Main Theme of the Preface by Nostradamus (Part II)
The Preface: Reigns, Sects, & Religions (Part II)
After Nostradamus made the one-word statement “religion,” he proceeded to write another segment, again set off by the comma ampersand combination, before concluding this line of thought with a period mark. This stream of thoughts leads to a connecting but separate stream that ends with another period mark. This second two-segment flow of words ends with four series of words written in Latin, making a Biblical quote attributed to Jesus. That quote acts to show how one can connect Biblical prophecy to The Prophecies of Nostradamus, and the prophecy of “reigns, sects, & religions.”
This section states, “foy trouveroient si mal accordant à leur fantasie auriculaire, qu’ilz viendroient à damner ce que par les siecles advenir on cognoistra estre veu & apperceu. Considerant aussi la sentence du vray Savueur: Nolite sanctum dare canibus, nec mittaris margaritas ante porcos, ne conculcent pedibus & conversi dirumpant vos.”
This Old French translates to state, “faith (or trust, belief in, loyalty, fee simple) could be finding as evil agreeable (or well-fitting, consenting with) their judgment (or opinion, imagination, image of things conceived in the mind) auricular [of the ear – sense of hearing and the perception of what is heard; but also ear-shaped, and of the auricle of the heart], that they could be coming at to condemn (or to damn, to give judgment against – to death) this which through them centuries to happen one will know to be perceived (or beheld, seen, viewed, heeded, regarded ) & discerned (or perceived, marked, noted, heeded). Considering (or weighing in the mind, pondering, thinking upon) also there sentence (or saying, decree,
judgment, advice given in a matter) from the true (or truth) Savior:
The Latin literally can state, “Refuse holy doing dogs, nor give up pearls before swine, indeed will trample under feet & turn around again they destroying you [pl.].”
To place all of this in a poetic presentation for easier comprehension, the entire section reads:
faith could be finding as evil consenting with their image of things conceived in the mind the perception of what is heard,
that they would be coming in to condemn to death this which through them centuries to happen one will know to be heeded,
& discerned.
Weighing in the mind eve as there advice given from him truth Savior:
Refuse sacred doing dogs,
nor give up pearls before swine,
indeed will trample under feet
& turn around again they destroying you.
Relative to the Latin, the words written by Nostradamus are very similar to the quote Jesus made, as found in the Book of Matthew, in chapter 7, verse 6. The Latin Vulgate translation of the original Greek is said to be, “nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittaris margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos.” The exact matches to what Nostradamus wrote are found in the bold type. Obviously, this is not the same wording, and the inclusion of punctuation makes it have a somewhat different meaning, while clearly intended to highlight that quote from Jesus Christ.
Beginning with the series of words that immediately follows the section referencing “reigns, sects, & religions,” one must understand what was written leading up to that Biblical “paraphrase.” In a rather lengthy series, Nostradamus wrote, “faith could be finding as evil consenting with their image of things conceived in the mind the perception of what is heard,” where the first word directly points back to the last word of the previous section, meaning “faith” is the core element of “religion.”
The second word of this series, “trouveroient,” is the Old French spelling of the third person plural form of the conditional present, now spelled “trouveraient.” The third person plural indicates a general grouping of “many,” a non-specific number of multiplicity, with the conditional present making a statement about what should, would, or could occur to “them.” This is then applied to the root infinitive, “trouver,” which means, “to find; invent, contrive, devise; light on, meet with, take in the manner; and also to obtain, get, and/or procure.”
This means that the matter of “faith would be contriving,” as much as it means, “faith will be meeting with,” and “faith will be obtaining.” This is then known to be relative to all who fall under the category of “faith,” which means those who claim a particularity of “religion.”
When this is then related back to the plural number word last introduced, “ceux,” meaning “those of reign,” one sees how this is an important separate series (set off by a comma ampersand combination). This “stutter” is placing focus on the misuse of “religion,” such that the ones in power will claim to be a mirror of the “religion” the people respect, as if chosen by God to “govern.” From a sense of “loyalty” to their “religion,” the people will put their “faith, and trust” in “those” common men. However, “those” people seeking the power of “rule” will have “faith” that “would be contriving,” to get the people’s (“those being ruled”) “confidence.” After gaining that “trust,” the people “could (and should) be finding” (from the obvious results caused by “those with government”) it all to be a misuse of “faith.”
The words that follow in the series states what “those findings will be,” as they are said to be “so evil,” “as bad,” and/or as a conditional “if so be that sick (harmed, pained, hurtful),” then the cause is “agreeable” or “well fitting unto.” This is then stating the “mal” (the word has many translation possibilities, all “bad”) condition that would, could, or should be is based on how willing one is to let go of their (plural) “faith” in God and Christ, and turn it over to a “faith” in man. It says that the degree of “evil” that will set upon the world “would be” equal to the degree that “evil” is “consented with,” or “acceptable.”
Nostradamus then wrote that this acceptance, or “accordance,” will be made easier “with their fantasy.” Here, the plural word “their” appears to support the plural conditional present, as an explanation that the “contriving” will be through “their imagination,” “their affection,” “their judgment,” and/or “their representation of things conceived in the mind.” This is then stating how “faith” will be gained through imaginative ways “so wrong” (from “si mal”), or so far from the truth, based on the “Philosophies” of men’s minds (“representations of things conceived in the mind”). It is a statement that it will be “so sick” that people will fall for such “fantasies,” such as the right of commoners to “govern” themselves without kings or queens. It will be “so evil” to see them as possessing the right to separate “religion” from the everyday affairs of the people. It also will be “as harmful” to see the illusion of equality being a right that allows everyone the luxury of achieving to the height of “rule.” Additionally, it says it “would be found so shrewd” how “those” seeking the right to replace the “Kingdoms” and “Church” “would find” the right of freedom, at all costs, to be the most lasting selling point.
The last word in this series then states “auriculaire,” which in general means, “of the ear,” as the equivalent to the English word “auricular.” This gives the word a meaning that represents a sense of hearing, and thus it tells that “their representation of things conceived in the mind,” which are “as evil,” are not forced upon the people unwillingly. It says that “those with reign” quests will use the art of suggestion and persuasion to woo the public to behead kings and queens, while impoverishing the Church through separation. It even implies how things said to the ear will touch the heart (“auricle”), as increasing a flow of blood to the brain, swelling the head with delusions of grandeur, that “all men are created equal.”
Still, there is a less obvious meaning to “auriculaire,” which relates back to the first word of this series, “faith,” and the last word of the previous section, “religion.” This meaning directly connects this “evil” as attacking the Roman Catholic Church, where an “auriculaire” is a term used to denote a “confessional.” In this sense, it shows a “trust” and “confidence” the people “would be finding so wrong” is one’s adaption to being “agreeable in their representation of things conceived in the mind,” to the point of no longer needing to confess sins. The placement of “auriculaire” means the people of “faith,” in the future presented in The Prophecies, “would be finding” “those of government” as the “counselor, listener, good advisor” (from acceptable translations of the Latin word “auricularius”), instead of the Church.
This use of “auriculaire” is significant in the sense that Nostradamus wrote versions of the word “ogmion” in three quatrains (V-80, VI-42, and VIII-44), after beginning a section in the letter to Henry with the words, “Le Galique ogmium.” The word “ogmios” (as well as “ogmius”) is rooted to the name Ogmios, found in Celtic mythology (also in Irish mythology, as Ogma). Ogmios is said to be similar to the Greek hero Hercules (or Heracles), only older, and much less physically fit. The power of Ogmios comes from his oration skills, and his abilities to persuade men to follow him to the underworld (Hell, or the diametrically opposite direction from Heaven). Depictions of Ogmios show an old man walking, with silver chains attached to his tongue and linking to the ears of those following him. It does not take much imagination to see how political figures are usually the least fit men of older age, while their words send nations to commit deeds of doom. I believe this is how one should read this last series of words, as “faith” in men,
versus “faith” in the Church, or more importantly, in God.
This knowledge allows one to progress to the next series of words, seeing them as addressing this element of “hearing,” while also referring to the plural “they,” or “them.” This combination is found in the first word, “qu’ilz,” which combines two words as one, through abbreviation. This says, “that they,” which is a direct reflection back on “that” just stated, while being a direct indication of the plural number associated with “that.”
This reflection made, the focus is then placed on “what they” (from “que ils”) will cause from “their representation of things conceived in the mind,” by having planted seeds “so evil” into the “ears” of the faithful. Those actions “would be coming, arriving, approaching, or drawing near unto” the point of condemnation. This is stated to be “in to damn,” where the preposition “à” is stating that seed is “in, with, at, and to” the listeners, having “come from” (variation of “viendroient à”) those spreading the seeds by mouth. The word “damner” is the infinitive verb meaning, “to damn, condemn, give judgment against, and adjudge to death,” where “death” is the verdict in all cases.
In essence, those words are making the statement that the most dangerous times told of in The
Prophecies are conditional. It states how this future “would they be coming,” under the condition that “those of rule” should act in ways stated to be “so evil” and the people will lose their “faith” in “religion.” If the people fall for the suggestions of the “new Philosophers” (“their representations of things conceived in their mind”), then at that time the people (in particular those of Christianity) “would be coming with” those bending their ears, as ones “to draw near unto death.” Thus, the condition makes it dependent on that outcome.
On the other hand, “should” it be that after “that bending of the ear they” (the “new Philosophers”) will propose moving away from “religion,” once becoming “those with rule,” the people can postpone the “condemnation to death” by themselves being the plural number “they,” who “would be coming in to damn to death” “those with rule.” This becomes a critical point in the storyline of The Prophecies, as the stories told in the quatrains, and reviewed in the letter to Henry, are based on the former (“to condemn to death” everyone) rather than the later (“to condemn to death” the “new Philosophers with rule”).
With this perspective in mind, Nostradamus then stated, “this” (the “damnation”) will be known to be “that damnation,” where such a distinction is made to show it as one of significance. This is due to the fact that this use of “que” (“which, who, whom; [interrogative] what, how, why; [adverb/conjunction] then, because, unless”) is not referencing some “that” previously stated. Thus, it becomes “that to damn,” and “that” is historically known because the following states, “by them (a reference to the plural number from above) centuries (reference to multiple periods of 100 years) to happen” (or “to come to pass”). This is a reference to the previous section’s use of the same word (“advenir,” “to happen”) telling what is ahead, which has been known for “centuries” to be awaiting humanity.
Due to the length of time known, one can assume (from the previous section ending with the word “religion”) that this “condemnation” is relative to Biblical prophecy of what will “come to pass.” This is then a connection to biblical eschatology and The Prophecies. This links The Prophecies to the same divine source that is recognized as the only source knowing what “will come to pass,” relative to “condemnation.” That source is God, who speaks through Jesus [making one a Christ].
To explain the meaning of what is “to happen,” Nostradamus then wrote that “one will know” (or “will understand, be assured of; be well acquainted with; discern, apprehend, perceive; acknowledge, or avow”) to be seen.” This is an indication that “one” who has the power “to condemn” is an entity who “would be coming at to damn,” being “one” who “will be known,” and “one” who has been “seen” before. However, because the time frame for this “coming” will have been “centuries,” this “one” can “be” none other than Jesus Christ. Jesus has been “seen” as a human, during his time on earth; but Jesus has also been “seen” by John of Patmos (The Revelation), and by Nostradamus (The Prophecies), such that Christians have “known” for “centuries” of the return of Christ. He will return to open the seals and unleash the four
horsemen of the Apocalypse, which along with comes Death.
At this point, Nostradamus placed an ampersand, which acts to signal an important statement is to follow; but, unlike the comma ampersand combination, a lone ampersand has a secondary purpose, which is to act like an ampersand and join with the word before it. This union, as something AND something else, comes after the information following the ampersand is seen in its own light of importance first.
There is only one word that follows the ampersand, before it has another punctuation mark following it. That one word is similar to the word prior (“veu”), as both share some of the same uses as past tense descriptions of what has been looked upon. The word “apperceu” bears the translation possibilities of “perceived, discerned, marked, noted, heeded, and spied.” This means there is a similarity, yet with the intention being to show a level of deeper reflection upon what has been “seen.” From this understanding, one can see a difference in those who have actually laid eyes upon Jesus (the man) or encountered the presence of Jesus as a Holy Spirit.
The difference is to show the importance of those who have “faith” (the first important word of this section) in Jesus, without having ever laid eyes upon him or his spirit. This is not necessarily a belief in Jesus, or a belief in his return, but it is an indication that this is “discerned, marked, and noted” by believers and non-believers alike. Therefore, as a one-word statement, following a word stating “knowledge” that “will be” (“cognoistra”), it speaks of widespread awareness of the End Times having been long projected.
When this stand-alone statement is understood, one can then combine the two words surrounding the ampersand. The words “veu & apperceu” are then stating a combination of similarities of sight. Together, they represent the physical sense of the eyes AND the “sixth sense,” which is most relative to a higher feeling, said to be intuition or psychic knowledge. This is a combination of “religious” dogma “AND” unfounded “faith.” Still, when read as “seen AND heeded,” the statement is relative to the guidance factor of “religions,” and those of “faith.” The return of Christ is “perceived” from the words written into the books of the Holy Bible, but to protect the people the Church has made sure the people “heeded” those words. The words tell what “will be know to come to pass,” should this important (ampersand use)
element of “discernment” not be in place. The removal of “religion” as the core of “faith” means the advent (from “advenir”) of “sects” with “reign” will leave this practice of protecting the people voided. Instead, the “sects” will be “seen” by the common folk as still protecting the masses, “AND” the “sects” will have “noted” how much “faith” the people have in “them,” to do whatever “they” say, to the benefit of “them.”
Following “apperceu,” Nostradamus placed a period mark, which indicates the end of a line of thought. This line of thought has included the theme to The Prophecies (in the first section reviewed). That theme is the changing, in the “times future,” to “diametrically opposite” conditions regarding “reigns, sects, & religions.” In the second section, Nostradamus has addressed how that theme is the same as that found in the Holy Bible. While the theme of “condemnation” and “return” (the End Times), and is consistent with several Biblical books, it makes a significant statement about The Revelation (a mirror book to The Prophecies, thus a mirror theme). There, John is told to write a letter to the seven churches [“religions”] and tell them how they will have bent to the will of the common people, rather than stay true to their
purpose for God and Christ. These are the main points of these two sections.
This line of thought is then relative to the capitalized first word of the next series of words, which begins a new line of though, relative to the line of thought just stated. That capitalized word then states the importance of “Considering.” This is the present participle form of the infinitive verb “considerer,” which means, “to consider, advise upon, think of; examine, ponder, perpend [to consider carefully], revolve [to be held in the mind and considered in turn], or weigh in the mind.” This is then making the important statement about the condition of Christianity having become a major world “religion” without the vast majority having “seen” Jesus Christ, but having “heeded” his teachings, through the “religion” making that its foremost purpose. The spread of Christianity was through “Pondering” the words of Christ, as remembered by those who had firsthand “knowledge” of his life.
As the beginning of a new line of thought, one is then asked to realize the previous line of thought, while also taking the time “to Perpend” what is about to be stated. As such, it is utilizing the future’s penchant for “their representation of things conceived in the mind,” and bringing one’s mind to an important level of thought on this new focus.
This “Considering” should be done along with the realizing of the themes of The Prophecies, as the word attached to “Considerant” is “aussi,” meaning, “also, likewise, as, and/or even as.” This means one should “Ponder” this new line of thought “likewise,” and “as” relevant to the past statements of theme.
The remainder of this series, leading to a colon, says, “here judgment from the truth (or true, unfeigned, right, just, certain, undoubted, sure) Savior.” This translation is based on the word “la” being translated as “là,” meaning, “there, here, or then.” This is a direction of place, where from Nostradamus’ perspective “there” is the “future times,” while “here” is relative to this point in the themes of The Prophecies when it will be most important to be “Considering” this information, making “then” be that same “time” of the “future.” The word translated as “judgment” comes from the French word “sentence,” which can be read as that, but not as a statement of grammar. It is a statement of “judgment,” where a “sentence” is defined as “A penalty meted out.” This “opinion delivered” (viable alternate translation of “sentence”) is then stated to be “of the truth,” as well as “from the true Savior.” The capitalization of the word “Savior” is an importance bestowed on the title known by all Christians to be Jesus Christ.
At the end of this series of words, Nostradamus placed a colon, which means that which follows is an example, or a clarification of the “judgment” that must be “Considered,” as coming from the “Savior,” Jesus Christ. At this time, following the colon, Nostradamus switched languages (as well as the publisher switching fonts to ensure a switch is “seen”). He began writing in Latin, which must be seen as the official language of Rome, specifically the official language of the Roman Catholic Church. As the language of the Church, the use of all instances of Latin in The Prophecies (as indicated by the uses of Latin in the preface) is to show a higher perspective, one relative to “religion,” as of divine origin.
Filed under Nostradamus
The Main Theme of the Preface by Nostradamus (Part I)
The Preface: Reigns, Sects, & Religions (Part I)
In Nostradamus’ letter of preface, on the second page (275 words in ), he wrote, “, & non tant seulement du temps present, mais aussi de la plus grande part du futeur, de mettre par escrit, pource que les regnes, sectes, & religions feront changes si opposites, voire au respect du present diametralement, que si je venoir à referrer ce que à l’advenir sera, ceux de regne, secte, religion, &”.
That amounts to 52 words.
This literally translates to state, “, & not so much only of the time present, but likewise to there
more great part to the future, with to set through writing, because that them governments,
sects, & religions will be causing changes so opposites, to see in the respect of the present
diametrically, that any I to view in to refer this which at them to happen will be, those to rule,
faction, religion, &”.
To put this in a poetic style for better understanding, it presents in this manner:
& not so much only of the time present,
but likewise to there more great part to the future,
from to set by writing,
because that them governments,
sects,
& religions will be causing changes so opposites,
surely with the comparison to the present diametrically (or oppositely, in opposition to)
that as I arrive at to report this which in them to happen will be,
those with rule,
faction,
religion,
In this manner of presentation, it becomes clearer to see that one word was written as a stand-alone statement at two places. That one word is “secte.” That French word can be translated to mean, “a sect, or faction; a rout or troupe; a company of one opinion (most commonly a bad opinion).” In the 1611 Old English translation dictionary, “rout” and “troupe” are references to “people of the lowest class” rallied together as a force, as “troops,” and as opposed to an orderly militia with a commander of rank and proper upbringing.
From that view of the definition parameters, when placed with the context of “regnes” and “religions” (as it appears both times, once in the plural and once in the singular), the intention of using the word “sect” is to show people of common upbringing, who are equally influential as kings, princes, popes, and bishops. The exception is that one of a “sect” is not directly connected to Jesus Christ, as bloodline descendants (royalty) or body-line descendants (dedicated service to Christ through the Church). This important contextual meaning must be grasped.
From this perspective, one must next look to a deeper level (one degree deeper), where the lack of capitalization bears significance. In the language used by Nostradamus, one must learn to recognize a difference between a “King” and a “king” (“Roy” versus “roy” – Old French spellings for Roi, roi). As such, there would be significance had Nostradamus written the capitalized word “Regnes,” as such recognition (capitalization) would be to place importance on a “Kingdom, Realm, or Sovereign domain” of a born to “rule King.” The quatrains do offer capitalized versions of “Regne” (example quatrain III-49), but both letters only display the word spelled in the lowercase. This level of deeper inspection allows one to see the meaning intended from “regnes” as being away from a royal implication (stemming from “realm”) and towards a more generalized statement of “rule, government, and the continuance of (the hierarchy designed to meet) a manner of government.”
With those observations, one can then see how the “stutter” of a comma being followed immediately by an ampersand (implying, “and and”) is a systemic placement that indicates a separate thought is being made (comma), which is one of special importance (ampersand). The comma-ampersand conjunction is then a “break point” throughout both letters of instruction, as an indicator of significance that is important to the theme within The Prophecies. These themes are stated in the preface and explained further in the letter to Henry II. In the example stated above, the combination of “regnes, sects, and religions” is placed into two important and separate theme statements.
In the first theme statement, the word “religions” is not found. That word is actually the first word of the second separate series, while still linking to the first separate series by the placement of an ampersand. In a secondary sense, an ampersand does imply continuation as an additional (“and”) thought. The comma separates “religions” from “sects.” However, “and”, as implied by the comma’s placement, is importantly added to the next separate statement (as the ampersand’s primary function), by introducing that something of significance is to follow, relative to the precedent. That makes the addition (“and”) that is introduced be an important theme about “religions” (the first word).
Through this deduction, one sees the first theme is about the “sects,” while the second theme is about the “religions.” This means the element of “reigns” is relative to those two “realms” of influence. This is an indirect way of stating that true “kingdoms,” where “Kings rule,” is not a focus of The Prophecies. This can be deduced because this information comes from the preface, which is an overview of what can be found within the text that follows (ten “Centuries” of quatrains).
From this analysis, one can see the series of words between ampersands 1 and 2 shows an importance of theme that states a focus of The Prophecies (“from to set by writing”). This focus has little to do with the “times” of Nostradamus’ “present” (“not so much alone”), as did his yearly Almanacs. The preface is instead focusing on The Prophecies being about “more great part to the future”. This “future” is so important “to put” down “by writing because that (the future)” will be one brought on by “them.” This plural pronoun is then identified as “governments,” specifically those of the “future” set aside as being “governments” by “them,” relative to “sects.”
It is important to maintain a separation of thought that keeps one from drifting into a modern use of “sect,” as a word relative to “religions.” While that is true of the divisions within Christianity that had already begun by 1555 (the Church of England split, as well as the Lutheran split), these are still to be considered the plural of “religions,” not “sects.” The word “secte” has to be seen through the modern definition of “sect.” That states, “A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.” It can thereby also relate to the definition, “A faction united by common interests or beliefs.” The Latin root is then also implied, as “A course; or school of thought.”
The best way to describe a “secte” of the 16th century is as being a group whose influence was granted by either the State or Church, due to need. This then represents groups of people with special talents, such as are known to have been demonstrated by artists like Michelangelo, architects like Brunelleschi, composers like Josquin, inventors like Leonardo da Vinci, philosophers like Machiavelli, physicists-mathematicians-alchemists-scientists like Newton, and astrologers like Nostradamus. These men were directed to produce works for the enjoyment of the people, with the understanding known that their works were expected to meet standards of morality. The State and Church, jointly, oversaw this morality, as recognized agents acting as direct influences for keeping the people connected to God and Christ (“reigns” made possible through the “religion” Christianity). While the individuals represented individual “sects,” all within each “sect” of a common talent were allowed the freedom to interpret sovereign instructions within the parameters of their natural talents.
By the later centuries, and especially by the time the 20th century arrived, the “sects” of influentially talented individuals had grown to replace the need for a royal decree to influence the masses. The advent of revolution had replaced the “Kingdoms” and “Sovereign rulers,” as predetermined by royal birth, with “governments” based on a variety of philosophies. Thus, the influential element named in these segments in the preface, as “sects,” or “factions,” is forecast to become (in “times future”) those who would replace kings and princes as “rulers” over nations.
We know that modern “governments” differ by having focused on being “sects” of philosophies, in particular those that have risen since the overthrow of “Sovereign kingdoms.” Their philosophies of self-government have increasingly promoted some form of “government” that allows the common man to hold the power of “reigns.” These philosophies present this transition of power as a natural evolution of humanity. In a hind sighted historic view of this change, historians have termed this “diametrically opposite” change as the Age of Reason, or the Age of Enlightenment. Such a title signifies a period when humanity began to “think” for itself, and see the “light” of grandiose principles.
This is actually describing an Age of Philosophy, where the Greek root meaning of “philosophos” means, “lover of wisdom.” This change towards “wisdom” ruling is a central theme of The Prophecies. This theme is stated here, in the preface, for the purpose of stating that theme as what is central to The Prophecies.
Along this line of thought, Nostradamus would write later in the preface, “, & from such height (or sublimity, altitude), not least that there natural clarity & according to nature clearness would yield them Philosophers (or Lovers of wisdom) so assured ones, that [the assurance of nature] being the means of them principles (or maxims) to there first reason had attained from more profound chasms with more high doctrines.”
Placed in a poetic style, this more easily reads as:
& of such height (or sublimity, altitude),
not least that there natural clarity
& according to nature clearness would yield them Philosophers (or Lovers of wisdom) so assured ones,
that [the assurance of nature] being the means of them principles (or maxims) to there first reason had
attained from more profound chasms with more high doctrines.
This explains this theme of “sects” by terming the most important influence being (capitalized, to indicate importance) “Philosophers,” who would use “reason” as a way of bringing on the “first” to use the power of thought to take positions of “such height” as is rulership over nations. Their elements of reason will have been nothing new, as their concepts were “first” pondered by the Greeks, who never crossed the “chasms” that separated thinkers from rulers, even though their “profound” thought yielded “more high doctrines” (ethics) than those who would come after Nostradamus’ “times.”
In quatrain III-67, the main theme states, “Une nouvelle secte de Philosophes,” which translates to state, “One unheard of before (or new, strange, rare) sect (or faction) of Philosophers”. This main theme statement of a quatrain is supporting both the segment explaining a theme to be found within the quatrains that is focusing on “sects,” while also supporting the explanation of that theme (in the same preface), where the “sects” are called (capitalized to denote importance) “Philosophers”. The connecting of these elements is not coincidence, as each supports one another as expressing the same central theme.
Seeing this, certainly from a wider “whole view” perspective (having an idea what the quatrains hold, as well as the rest of the preface and other letter), one can then see how the ampersand that signifies importance is directly relative to the word “religions” (in the second segment) while also playing a role in relationship to “sects”. This relativity is not so much the “factions” that would spring up as new “religions” (although that does play a secondary role), but instead to the “separate” (use of a comma before the ampersand) relationship “religions” would play as power brokers in “governments” controlled by “sects,” rather than “reigns.” One must also recognize the study of “religions” falls under the general heading of “Philosophy.”
This relationship seen, one can then focus entirely on the “main theme” of this second segment that states, “religions will be making changes as such opposite ones.” This says that “religions” of “times future” will cease being a, “Belief in and reverence for [God] regarded as creator and governor of the universe; and, A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader (Christ for Christians).” Instead, the presumption is the way “religions” have been allowed to project themselves (especially through “televangelism”) evil money-grubbing corporations. This “change” has led many away from “religions” and towards the teachings of “Philosophers,” who promote a “separation” of Church and State (an “opposite” position), rather than a joint rule, shared by Church and State (the condition in 1555).
This view is expanded in the second series of words, which state, “surely in the comparison to the present diametrically.” The word “dimetralement,” when translated as “diametrically,” bears the definition, “exact opposite; contrary.” This confirms that the “changes as such opposite ones” does not mean a simple shift away from the methods of “religions” in 1555 (“in the present”), but to the “exact opposite” of how “religions” were during the times of Nostradamus.
While the specifics of “religions” could be discerned in a comparison-contrast method, to show the similarities and differences that existed in “religions” of the 16th century, one must realize the importance of the Roman Catholic Church, and the “sects” of that “religion,” versus other “religions” that were not allowed to exist freely in Europe. From this broader perspective, one can then look to the general characteristics of those “religions” of European Christianity that have since become “exactly opposite” from the positions held in “times” past.
This is a confirmation of the “comma ampersand” division, where a “separation” is “emphasized.” This is the separation of Church and State, such that “religions” were seen to play absolutely no role in influencing the people through the “realms” of royal personages. The advent of the “sects,” most importantly those “Philosophers” of “governments” headed by the influential of the commoners (“sects”), would lessen the role of the Church to the point of extinction. By separating the “vine of Christ” from the tree of wealth (the wealth of a nation, through the value of its land and that production, plus the wealth provided by a work force of citizens [slaves to the State]), the vine would eventually wither and die. In the late 20th century, this “diametrically opposite” position was publicly questioned by the New York Times (and later Time magazine), when it boldly asked, “Is God Dead?”
Such a question during Nostradamus’ time would have meant severe punishment to the one feeling strong enough to publish such rubbish. In our times, however, it is common place to see the absurd placed in print, under the protection of the “Philosophers” who demanded not only separation of Church and State, but freedom of the press and the right to publicly speak freely. The right to speak freely is the cornerstone of propaganda, and the way the “Philosophers” influence the masses to think the way they want the people to think.
The Church acted as the moral police in the 16th century, while also working in concert with royals (whose right to “rule” was ordained by God). The Kings were born with the right of “rule” through a royal bloodline (via Christ). The removal of royal heads (via the axe and guillotine) thus freed thrones for common leaders [“sects”], and made it possible to reduce the Church’s influence. People were no longer required to be Christian, as they were “freed” to voluntarily go to Church and pay tithes.
By the time 400 years had passed, so many people had stopped paying tithes to the Church it had become economically bankrupt. This led to a corruption of moral values, where the Church sold its soul for “thirty pieces of silver,” laundering crime money for the ability to stay in business. These generalities have indeed occurred, which proves Nostradamus prophesied that downfall of the Church. This prophecy becomes an important theme of the “times” of the “future,” which the preface introduces as what will be found in The Prophecies.
The next series of words state, “that [a reference back to the diametrical] as I arrive at to report this which in them will happen to be.” This is then a statement about how Nostradamus came to know this element of the future as a certainty. This will need further clarification, because his statements about what “will happen” were unknown at the time. It would take 400 years to fully develop this theme to the level of “surety,” thus this statement is beyond the scope of rational thought to believe he calculated things would be differently, when they had existed similarly for the 1,200 years prior (minimally).
In this translation, the combined form “l’advenir” has been represented as “them to happen,” or alternatively it could be read as, “them to come to pass.” The plural has to be seen in the abbreviated “l’,” because this makes a statement relative to that stated prior, and also that to be stated next, which included those identified as “reigns, sects, and religions.” Still, while collectively they represent the plural “them,” individually each can be seen in the singular, as “it to come to pass.”
This singular number is relative to the individual statements that follow, with the first being, “those of government,” where the plural is indicated as the many who will play roles in the singular sense of “rule.” This then specifically states that The Prophecies indeed tells of “those of government,” who also will “rule” nations “diametrically opposite” in “times future,” than “Kingdoms” were “ruled” in the past. The stories of “those of reigns” (in the lowercase meaning non-royal rulers) will be told through the linking of quatrains together.
At this point, Nostradamus repeated his isolated use of the word “secte,” this second time in the singular number. This stand-alone statement (separated by commas) has been translated as “faction,” instead of “sect.” This is because the prior statement, leading up to this stand-alone statement, tells of “those with government,” such that the reader is next told there will be different forms of “government” over the different nations. When one understands the definition of the word “faction,” such that it means, “A group of persons forming a cohesive, usually contentious minority within a larger group,” one is then being told the nature of the world’s “government” at the “future times” of The Prophecies.
This is a statement of oligarchies foreseen, where the majority of the people are controlled by the minority. This state existed in the times of Nostradamus, but the forms of “rule” were monarchical. It was expected that a minority of the population was of royal birth, and thus predestined by God to be in line to the thrones of Europe. However, these were not “factions,” or “sects.” The advent of the common man to the “height” of “rule” over nations is projected to occur by conscious efforts to manipulate the people to replace monarchies with oligarchies, while being sold a “bill of goods” about the “Philosophy” under which all are to be united.
This means that a “faction” is the oligarchy called Democracy, where one leader comes from one party that is actually a minority of the whole, requiring “independent” voters be swayed to surrender their independence to follow one of a named minority. A “faction” is then, likewise, the form of oligarchy practiced in the Soviet Union, Communist China, and the residual Russian Federation, where the “Philosophy” tells all people they are equal, all while those in power reap tremendous wealth at the expense of the poor who are powerless. Certainly, Europe in the 20th century found a “faction” in the oligarchy that was the Nazi Party, representing a “Philosophy” named Fascism. This is how one must read this one-word presentation of “secte,” because this is the history of the world, once kings began being beheaded, allowing “those” from the common class to rise as the most driven “faction with reign.”
From this one word, “secte,” Nostradamus has detailed much of the first part of The Prophecies. Multiple quatrains separate from the whole, to reconnect together in story fashion, telling of the heads of these “factions” and their deeds. These stories tell of “those” who will come “to reign” brutally upon their own nations, as well as the world. Included in these are some tyrants of World War II (Hitler, Stalin, and Franco), with the establishment of “puppet rulers” in the Middle East and North Africa (Saddam Hussein, Muammar Kaddafi, the Shah of Iran). These are known to have been positioned by those “free” nations of Europe termed “greats,” which are the United States, Great Britain, and France. All of those stories reference the one word stated in this section of the preface, as the actions of “those with government,” who represent minority “factions.”
With that one word making its own statement about “those with government” being “factions,” this element of “faction” is then furthered through the one-word statement “religion.” This is an important statement about how each “faction” will be generally classified, based on its predominant “Philosophy,” as to how each adheres to some form of “religion.” The Western forms of “government” have laws based on the remnants of Christian doctrines, with a majority of their citizens still claiming Christianity as their “religion.” Still, those of the Middle East, as well as across Africa, and in Eastern Europe (closest to Turkey/Greece) are strongly connected to the “religion” of Islam. Those two “religions” have a history of conflict, which includes the small “sect” known as Judaism, which is also a distinct “religion.” To the opposite extreme, the Communist nations of Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and China, adhere to strict principles (“Philosophies”) of atheism, which is a lack of “religion.” This one-word statement is then telling the reader how “religion,” specifically those “diametrically opposite” the others, will play a major role in the “future times” of The Prophecies.
Filed under Nostradamus
Nostradamus Blog 