Analyse nostradamienne : The 1941-Vreede-Translation : the german source text of the Epistle to Henry II


Accueil Biographie Ascendance Bibliographie Références Analyse		Frontispices Gravures Actualité Recherche Club Ramkat

ANALYSE

The 1941-Vreede-Translation :
the german source text of the Epistle to Henry II

by T. W. M. van Berkel

Synopsis

Last year, the 1941-Vreede-translation (the first Dutch translation of the Centuries, the Letter to Cesar and the Epistle to Henry II) was discussed on this Site.¹ H. Houwens Post, the translator, aka W.L. Vreede, wrote that his source text was a complete edition of the Prophecies, published in Lyon in 1558. This would mean that a 1558-Lyon-edition, a missing link in the series of publications of the Prophecies, qualified as either lost or hypothetic, is available in Dutch.

An examination of the 1941-Vreede-translation showed that Houwens Post’s information about his source text is not credible. Originally, some of the quatrains he translated were not published around 1558, but in the 17th century. Next, Houwens Post gave (in old-French) the text of 35 quatrains. These quatrains were not identical with the 1555-Bonhomme-edition or the 1568-Lyon-edition, but with the 1668-Amsterdam-edition. An anagram, mentioned by Houwens Post, occurred in an apocryphal quatrain, originally published in the 17th century.

Benazra, to whom these findings were submitted, concluded that one of Houwens Post’s source texts was a photocopy of the 1668-Amsterdam-edition by P.V. Piobb, published by Adyar publishers, Paris, 1927 (the 1941-Vreede-translation contains a number of references to this photocopy). Houwens Post used another source text to translate the Letter to Cesar, which was not included in the 1668-Amsterdam-edition, but it was not clear which source text was involved.

The second biblical chronology in the Epistle to Henry II in the 1941-Vreede-translation differs from other editions, such as the 1568-Lyon-edition and the 1668-Amsterdam-edition. The differences might point to either a previous edition of the Epistle, perhaps published in 1558, or to the results of an investigation by Houwens Post, or to an unknown source. Further, the Epistle to Henry II in the 1668-Amsterdam-edition contains the date March 14, 1547, whereas the 1941-Vreede-translation contains the date March 14, 1557. This makes it improbable that Houwens Post used the text of the Epistle to Henry II in the 1668-Amsterdam-edition as a source text for his translation.

The German source text of the Epistle to Henry II

In December 2003, a German book, part of L’astrologie de Nostradamus - dossier, caused an unexpected breakthrough in the research.

L’astrologie de Nostradamus - dossier is a collection of essays and books and contains among others the book Das Mysterium des Nostradamus (1926), written by dr. Christian Wöllner.²

Wöllner also discussed the second biblical chronology in the Epistle to Henry II. According to Wöllner, the total of 4173 years and 8 months, following the end of this chronology, can be calculated perfectly with its data. Wöllner counts with 601 years for the period Noach-Arch (Epistle: 600 years) and with 480 years and 6 months for the period Exodus-Temple (Epistle: 480 years). He bases this upon interpretations of Genesis 7,11, 1 Kings 6,1 and 1 Kings 6,38, together with his idea that from the original phrasing mil vingts (1020), the word mil got lost and that originally the words quatre cens nonante did not refer to the length of the period Temple-Jesus, but were meant as a second estimation of the length of the period Exodus-Temple.

Like the author of this essay, Wöllner also saw the printer’s error mil cinq cens et six / mil cinquante et six in the case of the period Creation-Noach. He also saw the wrong phrasing of the period Jacob-Egypt. He also saw that a length of 490 years of the period Temple-Jesus was against all biblical knowledge.

Table 1 contains the text of the second biblical chronology, as translated and revised by Wöllner and as translated by Houwens Post.

Table 1. Second biblical chronology
1926-Wöllner-translation/revision (German) and 1941-Vreede-translation (Dutch)

Second biblical chronology
Wöllner, p. 13-14
in Amadou, pp. 316 - 317 Second biblical chronology
1941-Vreede-translation, p. 147

Immerhin sind von der Schöpfung des Menschen bis Noah 1056 Jahre und von Noahs Geburt bis zur Vollendung der Arche vor den Sintflut 600 Jahre (ob die Jahre Sonnen- oder Mondjahre waren oder Mischungen von besagten, so halte ich dafür, dass die Heilige Schrift Sonnenjahre meint). Und am Ende dieser 600 Jahre ging Noah in die Arche, um aus der Flut gerettet zu werden; es dauerte diese über die ganze Erde verbreitete Flut 1 Jahr und 2 Monate. Und von da ab bis zur Geburt Abrahams vergingen 295 Jahre. Von da bis Isaac 100; von Isaac bis Jacob 60 Jahre; von da bis zu seinem Einzug in Ägypten vergingen 130 Jarhre. Und seit dem Eingang in Ägypten bis zum Ausgang 430 Jahre. Und vom Ausgang aus Ägypten bis zum Tempelbau Salomos in 4. Jahr seiner Regiering 480 oder 490 Jahre. Und von Tempelbau bis Jesus Christus vergingen nach Rechnung der Hierographen 1020 Jahre. Und so sind nach dieser der Heiligen Schrift entnommenen Rechnung ungefähr 4173 Jahre und 8 Monate paullo plus vel minus vergangen. Wanneer ik evenwel de jaren tel vanaf de schepping der wereld tot aan de geboorte van Noach, dan zijn er in dien tijd 1506 jaren verstreken; en vanaf de geboorte van Noach tot aan den volledigen afbouw van de ark (toen de algemene zondvloed naderde) gingen 600 jaren voorbij (de vraag rijst, of het zonne- of maanjaren waren, of een mengeling van beide, doch ik neem aan, dat de Heilige Schrift zonnejaren aangeeft). En aan het einde van deze 600 jaren betrad Noach de ark om van den zondvloed gered te worden. En deze algemeene zondvloed kwam over de aarde en duurde 1 jaar en 2 maanden. En vanaf het einde van den zondvloed tot aan de geboorte van Abraham verstreken 295 jaren; en vanaf de geboorte van Abraham tot aan de geboorte van Isaac gingen 100 jaren voorbij; en vanaf die van Isaac tot aan die van Jacob 60 jaren; en vanaf zijn geboorte-uur tot aan zijn intrede in Egypte 130 jaren; en vanaf Jacobs intrede in Egypte tot aan zijn uittocht verstreken 430 jaren; en vanaf den uittocht uit Egypte tot aan de bouw van den Tempel, die door Salomo werd opgericht in het 4e. jaar van zijn regeering, gingen 480 of 490 jaren voorbij; en vanaf den bouw van den Tempel tot aan Jezus Christus verstreken volgens de berekeningen van de schriftkundigen 1020 jaren. En aldus zijn er volgens de door mij gemaakte berekening, ontleend aan de Heilige Schrift, ongeveer 4173 jaar en 8 maanden verstreken, welk getal iets kleiner of iets groter kan zijn.

Second biblical chronology Wöllner, p. 13-14 in Amadou, pp. 316 - 317	Second biblical chronology 1941-Vreede-translation, p. 147
Immerhin sind von der Schöpfung des Menschen bis Noah 1056 Jahre und von Noahs Geburt bis zur Vollendung der Arche vor den Sintflut 600 Jahre (ob die Jahre Sonnen- oder Mondjahre waren oder Mischungen von besagten, so halte ich dafür, dass die Heilige Schrift Sonnenjahre meint). Und am Ende dieser 600 Jahre ging Noah in die Arche, um aus der Flut gerettet zu werden; es dauerte diese über die ganze Erde verbreitete Flut 1 Jahr und 2 Monate. Und von da ab bis zur Geburt Abrahams vergingen 295 Jahre. Von da bis Isaac 100; von Isaac bis Jacob 60 Jahre; von da bis zu seinem Einzug in Ägypten vergingen 130 Jarhre. Und seit dem Eingang in Ägypten bis zum Ausgang 430 Jahre. Und vom Ausgang aus Ägypten bis zum Tempelbau Salomos in 4. Jahr seiner Regiering 480 oder 490 Jahre. Und von Tempelbau bis Jesus Christus vergingen nach Rechnung der Hierographen 1020 Jahre. Und so sind nach dieser der Heiligen Schrift entnommenen Rechnung ungefähr 4173 Jahre und 8 Monate paullo plus vel minus vergangen.	Wanneer ik evenwel de jaren tel vanaf de schepping der wereld tot aan de geboorte van Noach, dan zijn er in dien tijd 1506 jaren verstreken; en vanaf de geboorte van Noach tot aan den volledigen afbouw van de ark (toen de algemene zondvloed naderde) gingen 600 jaren voorbij (de vraag rijst, of het zonne- of maanjaren waren, of een mengeling van beide, doch ik neem aan, dat de Heilige Schrift zonnejaren aangeeft). En aan het einde van deze 600 jaren betrad Noach de ark om van den zondvloed gered te worden. En deze algemeene zondvloed kwam over de aarde en duurde 1 jaar en 2 maanden. En vanaf het einde van den zondvloed tot aan de geboorte van Abraham verstreken 295 jaren; en vanaf de geboorte van Abraham tot aan de geboorte van Isaac gingen 100 jaren voorbij; en vanaf die van Isaac tot aan die van Jacob 60 jaren; en vanaf zijn geboorte-uur tot aan zijn intrede in Egypte 130 jaren; en vanaf Jacobs intrede in Egypte tot aan zijn uittocht verstreken 430 jaren; en vanaf den uittocht uit Egypte tot aan de bouw van den Tempel, die door Salomo werd opgericht in het 4e. jaar van zijn regeering, gingen 480 of 490 jaren voorbij; en vanaf den bouw van den Tempel tot aan Jezus Christus verstreken volgens de berekeningen van de schriftkundigen 1020 jaren. En aldus zijn er volgens de door mij gemaakte berekening, ontleend aan de Heilige Schrift, ongeveer 4173 jaar en 8 maanden verstreken, welk getal iets kleiner of iets groter kan zijn.

Wöllner’s source text of the Letter to Cesar and the Epistle to Henry II was a Benoist Rigaud edition, which he did not specify by the year of publishing. In the source text of the Epistle to Henry II, the length of the period Noach-Arch is 6 years, which has to be 600. Wöllner does not discuss this error, but corrects it silently. In the 1568-Lyon-edition, the length of this period is given correctly, 600 years.

In the 1941-Vreede-translation, the period Creation-Noach lasts 1506 years instead of 1056. However, Houwens Post, like Wöllner in his revision, correctly rephrased the period Jacob-Egypt, introduced a second estimation of the length of the period Exodus-Temple (490 years) and introduced a length of 1020 years for the period Temple-Jesus.

The hypothesis is that Houwens Post used Wöllner’s translation of the Epistle to Henry II. In other words: his source text of the Epistle to Henry II is not a French source text, but a German source text. This hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that the location of the brackets in the 1941-Vreede-edition in the line.

(de vraag rijst, of het zonne- of maanjaren waren, of een mengeling van beide, doch ik neem aan, dat de Heilige Schrift zonnejaren aangeeft). (see the text of the 1941-Vreede-translation in table 1)

is identical with the location of the brackets in the German translation by Wöllner :

(ob die Jahre Sonnen- oder Mondjahre waren oder Mischungen von besagten, so halte ich dafür, dass die Heilige Schrift Sonnenjahre meint). (see the text of the 1926-Wöllner-translation in table 1).

In both the 1941-Vreede-translation and the 1926-Wöllner-translation, the closing bracket is at the end of the line. This differs from Wöllner’s source text. There: the closing bracket is halfway the line :

(Si les ans estoyêt Solaires ou Lunaires, ou des dix mixtions) ie tiens ce que les sacrees escriptures tiennent qu’ils estoyent Solaires). (see the text of the “Benoist Rigaud edition” in table 2)

This typical feature is discussed in the paragraph: References to the 1558-Lyon-edition.

A further indication that Houwens Post used Wöllner’s Das Mysterium des Nostradamus, is the fact that Wöllner’s source text does not contain the date March 14, 1547, but the date March 14, 1557. The 1941-Vreede-translation also contains the date March 14, 1557.³

Another fact which points to Houwens Post’s silent inclusion of material from the book by Wöllner, is his summing up of the editions of the Prophecies. This summing up is almost identical with the summing up by Wöllner. The editions, mentioned by Wöllner: Lyon-1555, Avignon-1556, Lyon-1556, Leiden-1558, -1566 and -1568, Amsterdam-1668, Paris-1669, Cologne-1689 and Lyon-1698. The editions, mentioned by Houwens Post: Lyon-1555, Avignon-1556, Lyon-1558, Leiden-1558, -1566, -1568 and 1611, Amsterdam-1668, Paris-1669, Cologne-1689 and Lyon-1698. Houwens Post probably replaced the mentioning by Wöllner of a 1556-Lyon-edition by the mentioning of a 1558-Lyon-edition.⁴

The 1941-Vreede-translation and the Second World War

Houwens Post translated the Prophecies of Nostradamus in order to give a counter-react to pro-Nazi editions of the Prophecies, as published in Germany.⁵ Perhaps the pseudonym “Vreede” (peace) was chosen for this reason. Houwens Post’s information that his source text was a complete edition of the Prophecies, printed in Lyon in 1558, could also have been connected with this reason.

It is also possible that Houwens Post referred to the 1558-Lyon-edition because of the reference to it on the title page of the 1668-Amsterdam-edition: Reveües & corrigées suyvant les premieres Editions imprimées en Avignon en l’an 1556 & à Lyon en l’an 1558 & autres, and did not mention the fact that the Letter to Cesar was not included in the 1668-Amsterdam-edition.

Houwens Post does not discuss the predictions in the quatrains and the letters. He briefly describes several ways of research and interpretation (mathematics/astrology, symbolism and linguistic research). He mentions three quatrains, about which the opinion of several searchers is unanimous: quatrain 01-03 (the French Revolution), quatrain 08-57 (Napoleon Bonaparte) and quatrain 08-76 (Oliver Cromwell).

Houwens Post does not discuss the events, which took place in Europe in the early ‘40’s. He only describes the “generally supposed connection between quatrain 01-47 and the League of Nations”.

Quatrain 01-47 (as printed in the 1941-Vreede-translation)

De Lac Leman les sermons fascheront
Des jours seront reduicts pas les semaines
Puis mois puis an puis tous deffailliront
Les Magistrats damneront les loix vaines

Quatrain 01-47 (Dutch translation in the 1941-Vreede-translation)

De redevoeringen van het meer van Genève zullen boosheid opwekken
Dagen zullen worden verlengd tot weken
Dan tot maanden, dan tot een jaar, dan zullen zij allen in gebreke blijven.
De Magistraten zullen hun ijdele wetten veroordelen.

The comment, given by Houwens Post :

Nowadays, it is generally assumed that Nostradamus meant the League of Nations. [...] For us, people in this era, it is indeed not such a masterpiece to jump to this conclusion. But how would a commentator in for example 1780 hit upon the idea that after 1918, there would be a League of Nations, registered in Geneva and failing to realize its aims, in the way as described by Nostradamus? He does not mention a year and the words "League of Nations" do not occur in the quatrain.

Houwens Post does not give further comment. He does not choose any side, he gives no chapter, no verse.⁶

The 1941-Vreede-translation was not reprinted until 1980, when Schors publishers, Amsterdam, decided to publish it again by means of facsimile.

References to the 1558-Lyon-edition

The investigation, described in this essay, showed that Houwens Post did not use a 1558-Lyon-edition, but a photocopy of the 1668-Amsterdam-edition, while silently adding material from Wöllner’s Das Mysterium des Nostradamus.

In the investigation upon which Nostradamus, astrology and the Bible is based, it was assumed until recently that the differences between the 1941-Vreede-translation and the 1568-Lyon-edition regarding the second biblical chronology, pointed to the existence of a 1558-Lyon-edition. The recent investigation showed that Houwens Post translated Wöllner’s German translation of the Epistle to Henry II, which contains a revised second biblical chronology.

The second biblical chronology as revised by Wöllner, does not point to the existence of a 1558-Lyon-edition. The revised second biblical chronology is the result of Wöllner’s own investigation of the Epistle to Henri II.

Wöllner’s source text was an undated “Edition Benoist Rigaud”. Benoist Rigaud published the 1568-Lyon-edition. The source text of the second biblical chronology, used by Wöllner, differs from the text in the 1568-Lyon-edition, as shown in table 2.

Table 2. Second biblical chronology
Wöllner, Edition “Benoist Rigaud” and the 1568-Lyon-edition

Second biblical chronology
Edition “Benoist Rigaud”
Wöllner, p.11-12, in Amadou, pp. 315 - 316 Second biblical chronology
1568-Lyon-edition
in Nostradamus 1568, pp. 166 - 167

(74) Toutefois comptans, les ans depuis la creation du monde, iusques à la naissance de Noë, sont
(75) passez mil cinq cens & six ans, - & depuis la naissance de Noë iusques à la parfaicte fabrication de l’arche, approchant de l’vniuerselle inondation, passerent six ans. (Si les ans estoyêt Solaires ou Lunaires, ou des dix mixtions) ie tiens ce que les sacrees escriptures tiennent qu’ils estoyent Solaires. Et à la fin d’iceux six cens ans Noë entra dans l’arche pour estre sauué du deluge:
(76) - & fut iceluy deluge vniuersel sur la terre,
(77) & dura vn an & deux mois. - Et depuis la fin du deluge iusques à la natiuité d’Abraham passa le nombre des ans de deux cens nonâte cinq.
(78) - Et depuis la natiuité d’Abraham iusques à la
(79) natiuité d’Isaac passerent cens ans. - Et depuis
(80) Isaac iusques à Jacob, soixante ans. - dès l’heure qu’il entra en Egypte iusques à l’yssue d’iceluy
(81) passerent cent trête ans. - Et depuis l’entrée de Jacob, en Egypte iusques à l’yssue d’iceluy passe-
(82) rent quatre cens trente ans. - Et depuis l’yssue d’Egypte iusques à l’edification du Temple faicte par Salomon au quatriesme an de son regne, passerent quatre cens octâte ou quatre vingts ans.
(83) - Et depuis l’edification de temple iusques à par ceste supputation que i’ay faicte, colligee par Jesus Christ selon la suppuation des hierographes,
(84) passerent quatre cens nonante ans. - Et ainsi par ceste supputation que i’ay faicte, colligee par les sacrées lettres, sont enuiron quatre mille cent septante trois ans & huict mois, peu ou moins. Toutesfois comptans les ans depuis la creation du monde, iusques à la naissance de Noë, sont passez mille cinq cens & six ans, & depuis la naissance de Noë iusques à la parfaicte fabrication de l’arche, approchêt de l’vniuerselle inondation passerent six cens ans si les dons estoyent solaires ou lunaires, ou de dix mixtions. Ie tiens ce que les sacrees escriptures tiennent qu’estoyent Solaires. Et à la fin d’iceux six cens ans Noë entra dans l’arche pour estre sauué du deluge, & fut iceluy deluge vniuersel sus la terre, & dura vn an & deux mois. Et depuis la fin du deluge iusques à la natiuité d’Abraham, passa le nombre des ans de deux cens nonante cinq. Et depuis la natiuité d’Abraham iusques à la natiuité d’Isaac, passerent cens ans. Et depuis Isaac iusques à Iacob, soixante ans, dés l’heure qu’il entra dans Egypte, iusques en l’yssue d’iceluy passerent cent trente ans. Et depuis l’entree de Iacob en Egypte iusques à l’yssue d’iceluy passerent quatre cens trente ans. Et depuis l’yssue d’Egypte iusques à la edification de temple faicte par Salomon au quatriesme an de son regne, passerent quatre cens octante ou quatre vingts ans. Et depuis l’edification du temple iusques à Jesus Christ selô la supputation des hierographes, passerent quatre cens nonante ans.
Et ainsi par cette supputation que i’ay faicte colligee par les sacrees lettres sont enuiron quatre mille cent septante trois ans , & huict moys peu ou moins.

Second biblical chronology Edition “Benoist Rigaud” Wöllner, p.11-12, in Amadou, pp. 315 - 316	Second biblical chronology 1568-Lyon-edition in Nostradamus 1568, pp. 166 - 167
(74) Toutefois comptans, les ans depuis la creation du monde, iusques à la naissance de Noë, sont (75) passez mil cinq cens & six ans, - & depuis la naissance de Noë iusques à la parfaicte fabrication de l’arche, approchant de l’vniuerselle inondation, passerent six ans. (Si les ans estoyêt Solaires ou Lunaires, ou des dix mixtions) ie tiens ce que les sacrees escriptures tiennent qu’ils estoyent Solaires. Et à la fin d’iceux six cens ans Noë entra dans l’arche pour estre sauué du deluge: (76) - & fut iceluy deluge vniuersel sur la terre, (77) & dura vn an & deux mois. - Et depuis la fin du deluge iusques à la natiuité d’Abraham passa le nombre des ans de deux cens nonâte cinq. (78) - Et depuis la natiuité d’Abraham iusques à la (79) natiuité d’Isaac passerent cens ans. - Et depuis (80) Isaac iusques à Jacob, soixante ans. - dès l’heure qu’il entra en Egypte iusques à l’yssue d’iceluy (81) passerent cent trête ans. - Et depuis l’entrée de Jacob, en Egypte iusques à l’yssue d’iceluy passe- (82) rent quatre cens trente ans. - Et depuis l’yssue d’Egypte iusques à l’edification du Temple faicte par Salomon au quatriesme an de son regne, passerent quatre cens octâte ou quatre vingts ans. (83) - Et depuis l’edification de temple iusques à par ceste supputation que i’ay faicte, colligee par Jesus Christ selon la suppuation des hierographes, (84) passerent quatre cens nonante ans. - Et ainsi par ceste supputation que i’ay faicte, colligee par les sacrées lettres, sont enuiron quatre mille cent septante trois ans & huict mois, peu ou moins.	Toutesfois comptans les ans depuis la creation du monde, iusques à la naissance de Noë, sont passez mille cinq cens & six ans, & depuis la naissance de Noë iusques à la parfaicte fabrication de l’arche, approchêt de l’vniuerselle inondation passerent six cens ans si les dons estoyent solaires ou lunaires, ou de dix mixtions. Ie tiens ce que les sacrees escriptures tiennent qu’estoyent Solaires. Et à la fin d’iceux six cens ans Noë entra dans l’arche pour estre sauué du deluge, & fut iceluy deluge vniuersel sus la terre, & dura vn an & deux mois. Et depuis la fin du deluge iusques à la natiuité d’Abraham, passa le nombre des ans de deux cens nonante cinq. Et depuis la natiuité d’Abraham iusques à la natiuité d’Isaac, passerent cens ans. Et depuis Isaac iusques à Iacob, soixante ans, dés l’heure qu’il entra dans Egypte, iusques en l’yssue d’iceluy passerent cent trente ans. Et depuis l’entree de Iacob en Egypte iusques à l’yssue d’iceluy passerent quatre cens trente ans. Et depuis l’yssue d’Egypte iusques à la edification de temple faicte par Salomon au quatriesme an de son regne, passerent quatre cens octante ou quatre vingts ans. Et depuis l’edification du temple iusques à Jesus Christ selô la supputation des hierographes, passerent quatre cens nonante ans. Et ainsi par cette supputation que i’ay faicte colligee par les sacrees lettres sont enuiron quatre mille cent septante trois ans , & huict moys peu ou moins.

A number of words differ from each other, such as in line 74 the word Toutefois versus Toutesfois in the 1568-Lyon-edition. The blue marked line in Wöllner’s source text in line 83 does not belong there. Its appearance is due to a printer’s error in the German book. This line belongs to line 84 and is printed there correctly.

The most important differences are in line 75 in Wöllner’s source text. In this line, the length of the period Noach-Arch is 6 years. In the 1568-Lyon-edition, this length is 600 years. The discussion of the dilemma regarding the use of solar or lunar years, is in Wöllner’s source text partly put between brackets; the words Solaires and Lunaires begin with a capital letter. In the 1568-Lyon-edition, this discussion is not put between brackets and the words solaires and lunaires begin with a small letter. In the 1941-Vreede-translation, the discussion of the dilemma regarding the use of solar or lunar years, is also put between brackets.

The location of the brackets in Wöllner’s translation differs from the location in the source text he used. If he would have copied correctly, the phrase so halte Ich dafür, dass die Heilige Schrift Sonnenjahren meint (the translation of ie tiens ce que les sacrees escriptures tiennent qu’ils estoyent Solaires), would not be between brackets (see tables 1 and 2). However, this phrase is between brackets. In the case of the 1941-Vreede-translation, the location of the brackets is identical with the location in Wöllner’s translation (see table 1)

In the same line, Wöllner’s source text contains the word ans, whereas in the 1568-Lyon-edition it reads dons.

It is clear that the text of the Epistle to Henry II in the 1568-Lyon-edition is not the source text, used by Wöllner. Benazra, who was asked for advice, wrote that it is difficult to determine precisely which source text has been used by Wöllner. He points to the fact that on p.119 of a 1566-Pierre Rigaud edition and in a number of non-dated editions, published by this Pierre Rigaud, the dilemma regarding the use of solar or lunar years has been put between brackets in the same way as in Wöllner’s source text, and the words Solaires and Lunaires also begin with a capital letter. However, in the line Et à la fin d’iceux six cens ans Noë entra..., the word cens is omitted in the 1566-Pierre Rigaud-edition.⁷

While discussing quatrain 10-74, Wöllner referred to Pierre Rigaud.⁸ Further, he mentioned Anatole Le Pelletier, from whose Les oracles de Michel de Nostredame (1867) he borrowed the numbering of the lines in the Letter to Cesar and the Epistle to Henry II.⁹ Les Oracles de Michel de Nostredame contains an apocryphal edition, which publishing is falsely attributed to Pierre Rigaud and falsely dated in 1558-1566, completed with variants from another apocryphal edition, which publishing is falsely attributed to Benoist Rigaud and falsely dated in 1568. In reality, these editions were printed by François-Joseph Demergue in Avignon in the beginning of the 18th century.¹⁰

The conclusion is that Wöllner translated from the French texts of the Letter to Cesar and the Epistle to Henry II in Le Pelletier’s Les oracles de Michel de Nostredame, and presented his source text as a “Benoist Rigaud edition”.¹¹

Conclusions

The findings in the investigation of the 1941-Vreede-translation show that Houwens Post did not use a 1558-Lyon-edition which contains the Letter to Cesar, the quatrains 01-01 to 06-100, the Latin “warning”, the quatrains 07-01 to 07-44, the Epistle to Henry II and the quatrains 08-01 to 10-100. A 1558-Lyon-edition as described by Houwens Post, would have contained more than what could possibly be in print by 1558.

There are so many elements in the 1941-Vreede-translation which also occur in the 1668-Amsterdam-edition, that one can suppose in fairness that this edition, in the form of the photocopy, compiled by Piobb in 1927, was one of the source texts, used by Houwens Post. He used this photocopy as a source text for the translation of the quatrains. He also took illustrations out of it and copied parts of the Nostradamus-biography.

The 1668-Amsterdam-edition does not contain the Letter to Cesar. The thesis that Houwens Post used the photocopy of the 1668-Amsterdam-edition, implies that he has used other source texts as well. Both the Letter to Cesar and the Epistle to Henry II are included in Das Mysterium des Nostradamus by Christian Wöllner. Regarding the translation of the Epistle to Henry II, the thesis is that Houwens Post used the German text of this Epistle, as translated by Wöllner, and thus included the second biblical chronology, as revised by Wöllner. It is likely that Houwens Post translated the German translation of the Letter to Cesar as well.

Wöllner also did not use a 1558-Lyon-edition. Regarding the source texts of the Letter to Cesar and the Epistle to Henry II, he refers to a “Benoist Rigaud edition” without further details. The investigation shows that the source text of the Letter to Cesar and the Epistle to Henry II is the false 1566 Pierre Rigaud edition (with additions from the also false 1568 Benoist Rigaud) as included in Le Pelletier’s Les Oracles de Michel de Nostredame (1867), which editions in reality were printed in Avignon, in the beginning of the 18th century.

Houwens Post and Wöllner seem to refer to their source texts in the same way. The reference by Houwens Post to the use of a 1558-Lyon-edition seems to be based upon the reference to such an edition in the 1668-Amsterdam-edition. Wöllner’s reference to the use of a Benoist Rigaud edition is based upon the reference to that edition by Le Pelletier. This way of referring may bring confusion and is sometimes incomplete, as these two translations show. In the 1941-Vreede-translation, the Letter to Cesar and the Epistle to Henry II are not translated from a source text, published in 1558, but from a German translation of a source text, published in the 18th century, whereas it is dated in 1566/1568 by the German author.

As for the facsimile edition of the 1941-Vreede-translation, published by Schors, Amsterdam, in the ‘80’s-’90’s, the remark on the back cover that this facsimile is a complete Dutch translation of the edition, published in 1558, is not correct.

As for the elaborated edition of the 1941-Vreede-translation by J. Vandevoort (1998), also published by Schors, Amsterdam, Vandevoort’s remark that he saw with his own eyes the 1558-Lyon-edition, entitled Les vrayes centuries et prophéties de maister Micheld Nostradamus à Lyon 1558 is also not correct.¹² The title points to a 17th century edition, perhaps the photocopy, made by Piobb in 1927.

Table 3. Source texts of the 1941-Vreede-translation

Quatrains Photocopy-Piobb-1927 (= photocopy of Amsterdam-1668).

Letter to Cesar and Epistle to Henry II 1926-Wöllner-translation (= German translation / revision of the Letter and the Epistle. French source text in Le Pelletier, 1867.
Source text Le Pelletier-1867 : Avignon, beginning 18th century
(= “Pierre Rigaud-1566” / “Benoist Rigaud-1568”).

Quatrains	Photocopy-Piobb-1927 (= photocopy of Amsterdam-1668).
Letter to Cesar and Epistle to Henry II	1926-Wöllner-translation (= German translation / revision of the Letter and the Epistle. French source text in Le Pelletier, 1867. Source text Le Pelletier-1867 : Avignon, beginning 18th century (= “Pierre Rigaud-1566” / “Benoist Rigaud-1568”).

Expression of thanks

The author wishes to thank mr. Robert Benazra for his continuous help and decisive advices.

T. W. M. van Berkel
De Meern, February 27, 2004

Bibliography

- Robert Amadou : L’astrologie de Nostradamus - dossier, Poissy, 1992 (1987).

- Robert Benazra : Répertoire Chronologique Nostradamique 1545-1989, Paris, 1990.

- J. Vandevoort : Nostradamus, de grootste ziener aller tijden, Amsterdam, 1998.

- Mr. dr. W.L. Vreede : De profetieën van Nostradamus, Den Haag, 1941.

Notes

¹Van Berkel: The 1941-Vreede-translation and the 1558-Lyon-edition”, Analyse 24. Retour

²Wöllner, pp. 10 - 16, in Amadou, pp. 315 - 318. Wöllner, an astronomer, studied the Prophecies in the period 1913 - 1925. His translation of the Letter to Cesar and the Epistle to Henry II was the first German translation of these letters (Wöllner, preface, in Amadou, p. 309. Retour

³Wöllner, p. 26, in Amadou, p. 323. Retour

⁴Vreede, p. 7, Wöllner, p. 1, in Amadou, p. 310. Retour

⁵A. van Dis in NRC Handelsblad, February 19, 1982, entitled Nostradamus, een profeet voor duistere tijden (Nostradamus, a prophet for gloomy times). Retour

⁶Vreede, p. 13. Retour

⁷Benazra, private correspondence. Retour

⁸Wöllner, p. 68, in Amadou, p. 344. Retour

⁹Wöllner, p. 2, in Amadou, p. 311. Retour

¹⁰Benazra, pp. 295 - 300 and p. 416. Retour

¹¹Regarding Le Pelletier, Wöllner had a high respect for the way he published the Centuries, but considered his interpretations as untenable (Wöllner, p. 133, in Amadou, p. 351). Retour

¹²Vandevoort, p. 238. Retour

Retour Analyse