By making the connection with my previous work in the field of parapsychological research, Halbronn makes it seem, as if I want to save the idea of Nostradamus being a prophet, whose precognitive abilities have been attested. I am surprised that he needs to bring into play such an argumentum ad hominem, without grasping the substance of my line of reasoning, which indeed points to a totally opposing conclusion! It seem obvious to me that Halbronn has only read the parts of the book that deal with the “criticism of the critics”. Otherwise it could not have gone unnoticed that my main argument, covering extensive portions in my text, is the corroboration that not one single quatrain contains irrefutable evidence of prophetic contents (pp. 246 - 291). Furthermore in my detailed analysis of spontaneously expressed prophecies, consultations and interpretations of horoscopes, notably the horoscope cast for prince Rudolph of Habsburg. (pp. 293 - 347).⁵ I reach the conclusion that again there is no evidence that Nostradamus had precognitive abilities, which can be deducted from his works. The horoscope for Rudolph lent itself especially to this kind of study, as the biography of the later emperor Rudolph II is very well known.

   I even include in my book a section on our present knowledge about precognition, relying on the recent developments in psi research (pp. 361 - 370). In it I show the misery of the so called great prophets, who supposedly have foreseen collective events, like tragedies, devastation, wars etc., all of which can be reduced to erroneous interpretations, later amendments, and falsifications. Furthermore from the point of view of parapsychology it would be complete fantasy to conclude, that Nostradamus had such paranormal powers as to predict detailed future events. Laboratory research does not support such a possibility at all.⁶ Even though the existence of precognitive abilities cannot be denied, as meta-analyses of the studies in precognition have shown beyond any doubt⁷, precognitive information is usually perceived on a subconscious level and can only be registered by physiological measurements.⁸ In only very few instances it is accompanied by visions, auditions and other cognitive capacities, but then usually confined to experiences concerning the personal realm.

   The nucleus of my argument is, that Nostradamus may have had transpersonal and paranormal experiences (maybe due to a predisposition) and these might have resulted in the personal conviction of being able to foresee future events. But undeniably there is no evidence that he had predicted any future occurrence, as I make very clear in my book. Not without reason I have therefore entitled the epilogue to my book “Farewell to the prophet“.⁹

   I have drawn the attention to the question of precognitive / prophetic abilities from the viewpoint of serious research, because this aspect is usually not discussed at all by critical scholars studying the work of Nostradamus. The problem in this respect is, that critical scholars who depart from the conviction that no prophetic (precognitive) abilities exist in the first place, are contradicting the very basis of critical research. By definition it should always proceed from empirical evidence and not from any preconceived ideas. The conclusions I reach in my book show, that taking account of the question of critical examination of precognitive abilities does not necessarily lead to the result of accepting Nostradamus as a man with outstanding paranormal abilities - on the contrary !

² Cf. La célébration du cinquième centenaire de la naissance de Michel de Nostredame (Nostredame.chez.tiscali.fr., Analyse 19). Retour