Torné-Chavigny, whose letter to Raoul de Tricqueville was published in facsimile in front of the facsimile edition of Les Significations in 1904, was the first to raise doubts that this text was indeed written by Nostradamus. His line of reasoning was that the orthodox Christian who had written the Prophétie meveilleuse and the Prognostication, the prediction of which in his opinion came true under pope Pius IX in the 19th century, could not have possibly plagiarized Cyprian Leowitz. The true aim of its author was to “réduire à néant l’Astrologie” as soon as the plagiarism became clear. Interestingly enough Torné-Chavigny did not point out specific statements in Les Significations which would serve as predictions of the death of Henry II. He rather saw this connection on a symbolic level. The dreadful eclipse was a sign pointing to the lethal eclipsing of Henry’s life, as the arms of Henry II show three crescent moons with the motto : Donec totum impleat orbem [Until he fills the whole world], which points to the image of the crescent moon that gradually fills the whole circle, or in Latin : luna impletur, the moon fills up. But of course, an exegesis on this level does not need a prophet to foretell the death of the king, it is enough that the eclipse took place in temporal proximity to the fatal event.

   To give just one illustration, compare for example the planetary positions for the year 1557 given in the Prognostication nouvelle pour 1557 (Jacques Kerver, Paris) with the Almanach pour l’an 1557 (Jacques Kerver, Paris). In the Almanach, we read on fol. Bvir : “Declaration de May. Le premier quart de la Lune sera le v. à 4. minu. au signe de Leo, chaud & sec, augmentant en chaleur & inflammation…” In the Prognostication he writes : “May. Le premier quart de la Lune sera le 5. à 2. heu. en Libra, froide & seiche” (fol. Ciijv). Another example from the same publications : “Declaration d’Octobre. La pleine Lune sera le vij. iour à six heures 43. minutes au signe d’Aries…” (Almanach, fol. Div), “Octobre. Pleine Lune le 7. à 13 h. en Aries” (Prognostication, fol. Ciiijr). Although these conflicting data and contradictory interpretations (one giving hot weather, the other cold weather) are not found in one single book, but in two publications for the same year, the astronomical data and the astrological interpretations should still be identical. However, they are not.

   The difficulty that Nostradamus had in establishing valid data for planetary positions is well known, and Brind’Amour has offered many examples. One of these is the instance in which Nostradamus finds the ascendant of Lorenz Tubbe to be in Scorpio, whereas Tubbe himself and the two famous mathematical astrologers Erasmus Reinhold and Cyprian Leowitz found it to be in Libra.³ Bad for poor Tubbe, who of course believes in Nostradamus and accepts the incorrect and astrologically negative position of his ascendant instead of the correct and positive one.

   Nostradamus also changed planetary positions deliberately if he found it appropriate. For example he found in the Horoscope for Prince Rudolf, following his own calculations, the point of fortune to lie on 17° 0’ Sagittarius, which already is a miscalculation. Given the positions for ascendant, Sun and Moon it ought to be placed at 13° 20’ Sagittarius. But Nostradamus deliberately moves the point of fortune to 20° 0’ Scorpio to the medium coeli, and justifies this in terms of the fact that this should be the position where the point of fortune should be for such an important future monarch.⁴

   Moreover in order to disguise the fact that his mathematical abilities concerning the calculation of horoscopes were limited, Nostradamus often declared that he determined the positions following several methods. He calculated the birth-chart for Karl Rosenberger using the Indian, the Babylonian, and “his own” method.⁵ For the “revolutions” for Hans Rosenberger he relied on the Indian method and the method of “his ancestors”. Nostradamus interpreted the horoscope of prince Rudolf by using the “jugement des Arabes Grecs Indicques Babilonicques et des antiquissimes Aegiptiens ne mectant en arriere le jugement des Arabes Grecs Latins et celluy de mes antiquissimes avites qui au jugement des astres en la iu­diciaire ont vallu beaucoup.”⁶

   It is a result of this inconsistent dealing with astrological method that we often encounter incompatible astrological data throughout the work of Nostradamus. To some extent this is his “trade-mark”.

   Van Berkel is of the opinion that the use of incompatible astrological sources in one and the same booklet “made the authenticity of Les Significations dubious.” He cites in this respect the opinion of Jacques Halbronn, who says that “the inclusion of sources which incompatibility is overlooked, is a feature of the labor of forgers who are eager to finish their task.” If the forgers were able to overlook such incompatibility concerning the position of Mars, why should not Nostradamus have been able to commit the same mistake, by relying on different sources or on his own calculations and the Eclipsium omnium by Cyprian Leowitz, given the fact that we know that his dealing with planetary positions was erratic and full of mistakes ? If the mistake is a result of overlooking something by “forgers who are eager to finish their task”, it would apply with the same reason to my own argument, as I said that Nostradamus was rushed to bring out his booklet in time before the eclipse.⁷ So when forgers can overlook something because of a rushed production, Nostradamus could equally well make the same mistake in his rushed work, given the fact that he committed similar errors in works in which he was not rushed to finish his task.

   I think that van Berkel has reached his conclusions before studying attentively the Prognostication of maister Michael Nostredamus for 1559. Only very recently, published on his homepage, van Berkel wrote an interesting article on this prognostication in which he himself points to the incompatibility of lunar phase data between the Almanacke for the yeare of oure Lorde God 1559 and the English Prognostication for 1559, thus finding out by himself, that Nostradamus often made use of incompatible astrological data. Dismissing Les Significations on these grounds would result in dismissing almost all of Nostradamus’s prophetic works.

   Van Berkel rejects my idea that Nostradamus used a publication on the effects of an impeding eclipse as a vehicle for transporting his counter-attack at his enemies to a large public, by arguing that the criticism of his opponents obviously sold quite well by themselves. He states : “Couillard and Videl thought it worthwhile to publish an attack on Nostradamus without any prediction at all.”⁸ This is not entirely correct, as Couillard specifically entitled one of his pamphlets against Nostradamus Les Prophéties du Seigneur du Pavillon lez Lorriz⁹ In fact this means hiding criticism inside a text which purportedly contains prophecies. The title would entice many to grab the booklet, expecting something else. Nostradamus somehow did the same, and the fact that he came up with the idea of incorporating his answer to his adversaries in a prognostication is no reason to deduce that it should not be by Nostradamus. Why, if supposedly someone else came up with this idea for promoting Nostradamus retrospectively as a true prophet, could not Nostradamus have had the same idea originally ?

   Although no original copy of the Prognostication Nouvelle for 1559 seems to have survived, we do not have to rely solely on the extracts from this publication in Chavigny’s Recueil. Fortunately enough the English translation of this text, The Prognostication of maister Michael Nostredamus for 1559, is still extant. This text is now under scrutiny by van Berkel, but evidently was not when he first wrote about Les Significations. Otherwise he would not have missed the many arguments of a very similar nature as the ones found in Les Significations. In the English Prognostication for 1559 Nostradamus writes of the “prediction of Iune” :

   Chavigny starts his excerpt for June only with the last sentence of the above cited section (PP 119). It becomes clear from the complete English version that Nostradamus already in his Prognostication for 1559 did hypothesize very clearly about a pre-impact of the eclipse. In his account this influence also contains general political effects, and not only effects in the realm of religious matters, as can be seen from the above-cited extract. The passage in the Prognostication for 1559 continues with the words :

   Here Nostradamus is very unambiguous that the effect of the eclipse is not merely on religious affairs, but has to be seen rather as very diverse disasters befalling mankind ranging from diseases and famine to oppression and sedition. Again Chavigny did not transcribe the sentence following his PP 120 which reads in the English prognostication : “Than afterwarde by the presage of the same Eclipse awhile after it shall asswage in such sort that men shall passe over almost in many places dry shodd.”

   Chavigny has made excerpts of this passage and left out quite a few sentences and noticeably everything that sounds contrary to the Catholic Church (“…the tumult and alteration made by the priests and byshoppes…”), and he also left out a number of calamities that Nostradamus sees in connection with the eclipse of the moon, pointing to the interpretation that the effect of the eclipse goes far beyond religious matters. Furthermore Nostradamus had already associated lunar eclipses with the death of royalty in earlier works. We do find for example in his predictions for 1555 the following statement : “La Lune icy eclipsée fait prediction de quelque default Royal, ou bien de Prince ou Monarque. Pour le seur quelcun d'iceux sera frapé aux cuisses par torment de feu. Ce qu'est à venir ès lieux où regne le Sagittaire.” [PP 360 (I, 1555)].

   Van Berkel did not draw our attention to the following two extracts from Prognostication Nouvelle for 1559 in Chavigny’s Recueil :

   Again both presages describe effects of the eclipse concerning political matters and especially the rulers, as the mentioning of “les plus Grands & les plus haut elevez” implies monarchs, kings, and rulers. And during the month of September, when the eclipse took place, Nostradamus writes : “Dans cette Lune mourra quelque Grand grand, qui sera cause de sa mort : & l’autre de sa grand blessure, violentos Troas aditurus [on the verge of going to the raging Troyans].” [PP 194 (IV)]

   In order to emphasize his argument van Berkel maintains that “in Les Significations religious troubles are only mentioned briefly”.¹⁰ In reality the effect of the eclipse on religious matters is being treated extensively. “Les ecclesiastiques” and “les iovialistes”, meaning the members of the clergy, are mentioned explicitly on several occasions as being the focus of the eclipse, and on fol. A3r the text reads : “…quelques autres sublimes entreprinses concernantes quelque fort hault & magnanime fait… mesmes entre les plus grands monarques de la religion Chersienne.” The term “mesme” in Renaissance times meant “in particular”, “especially”. On the same page we read about a “grand iacture à l’eglise Cherstienne”.¹¹ There is also a discussion about conspiracies against a queen [fol. A3v]. Why a queen, if the forger wanted the effect of the eclipse to point to the death of the two French kings ?

   The connection of the eclipse with the death of a ruler was definitely there in the Prognostication and there is no such thing as a change of emphasis from religious matters to the death of a king between the Prognostication and Les Significations, as van Berkel suggests.

   Van Berkel himself pointed out the prophecy of a ruler dying at the end of June in the Prognostication Nouvelle for 1559 (PP 133), which was subsequently interpreted by Chavigny as a prediction of the death of Henry II in his marginal note. Although the death of the ruler, according to Nostradamus, should not take place in France (PP 134), Chavigny of course tries to save his argument by stating : “Ceci est dit pour deguiser le fait”. So in fact there were already assertions in the Prognostication Nouvelle for 1559 that could and did serve to interpreters like Chavigny as predictions of the death of Henry II. Why should Nostradamus not have introduced the same type of predictions in Les Significations which again would lead to similar interpretations ?

   By studying the English translation of the Prognostication Nouvelle for 1559 it becomes very clear, that the idea of the pre-impact of the eclipse was the brainchild of Nostradamus himself and not introduced by forgers in Les Significations. The concept comes up on several occasions in the Prognostication of maister Michael Nostredamus for 1559. In the “prediction of August” we read [pp. 51f]¹² :

   On pp. 64f Nostradamus presents a description of the eclipse with astronomical data :

   Here again we encounter the strange idea of a pre-impact starting already in March, more than half a year before the eclipse took place. Interestingly enough on page 65 Nostradamus unexpectedly sets out on an attack of his adversaries, just like he did in Les Significations. In this respect it is of interest to read what Nostradamus wrote about in “The prediction of Marche” [p. 21] :

   Let us consider some more quotes from the Prognostication for 1559. In “The prediction of Aprill” we read on p. 25 :

   “Prediction of Iune” [p. 38] :

   “Prediction of Iuly” [p. 44f] :

   In the light of these documents van Berkels assertion that “In Les Significations, the original time span of the impact of the September 1559 Lunar Eclipse was revised deliberately in both directions: an earlier beginning, a later end”¹³ can safely be refuted. The idea of the “pre-impact” as well as a prolonged effect of the eclipse was already completely developed in the Prognostication for 1559. In addition van Berkel is of the opinion that the purpose of this concept in Les Significations was “to relate the Eclipse to the fateful events to the Valois dynasty” and that “such an act could only have been done after December 5, 1560, the date of the decease of Francis II”. With these arguments he postulates a change from religious impact (in the Prognostication for 1559) to “troubles for the Valois dynasty”¹⁴ (in Les Significations).

   This heavy and incorrect speculation on the part of van Berkel is obviously due to the fact that he relied only on the extracts from the Prognostication pour 1559 in Chavigny’s Recueil and not on the English version of the Prognostication for 1559 still extant. Judging from the English Prognostication for 1559 there is definitely no change in the interpretation of the eclipse from religious to dynastic matters between the two texts in question. On the other hand, all the supposed effects of the eclipse on political matters in the Prognostication for 1559 and in Les Significations never mention “troubles for the Valois dynasty”, as van Berkels wants us to believe. The declarations of Nostradamus in this respect are - as usual with him - very general and all encompassing, that they might be applied to a wide variety of events. But never do we find anything that can be indisputably linked to the Valois. This is the interpretation given by Chavigny to certain sections of the Prognostication for 1559 (but notably not to parts of Les Significations !) in the marginal notes of his manuscript. Van Berkel follows this exegesis by assuming that the text of Les Significations by supposed later counterfeiters contains “troubles for the Valois dynasty”. Chavigny has several marginal notes for the Prognostication Nouvelle for 1559 in which he is convinced of having found predictions of the death of Henry II and Francis II. But oddly enough in his transcription of Les Significations, there is not one marginal note pointing to the death of the two kings ! If falsifiers had produced Les Significations by introducing astrological constellations which should be interpreted retrospectively as a prediction of Henry II’s and Francis II’s deaths, they would have done a miserable job. Not even Chavigny, who was looking ardently for any piece of evidence of prediction in the works of Nostradamus, found a presage in Les Significations as a prophecy of the death of either Henry II or Francis II. On the other hand he did find a few in the Prognostication pour 1559 in which of course the association of the presages to these events existed only in the mind of the interpreter, namely Chavigny.

   Even if Nostradamus knew the generally accepted interpretation of the duration of the effects due to an eclipse he certainly does not stick to such an interpretation, but rather changes it whenever he likes. He takes the freedom of the “divinely inspired” prophet to surpass the licit realms of astrology in many occasions. At the beginning of his Almanach for 1561 (Chavigny, Recueil, VI, PP 4) we find for example the declaration : “Mais à cause des eclipses precendens equinoctiaux, qui viennent à estendre leurs effets tout de long de ceste année,…” Further down at the predictions for March 1561 (Chavigny, Recueil, livre VI, PP 86) Nostradamus states : “Dans ceste Lune renouvellée les effets des eclipses precedents se viendront rendre; & pource naistra quelque grandissime discorde, rebellion, sedition, murtre, cas exorbitans au moyen de soustenir les uns & le autres prescheurs.” Since he is speaking of “les eclipses” in plural, Nostradamus is probably referring to the eclipse of the moon of 11 March 1560 and the eclipse of the sun of 21 August the same year, both of which ought to extend their effects until March 1561, which at least for the eclipse of the moon surpasses the theoretical time span.

   In order to further show how strongly interrelated our two texts under examination are, let me add some passages in the English Prognostication for 1559, in which Nostradamus turns his anger against his opponents, as he does this basically in the same style, as in Les Significations :

   I am not quite sure about van Berkel’s arguments in respect to PP 186-187 (IV) from the Prognostication Nouvelle pour 1559. After citing the extracts van Berkel affirms : “At that time, the reader of Les Significations was supposed to interpret these lines as a prediction of the death of several prominent persons in the period 1559-1560, i.e. Henry II and Francis II.” But the prediction cited is from the Prognostication and not from Les Significations ! Since the Prognostication did appear in 1558, we either have to deal with a prediction fulfilled, or - which is by far more probable - with a lucky coincidence, not unexpected in regard to the many diverse predictions we find every year in the almanacs and prognostications of Nostradamus, especially about the imminent death of important persons. It is a significant piece of evidence that this presage is found in the Prognostication for 1559. Therefore it is not surprising that Nostradamus raises similar ideas in Les Significations.

   The distinction between the texts of Nostradamus and the interpretations of Chavigny is not always clear in van Berkel’s paper, due to the fact the he relies only on the Recueil which is already an excerpted and “corrected” version of Nostradamus’s original pieces. His arguments in favor of Les Significations being a forgery from a later era rest on insufficient knowledge of the works of Nostradamus, his erratic dealing with the mathematical side of astrology and the role of Chavigny as interpreter of Nostradamus. Therefore his conclusion, in which he ponders the idea that Chavigny might be the real author of Les Significations, because the “supposed pre-impact of the Lunar Eclipse of September 16, 1559 in both Les Significations and several interpretations by De Chavigny might justify such an idea”¹⁶, must be rejected.

   I have shown that the idea of the pre-impact is not new to Les Significations, nor due to Chavigny, but found already in the Prognostication for 1559 by Nostradamus and definitely his own creation. Moreover, if Chavigny were the impostor who wrote Les Significations and published it under the name of Nostradamus as an antedated work, in order to prove that Nostradamus had foretold the deaths of the two French rulers, he would certainly have done it in an unambiguous manner. In addition why would his excerpts from Les Significations in the Recueil differ in many instances from the published text if he was the author ?

   The confused arguments of van Berkel in this respect might be due to some misunderstandings on his part concerning the role of Chavigny as interpreter of Nostradamus. Van Berkel writes :

   First of all this is certainly not “the only historical fact to which he refers” regarding the Centuries, as van Berkel suggests. The complete Ianus François is filled with historical references to the Centuries and the verse prophecies from the almanacs. It is indeed the very substance of his book to find historical events as having been foretold by Nostradamus. On the other hand there is obviously a basic misapprehension in van Berkel as to the use of the expression “commentaire” by Chavigny in respect to Nostradamus’s works. With the expression “Commentaires sur l’an 1559” Chavigny of course means the prognostication in prose of Nostradamus for this year, as it can be regarded as commentaries to astrological themes. Accordingly the titles he gives in his Recueil for the excerpts of the almanacs and prognostications always reads “Extrait des commentaires sur l’an…” In the introduction of the Ianus François he refers the reader to the “Commentaires … sur l’an 1559”, as they are not part of his analysis in this book, which deals only with verse prophecies. An interesting example of this meaning can be found in Chavigny’s Pléiades, in which, by the way, he refers to a passage in Les Significations, which he terms a “Prognostic fait sur l’an de grace 1559”.¹⁸

   To conclude, it cannot be claimed that Les Significations was not written by Nostradamus on the grounds that he seems to not having relied on the Eclipsium omnium by Cyprian Leowitz before the publication of Les Signifiactions, as van Berkel suggests. Maybe it was only then that he got a hold of the book of Leowitz, which from then on he used at times. An example can be found in Nostradamus’s last almanac, which only survived in its Italian translation. This almanac is also interesting in relation to this present discussion, because in it the main concern of his prognostic content throughout the text is the interpretation of the eclipse of the sun on 9 April 1567. In the astrological chart for this eclipse in the Almanach per l’anno 1567 [fol. Eiiijv] Nostradamus speaks of the eclipse as being “colore multum deformi et visu max. horrend[o]” [“of a very hideous color and a very horrible appearance”]. Leowitz says that the eclipsed sun would be “colore omnio deformi, fusco uidelicet & rubeo. ”

   Interestingly enough in this Almanach per l’anno 1567 we find the same comparison with the eclipse of 1605 as Nostradamus had already drawn in Les Significations :

   In Les Significations he had written :

   In the Italian Almanach we encounter again the notion of a pre-impact, as Nostradamus speaks of meteorogical effects three months before the eclipse and three months after it : “Tre mesi auanti & tre mesi doppoi, le emotioni & furiosi mouimenti, gli frutti, fiori & piante de tenerezza saranno in estremo periculo di gello, neue, niuole …” [fol. Fiv].

² Brind’Amour, Pierre : Nostradamus astrophile. Les astres et l’astrologie dans la vie er l’œuvre de Nostradamus. Paris, Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa, 1993. Retour