Talk:Nostradamus

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2014

".... He was expelled shortly afterwards by the university's procurator, Guillaume Rondelet, when it was discovered that he had been an apothecary, a "manual trade" expressly banned by the university statutes,[12] and had been slandering doctors.[13] The expulsion document (BIU Montpellier, Register S 2 folio 87) still exists in the faculty library.[14] However, some of his publishers and correspondents would later call him "Doctor". After his expulsion, Nostredame continued working, presumably still as an apothecary, and became famous for creating a "rose pill" that supposedly protected against the plague.[15] ...."

The above paragraph is not the complete truth because Nostradamus after being expelled in date 3 octobre 1529 received the help of professor Antoine Romier and after 20 days from the expulsion he obtained to be reinscribed...

The source of the historical records is : "Seconde inscription retrouvée de Michel de Nostredame, en date du 23 octobre 1529, conservée à la Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire de Montpellier, registre S 19, f° 105 v : Nostradamus est inscrit dans le Livre du Procurateur (Liber procuratoris)."

Related info at the web page http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html and http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html</ref>

So i suggest the following new paragraph:

".... He was expelled shortly afterwards by the university's procurator, Guillaume Rondelet, when it was accused to have been an apothecary, a "manual trade" expressly banned by the university statutes,[12] and had been slandering doctors.[13] The expulsion document (BIU Montpellier, Register S 2 folio 87) still exists in the faculty library.[14] However, 20 days later, thanks to the help of professor Antoine Romier he obtained to be re-inscibed in the "Liber procuratoris" (BIU Montpellier, Register S 19 folio 105) and so he had the possibility to complete his study and become a Medical Doctor. ...."

Orsini Guglielmo (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Orsini Guglielmo

Question: Please only show a small amount of unchanged text so that one doesn't have to search for the changes. The first small change, changing 'discovered' to 'accused', results in an ungrammatical sentence. Can you explain the reasoning for this change. The new final sentence is also not grammatical but I am concerned about the content as well. I do not speak French, and google translate's attempt includes nothing which supports the change, but that could be google. Could you expand on what it is in the source which supports this change? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The last sentence should be omitted, as the 'second inscription' mentioned (scratched out by Rondelet when expelling him) states 'on the same day', which, when you examine the previous entry on the page in the Liber scolasticorum, is exactly the same date as his admission (23 October 1529). This is illustrated on page 49 of Lemesurier: Nostradamus Bibliomancer. The '20-day' canard is a very old one, based on the alleged researchers' evident inability to understand the Latin for '23rd'.--PL (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hy Celestra, I trimmed the above paragraphs under discussion and I post here my answers to your notes.

1) Nostradamus was expelled because he was accused to be involved in apothecary works, but we have no historical evidence about the correctness of the charge, so I personally think that is more suited the word 'Accused' than "discovered"

2) The French text reported above gives detailed evidence that the Universitary Library of Montpellier holds the proof about the Nostradamus re-inscription, precisely in the register "S 19", sheet 105 Related info at the web page http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html at the paragraph 'Le doctorat en médecine (1529 - 1933)' -second image-

3) You say ':The last sentence should be omitted, as the 'second inscription' mentioned (scratched out by Rondelet when expelling him) states...' but the 'scratched out' inscription isn't the 'second inscription' but instead is the 'first' in date 3 octobre 1529. Related info at the web page http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html at the paragraph 'Le doctorat en médecine (1529 - 1933)' -first image-

4) I don't have a copy of the book that you mention: Lemesurier - 'Nostradamus Bibliomancer' so I can only argue basing myself on the images and data shown on the linked web pages...

My English is not perfect so if the suggested changes are approved I kindly ask your help to pubblish correct sentences.....

A big 'Ciao' from Italy

Guglielmo

Extract from the book in question, pages 49-50:

As you can see for yourself, the entry immediately above Nostredame’s actually reads: Fuit conscriptus vicesima 3a [for tertia] octobris M[agister] Jud[remainder of name indecipherable]…, or ‘There was enrolled on the twenty-3rd of October Master Jud[ ]…’. This is followed directly by Nostredame’s entry, which reads: Eadem die fuit conscriptus M[agister] Michaletus de n[o]s[tr]a d[o]m[in]a…, or ‘On the same day was enrolled Master Mickey of our Lady…’ In both cases, of course, the title ‘Master’ indicates that the applicant was presumed already to have gained his necessary First Degree.

Thus, Nostredame’s name was entered into the Liber scolasticorum not twenty days before his registration but, as might reasonably be expected, on the self-same day, 23 October. A few days later he should by tradition have been paraded before the Chancellor to have his credentials examined. However, even before his lack of a valid First Degree diploma could be officially discovered, news evidently reached the ears of Rondelet, the Student Registrar, by way of the students and one of the city’s apothecaries, that the applicant had himself been an apothecary, and rude about doctors to boot. And so Rondelet was ordered to strike him off again, which he did forthwith. Possibly news of it never even reached the Chancellor himself, or a more formal expulsion would probably have been recorded. Thus, there was no reprieve. Nostredame was out on his ear and, so far as the Montpellier archives are concerned, never became a doctor in the first place.

OK? --PL (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Celestra I examined the extract you posted and I now understand the mention about the misunderstanded date... ...but some discrepancy still remains:

1) Try a search in Google "images" for the character "François Rabelais" and you will see that he wears the same hat as did Nostradamus in many historical paintings and book covers. I absolutely can't believe that on those times somebody could wear such a distinguishing hat without having a proper degree ! Today somebody can also publicly wear Papal dresses, but in the Nostradamus age things were for sure different.

2) How could he work as a doctor at the royal court of France and perhaps in some other, together with certified and high level doctors, without having a proper degree ?

3) How could he had the freedom to fight the plague giving medical help and prescribing drugs in regions and towns where, for sure, other official physicians were on duty ?

4) The extract you posted says "However, even before his lack of a valid First Degree diploma could be officially discovered...." so according to the author Nostradamus was also lacking of a "First Degree diploma" ! And he goes so easily without any hesitation to ask to be inscribed in the "liber scolasticorum" asking and obtaining also the protection of Antoine Romier ?!

5) The extract you posted says "And so Rondelet was ordered to strike him off again...." ...."again" ? He wasn't striked two times !

Resuming all I've the impression that despite many historical and tangible proofs about his role as doctor or physician, is everything deleted upon the affirmations presented in the book "Lemesurier - Nostradamus Bibliomancer". Moreover the term "bibliomancer" refers to individuals that give predictions thru the opening of books at random pages and according to the text present form the prediction.... that title is absolutely misleading and false when tied to Nostradamus...

At least, considering the present findings, I think that further investigation is needed...

If you agree I'm fully available to cooperate with you to find the truth.

Regards Guglielmo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.253.138.212 (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That may be your view, but Wikipedia isn't open to personal opinions or original research (try reading the rubric). The article, like all articles, is simply based on the published sources indicated in the Bibliography, of which Nostradamus, Bibliomancer is merely the latest and most up-to-date with its research. If you wish to criticise it, then perhaps the first step is actually to read it? If you then wish to discuss Nostradamus, this isn't the place to do it (read the rubric again). Try one of the forums listed under External Links?--PL (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Celestra, I read the initial part of the Lemeuriers' book and here are my last comments and observations:

Lemesurier in it's book writes : "...he (Nostradamus) was visited in 1564, in the course of a celebrated royal progress through the country, by the notoriously superstitious queen and her teenage son, the new King Charles IX, accompanied by a vast retinue. He was then summoned to attend them again in Arles, where he was reportedly honored by being made Privy Councillor and Physician in Ordinary to the King."

Despite this FACT Lemesurier asserts that Michel de Nostredame wasn't a physician... it's belivable that a queen, and mother too, puts his son in the hands of an "apothecary" raised at the level of Physician only "ad honorem" ? In the Bibliography is cited Robert Benazra and is known that he asserts that Michel de Nostredame finally was able to get the physician degree...

About the quatrain I.35 the Lemesurier says: "...with "d'or" simply the result of the compositor's mishearing of dehors ["outside," "separate"')...

"d'or" means only and simply "of gold", "the cage of gold" is simply the golden helm used by Henry II, that's an evident proof that the author is absolutely incompetent...

But I don't insist anymore, to me the PROOFS are enaf, and this is my last post. Any writer can affirm what he prefers, but on my point of wiev a official biography pubblished by world leading online service like Wikipedia has to present only facts supported by many official and reilable sources, so the "fact" that Nostradamus was only an apotechary has at least to be converted in "there are different opinions about the fact that he get the degree of physician..."

Thanks anyway for the time you dedicated to me

Regards

A demonstration of Nostradamus' prophetic powers. https://storify.com/deltoidmachine/how-we-won-the-james-randi-dollar-1-000-000-parano

Burn in Hell, Lemesurier

Not done: It is pretty clear that there is some disagreement about these changes. Please try to reach a consensus with the other editors before re-opening this edit request. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Not done per Older and ... well older. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: I've declined the request for a third opinion made at WP:3O because too many editors are already involved. Stfg (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Here I can do no more than suggest that the complainant actually reads the book that he purports to be criticising, rather than basing his arguments on a brief summary that, clearly, cannot do the whole argument justice. His suggestion that some statement be included that "there are different opinions about the fact that he get [sic] the degree of physician..." is already covered by the statement in the text that various correspondents and publishers continued to call Nostradamus 'doctor'. His suggestion that the royal family wouldn't have trusted a non-physician is somewhat vitiated by the fact that Rabelais was a royal physician even before he became a qualified doctor (royals, at the time, could do anything they liked!). If reading the book still fails to convince him, fine -- but this board is supposed to be about the article, not one of my books, and is supported by a whole range of reputable sources, and not just the one or two (not on the list) that he cares to select. It would be wise for him to read them all! See http://nostrawiki.blogspot.co.uk/ --PL (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

quien está actualizando su página Sr?

Ya llegaron demasiado lejos y ahora les toca dar cuenta Gloriamacia (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is the English version. Check the appropriate language in the LH margin? --PL (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

TROLL ALERT (Admin request)

Be warned -- a troll is on the loose with a very angry bee in his bonnet, attacking both the article and myself. Please block his efforts (see the attacks on me on the Discussion board) and re-protect the article. Until this has been done I am withdrawing my support for the article... --PL (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

External links to books

The Bibliography section contains external links to Google Books. This is sort of a bad idea for a couple reasons: Google Books is a commercial book seller even if these are "free" PD scans they have links to buy stuff; the quality of GB scans is generally poor; many/most of the books are available at non-profit scanning libraries such as Internet Archive which have higher quality scans; GB URLs often change or disappear, Internet Archive URLs are stable. -- GreenC 04:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed as requested. The list already contains our own versions.--PL (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)