XXXIII
Near a large bridge of spacious plains,
the great lion by Cesarean forces:
will strike down out of the harsh city,
For fear the doors will close before him.
Original
Pres d'un grand pont de plaine spatieuse,
Le grand lion par forces Cesarees:
Fera abbattre hors cit rigoreuse,
Par effrai portes lui seront reseres.
The first verse locates us geographically in a place “near a great bridge of spacious plains”, i.e., firstly it is not a small bridge and secondly, it is located on a spacious plain or where there is a great expanse for the plains. Let’s remember that Plains is a Geographic area with little or no variation in altitude or relief.
In the second verse Nostradamus is already hinting: first, “the great lion”, word of arpitan origin (lyron), a type of dialect which is very common in some areas in France and which means lion. Therefore, Nostradamus already inserts us in someone of French origin.
The great lion can mean a monarch or at least someone who represents a great empire, and when he says “by cesarean forces” the prophet is implying that such lion was a lion through those forces. The word “Cesarean” comes from Cesar, and indicates a title used by Roman emperors; however, it could also refer to Julius Caesar, a Roman consul who never became emperor or king; therefore, this corresponds to the period of the Roman Republic.
The next verse indicates that “it will strike down out of the harsh city”; this verse is clarifying. “Will strike down” indicates that he will tear that “harsh city” down, and this harsh city is the one that complies or enforces regulations with excessive accuracy, and the only city that does so in historical terms is Rome. But obviously, it is the Rome of the Popes. Then we have a Frenchman who leads an army that besieges the Rome of the Popes, near a great bridge in spacious plains.
Finally, the last verse shows us that “For fear the doors will close before him”; the inhabitants of that harsh city fear an assault and a siege, and close their doors. Also, the concept “strike down” refers to destroying something, therefore basically we are facing a French Imperial army led by a great lion or commander who tries to besiege the city of Rome and force down its walls or doors and burst in, because these have been closed before him.
Now let’s review history and see if there is an event that fully represents what Nostradamus prophecies.
We are not facing the Italian forces that burst in Rome within the so called context of Italian Unification because Nostradamus refers to a French army. We are facing the forces of French General Berthier, which on February 10th 1798 besieged the city of Rome and captured Pope Pius VI on February 20th. Curious information: if you observe the map of Rome from the 1800’s, available in Internet, you will see it had a bridge called Big Bridge.
Now, that event occurred when Napoleon was consul. “The great lion” is no less than the French general Louis Alexandre Berthier, Napoleon Bonaparte’s lieutenant and loyal general. And “By cesarean forces” means by forces from the French Republic or Command. And so it happened; the French forces besieged the city of Rome, and the Pope ordered closing the main doors. But the French managed to assault the city and capture Pius VI. Then came the looting.
One curious piece of information: quatrain VI from this Century refers to the capture of Pope Pius VI. Therefore, it precedes this quatrain (XXXV - VI). Anyway, I place these data so that when we finish the first century we will be able to make an adequate numerological order, or historical order, of the first century.
XXXIV
The bird of prey flying to the window,
Before the conflict honors the French:
One will accept it as good, one as ambiguous, sinister,
The weak part will be a good omen.
Original
L'oiseau de proie volant la semestre,
Avant conflict faict aux Franois pareure:
L'un bon prendra l'un ambigue sinistre,
La partie foible tiendra par bon augure.
The concept “proie” translates better as prey. We already noted that in quatrain XXIV from Century I, the concept is related with combat or air force aircraft.
We know that an aircraft does not fly to the window. That is more than obvious. Therefore, we immediately deduct that the concept “window” is an assignation. Let’s see something interesting:
Some editions of the prophecies from 1557 – 1588 – 1605- 1611 – 1660 contain the concept “senestre” and “fenestre”. The first case derives in the current French word “semestre”, which is the one that appears and is translated as semester, i.e., every six months or six months. Therefore, the word Semester that appears is too current for Nostradamus. On the other hand, the concept “fenestre” derives in the current French word “Fenêtre”, which is translated as window. Therefore, the Spanish translation takes that word and translates it as window.
Now, a “bird of prey” flies to the window”: this idea infers that it is a warrior bird, and this becomes even clearer when the prophet says “before the conflict”. This warrior bird goes to the French’s window, therefore it is not a French bird, and pays them homage. In this case we can change the concept “window” for opening.
Obviously, the French are also part of the conflict. When he says “window”, which is an opening in the wall of a building or house, he is referring to the home of the French in a symbolic sense; in even more detail, we can say the French government.
Within this house or government building or the house of the French there are two perceptions of this visit made by the warrior bird or bird of prey:
The first one, according to Nostradamus, believes in the good offices of this bird of prey and will accept it, but what does it accept, I wonder? In sum, Nostradamus infers "Honor" within the allegiance.
The other part suggests that it also accepts it, but suspiciously, in the sense that it will find it somewhat sinister and ambiguous. We can say that the term "ambiguous" relates with someone who through his words or conduct veils or does not define his attitudes clearly.
Then he says that "the weak part (we don’t know which) will have as good omen", i.e., the weak party, or one of these two perceptions, even though both have accepted the honors of that bird of prey, will be the one that finally is right because it will be the right one.
Let’s analyze: historically, we are in France and within France we are in Paris, headquarters of the French government.
An interesting fact: we are on the verge of a conflict where the French are involved. We are faced with a duality of perceptions of the French before the "bird of prey." This duality makes one (the first) accept it because of its goodness, and the other (the second) also accepts it, but considers it ambiguous and sinister, that by the way, is defined as malicious, wicked.
Now let’s go to history: it is the year 1938 and to be more precise, December 6th. The German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop visits Paris. ("The bird of prey flying to the window.") The French - German declaration was signed, which was a political agreement, a sort of nonaggression pact that in fact erased the Soviet – French mutual assistance treaty from 1935, which after Munich the Government of France considered a document without validity. ("Before the conflict honors the French") Without a doubt, the conflict started on September 1, 1939.
Undoubtedly, the two antagonisms that Nostradamus infers, one which "... will accept it as good” and the other... “as ambiguous, sinister" are none other than Ministers Pierre Etienne Flandin and Édouard Daladier. Almost certainly, the first one gladly accepted the French – German declaration since he later supported the rise to power of Pétain, who appointed him Minister of Foreign Affairs (1940), being relieved (1941) by Admiral Darlan, due to his antagonism with Abetz, the German ambassador.
And the famous Marshal Petain was the one who collaborated with Nazi Germany, creating a puppet government called Vichy France in antagonism to Charles de Gaulle. The other one, Édouard Daladier, as representative of France in the Munich Conference (1938) and minister of war of France, was carried away by the British "appeasement" policy when he accepted Hitler’s claims over Czechoslovakia; aware of his mistake, he did not repeat it when Hitler invaded Poland, declaring war on Germany on that precise moment (1939). He knew about the Nazi claims.
The verse "The weak part shall be a good omen" refers to Daladier’s weakness before the German ambush, a mistake for which he would pay dearly because his government fell soon after. However, he knew that Germany would attack. And that was his omen. The quatrain has been clarified.
XXXV
The young lion will surpass the old one,
In military field by singular duel:
In golden cage its eyes will pierce,
Two collisions, one afterwards dies a cruel death.
Original
Le lion jeune le vieux surmontera,
En champ bellique par singulier duelle:
Dans caige d'or les yeux lui crevera,
Deux classes une, puis mourir, mort cruelle.
This quatrain is the one that gave fame to the prophet and is certainly well interpreted. Here Nostradamus infers the figure of a lion, and a lion is obviously a king or a monarch, or at best, someone connected to a monarchy. When he infers "military field" and then in the same verse adds "by a singular duel", Nostradamus is pointing not to a war or conflict but to a tournament or sport, which is enhanced with the idea "in golden cage its eyes will pierce."
If it pierces the eyes and these are in a golden cage, it means that it is a sort of special helmet. It is now understood that it is a golden cage, and if it pierces an eye, it means that the old lion's head is protected. Then we know that it will die in a sport with swords or spears, but in both cases the contenders should be protected, and in this case, the head. The concept "gold" enhances the status of king.
When he infers "two games" he means that they encountered on two occasions, or rather they touched weapons in two occasions, and in the second one, the event announced by Nostradamus occurs. After that wound the old lion dies, in a cruel way. This previous expression symbolizes a long agony.
Let’s see if there is any truth in the story: it tells us that Henry II of France died on July 10, 1559, four years before the Nostradamus’ first Century was published. During a tournament next to the hotel Tournelles, against Gabriel, Earl of Montgomery, held to mark the wedding of his daughter Elizabeth with Philip II of Spain, he was seriously wounded in one eye by a spear. That spear splintered and pierced his protection, and the eye. Medical efforts were unsuccessful to save his life. Even the care of his surgeon, Ambroise Paré. And after a long agony, he died.
The reviewed quatrain in the whole context is properly interpreted. Nostradamus is so assertive in this quatrain that he even warns him that he will be pierced through one eye, and it so happened; and it also pierced the protective mesh or helmet, the "golden cage" (he was a king, hence the concept “gold”) "in a military field (A tournament) by a singular duel", and so it happened.
Some scholars see something else behind this quatrain, which together with the famous letters to his son assume that Nostradamus has left a sort of hidden code. This hypothesis has no basis whatsoever. If his work had had such elements, after more than 400 years they would have already been decoded. Not even astrologers and esoteric science teachers have been able to do it, because there is no such thing. And that is the fundamental mistake that been made over the years. The second mistake is that the Centuries are designed for the minds of men whose sense of wonder has been lost, or rather, whose capacity for imagery is on the same level with technology. For example, a man of the seventeenth or eighteenth century would never have imagined an aircraft carrier or the discovery of DNA. Therefore, the quatrains have remained hidden. Until now.
Hence, this work is historically thorough, because apparently many forget that history has gone by for more than 400 years after the publication of the Centuries. And that oversight causes that many people still think that most of the quatrains are still in the future, and therefore there is nothing that could even subtly be discussed, except of course, if it were an imagery debate. Everything is in sight. Everything is in history. Or almost everything. The quatrain has already been clarified, but now it has been duly reviewed.
XXXVI
Late the Monarchy will regret
Not having killed its adversary:
But will end much more consenting,
Than all that its blood by death will undo.
Original
Tard la monarque se viendra repentir
De n'avoir mis mort son adversaire:
Mais viendra bien plus hault consentir,
Que tout son song par mort fera deffaire.
Technically, this quatrain is the continuation of the previous one. Historically, let’s remember that Gabriel, Earl of Montgomery, even though the king had exonerated him from all blame and acquitted him of any condemnation regarding his death, the king's wife, Catherine de Medici, who had yet not played any role, never stopped chasing Montgomery. Banished from the court the day after the King's death, he had to flee to England where he joined the Protestant Reformation and would become, on his return to France, one of their strongest supporters and one of the most capable commanders of Admiral Gaspar de Coligny, championing the Protestant faction in religious wars. ("Late the monarchy will regret not having killed its adversary,") because France was Catholic.
But let us read more about this character: in May 1562, during the first religious war, he took the city of Bourges and his troops looted it. He faced Marshal Matignon in Normandy and was, during the third religious war (1569-1570), one of the great captains of the Protestant faction in the campaigns of Guyenne, Périgord, Quercy and Bearn. They put a price on his head and the bounty hunters chased him to England, where Catherine de Medicis repeatedly demanded his extradition. Queen Elizabeth I said "Tell the queen mother that I will not be the executioner of France."
Before proceeding there are some details of the quatrain’s structure that are important to note:
We already know the usual colon that Nostradamus puts at the end of the second verse. The concept "consent" can be changed to bear, endure, tolerate. The term "blood" in the context potentially points to two aspects: 1) blood by death 2) blood - offspring.
It is obvious that if Gabriel, Earl of Montgomery, dies, he can not undo or dismantle that death, and by logic it points, also, to his offspring ("his blood"). But let’s go to history:
Gabriel surrendered on May 27 to Matignon’s marshal. He was taken to Paris where he was beheaded at the Place de la Grève on June 26th 1574. Once above the scaffold he was informed of a royal edict that confiscated his property and deprived his children of their titles, and he told the guards: "Tell my children that if they are not able to recover what I have been deprived of, I curse them from my grave". ("But will end much more consenting than all that his blood by death will undo"). The quatrain has been clarified.
