Talk:Nostradamus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nostradamus article.
Featured article star Nostradamus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Nostradamus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 31, 2006.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)


Contents

[edit] What if

Nostradom could do what it is many suspect he could do?

"Nostradamus claimed to base the predictions that he published on judicial astrology — the astrological assessment of the 'quality' of expected future developments —"

After all we "can" prove there are people in this world which can perform mysterious techniques which cannot, have not & will not be performed by anyone else.

Great article, very well done. It is however obvious it was authored by a skeptic. Lighttraveler 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is based throughout on the reputable sources listed. Up to you to decide, after studying them, whether they are 'skeptical' or merely factual. --PL 07:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Alas, there appears to be a movement afoot, especially in the US, to define people concerned with facts, (oddly dismissed as "reality-based thinkers"), as skeptics, cynics, enemies of freedom, etc. Of course, as a "reality-based thinker" meself, I note that this movement is best described as being driven by the axiom "the facts ruin a good story". •Jim62sch• 13:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prophecies 'by' Nostradamus ?

Under Literary Sources, about half way down, an assertion is made that the title "Les Propheties De M.Michael Nostradamus" is

   a title that, in French, as easily means "The Prophecies, BY M. Michel Nostradamus",

This is not correct, and most French speaking people will see this immediately as both false and dishonest. In a book title, de here unambiguously means of. Only par could possibly mean by in a book title. While ultimately the more general point being made is meritorious, de is most certainly not evidence of it, and you should not try to introduce a false claim to support it. It totally destroys the credibility of this otherwise excellent treatment, and which credibility is paramount in dealing with this particularly difficult subject matter.

This claim should be removed and the related passages simply rewritten to work without it.

Abunyip 23:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So, you read 16th century French, yes? Unlikely, yes? One cannot judge the writing style of 450 years ago by the writing style of today. •Jim62sch• 00:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The equivalence of 'de' and 'par' in this context (the former reflecting normal Latin use of the genitive for the author, in an age when Latin precedent was all) has been confirmed by at least one native French speaker here. Specialists commonly refer to Les Propheties, not Les Propheties de M. Michel Nostradamus, as the title. Meanwhile...
- Paraphrase de C. Galen, sus l'exortation de Menodote... Traduict de Latin en Francoys... (Nostradamus, 1557) – i.e. Nostradamus's translation of the paraphase by Galen of Menodotus
- Letre de Maistre Michel Nostradamus... (Nostradamus, 1566)
- Elegie de P. de Ronsard Vandomois, sur les troubles d'Amboise... (1562)
- Palinodies de Pierre de Ronsard... (1563)
In publications of the time, 'par' is normally reserved either for the explicit expression 'Composée par', or for the publisher (where it is presumably the equivalent of the Latin per).
Even modern French has:
- Phèdre de Racine
- Horace de Corneille
- Le bourgeois gentilhomme de Molière
- Les misérables de Victor Hugo
- La peste de Camus
- Le mariage de Figaro de Mozart... and so on. --PL 08:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraphs I mentioned do not make any reference to OLD French noted above. The generalisation that "de" can mean "par" simply does not ring true in MODERN French. A small qualification (eg "...in OLD French...") would greatly help restore confidence to naive readers such as myself. Or do you expect everyone reading this to understand OLD French ? Judging from the above, evidently not. (Sorry if I sound abrupt, but I really want this peice to work for you. Its a great expose of Dr No.) :-) Abunyip 03:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But I have just demonstrated to you (via no less than six examples) that, where authorship is concerned, de and par are equivalent in modern French, too! Is this not enough for you? If not, I will re-phrase slightly, but I really don't see your point. --PL 08:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Nor do I see the point. Oh, BTW, Nosty wrote in Middle French, not Old French, a language that had ceased to be used 200 years earlier. •Jim62sch• 12:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I added a wiki link. •Jim62sch• 12:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
True, but it isn't necessary to specify Middle, rather than Modern French. It still applies today. --PL 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

From your comments PL, it seems that use of de is at best, ambiguous in each of modern, middle or old french. However, use of par is unambiguous. I'm just trying to point out that while de may suggest par (or by), use of de isn't sufficient to be used as evidence for actually meaning or intending par (or by). Logically, it simply does not follow that it is in any way erronerous to refer to the "Prophecies OF Nostradamus", or that it is in any way equally or more correct to refer to the "Prophecies BY Nostradamus". I understand what you're trying to say, that one COULD understand de to mean "Prophecies BY Nostradamus", but thats as far as you can take it. You cannot draw any conclusion based on this ambiguity, except that Dr No. was perhaps being deliberately ambiguous so as to apparently claim as his own the Prohecies of others. I think this whole issue has to do with this apparent weakness in French that does not exist in English. In English "of" can never mean "by". In the 6 examples above the English translations would be: - Racine's Phèdre - Corneille's Horace - Molière's Le bourgeois gentilhomme - Victor Hugo's Les misérables - Camus's La peste - Mozart's Le mariage de Figaro ... and finally, - Nostradamus' Prophecies.

In other words, English drops the of altogether to keep the same ambiguous context of the french de. Does that help ? Abunyip 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The 'of' was never there to drop. You are right that neither is necessarily more accurate than the other, though. That's why the article specifically says 'as easily means'. Meanwhile, if Les misérables has to be rendered as 'Victor Hugo's Les misérables ', then Les Propheties should presumably be rendered as 'Nostradamus' Les Propheties '. Or at least, that is at least as valid as Nostradamus' Propheties. Which, of course, is where we came in... --PL 10:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
English drops the of? Precisely what do you think the genitive apostrophe s is there for?
I really need to ask one question: what level of French do you claim? •Jim62sch• 00:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm all done here. I dont intend to start a flame. I have a doctorate in Computer Science and I understand logic. I have high school French but it matters not one jot, because this discussion is about logic not French. To respond in full to Jim would be repeating myself. However FYI, the genetive apostrophe in Nostradamus' Prophecies does not imply either by or of. It is ambiguous and can mean anything, any word you like, that associates the ownership of "Prophecies" to "Nostradamus". That you can find a candidate word creating that association, such as by, does not mean that by was intended. To draw that conclusion is to remove the ambiguity. Oh, there I go... repeating myself already... Have a nice day. Abunyip 07:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have stated the case correctly. Either is possible, just as the article originally suggested. --PL 10:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok have it your way.

     a title that, in French, as easily means "The Prophecies, by M. Michel Nostradamus", 
     which is precisely what they were

But "which is precisely what they were" is hardly suggesting that either is possible. Its claiming that they were IN FACT Prophecies BY Nostradamus. However, the article is an excellent peice of work as it is. Even if you agreed with me, it would be only a minor change. I can see the point is in any case, rather pedantic. Thank you for making your valuable research available on Wikipedia, and the opportunity to discuss it with you. Very much appreciated. Abunyip 11:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Is "Nostradamus" a single-name pseudonym ?

The category "People known by single-name pseudonyms" seems obscure to me. It is explained as : "People who are known primarily by their first name."

Nostradamus isn't a first name, I think ?

Marvoir 17:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You're correct. Prince, (before he became "the-artist-formerly-known-as-Prince, and after he reverted back), Madonna, Bono (notice these people are all in music?), Ichiro, would probably count (although none of those are true pseudonyms except Bono), but while Nosty is primarily known by his last name only, that clearly doesn't count. •Jim62sch• 22:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upright

I saw a tv show that said he was found dead, by his servant, standing up and was also laid to rest standing up for that same reason. The show was on the history channel or The Learning Channel. (moved from article revision as of 16:24, 29 November 2006 by User:64.198.46.28.

Sure you did! It's an old, old story. But if you care to read the article, under 'Alternative Views', you will see that there is absolutely no contemporary evidence for this, nor is anything of the kind suggested in his Will. In fact it was disgraceful of the Channel to peddle it (I acted as adviser, but they failed to consult me on this one). His secretary allegedly found him dead 'between the bed and bench' (nothing about 'standing up'). His present tomb, certainly, is firmly horizontal (see photo in article). It's possible that the 'standing up' idea originally came from the fact that one surviving section of the chapel where he was originally buried contains a small vertical alcove a bit like a built-in wardrobe, and the owners of the restaurant that now incorporates it like to claim that 'that was his tomb'. Wouldn't you?! The History Channel is currently planning another one, and their producers have promised me that this time it really will be factual. I'll believe it when I see it! ;) --PL 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/s/Talk%7ENostradamus_d5db.html"