At no point did Michel de Nostredame ever rule that any one of his quatrains must project only one prophetic vision. (See the Nostradamus Quatrain I 30 A TALE OF TWO VISIONS)

VI 65 is a fairly difficult quatrain to interpret in a reasonable way, here’s ‘future history’ without historicity and possibly applicable to more than one occurrence. Critics who dwell on Nostredame’s skillful ability to achieve predictive pluraformity as if that were a vice may overlook that with little or no change to their logic it could be praised by them as a substantial virtue.

1557 Lyon Du Rosne

 Gris & bureau, demie ouuerte guerre,
De nuict seront assaillis & pillés:
Le bureau prins passera par ferre,
Son templeouert deux au plastre grillés.

 Two persons or groups, one perhaps hidden, outwit a nation into going to war without any declaration of war? Or the revolutionary whisking of royals from their palace to a secure place of imprisonment where two grills are now open?

 Translation 1:
A grey one and an official, an opening-and-a-half for war,
By night they will be assaulted and pillaged:
Cold-blooded and rigorous these will pass through the Palace,
Two sets of grills opened at the Temple’s location.

Two who harbour smouldering resentments duel on horse ‘at tourney’? Is this really a grudge fight?

 Translation 2A:
Hidden under wraps, a half-open war,
In gloom they will be at assault and pillage:
The chief officer will pass by the shoe’d horse/penetrate through the helmet,
OR The officer will pass by the ‘horse-shoe’ first time,
Two at their (blasted!) battle-positions, visors down, one has his sanctuary opened.

 Translation 2B:
One not a spring chicken the other an officer, an opening-and-a-half for Mars,
With a low level of natural light they will assail along tracks:
The senior officer will send shock through the armour,
OR The official will pass through the armour first time,
His sanctuary opened/revealed, both at their (bloody!) look-out positions.
His temple opened twice/over both eyes and ointment through the visor.

Line 1. Today ‘gris’ means an intermediary shade between black and white or perhaps an unclear apparition. It could help form a double adjective alike to ‘grey-green’ or ‘smokey grey’ in English. But in OF it is often found to describe a grizzled beard. Like the ambiguous ‘cream’ in English, it could act almost as if it were a classifier for another noun (‘a cream team’) such as in ‘eminence grise’ which is virtually a two-word noun for ‘secret governance’.

 OF ‘bureau’ was literally a coarse and thick homespun woollen cloth. It’s metonymic associations were to put covers on furniture or to carpet a table used for counting in commerce or administration or else the location of such a table. (Today we would say ‘the office’ and use expressions like ‘on the table’ to mean a shewn hand and ‘on the carpet’ for bringing someone to account.) OF ‘demie’ could be one half but was used also to infer ‘beyond the norm’, as in the casual English expression ‘and a half’.

 Line 2, OF ‘pillés’ means pillaged. The sonically similar (in their opening sounds, more so in a noisy situation like a printshop) OF ‘pistes’ were tracks imprinted by horses hoofs or armies (1559, ‘Commentaires/Nouveau collection de mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de France’, de Rabutin) although in Italianate discourse the OF verb ‘piller’ acquired a meaning more like ‘to endure patiently’.

 Line 3, OF ‘prins’ could be from ‘prendre’, to take (with about the same contextual variations as it has in English) or, intended as a version of OF ‘princeps’ or OF ‘prim’, it was the adjective premier or prime.

 OF ‘ferre’ is either ‘férir’, to reach for a weapon, or ‘ferrer’ to gild metals or to pierce with a weapon or to wear a metal helmet or else the work of a farrier (‘ferrer la mule’ in ‘Grand Parangon’ by Nicolas de Troyes, 1535) or it is OF ‘ferré’ which most means to be devoid of emotion, otherwise woefully misguided triumphalism. OF ‘ferme’, rigorous, could also be expressed as ‘ferré’ sometimes. OF ‘la ferre’ is a horse-shoe. There are street-plans known as ‘the horse-shoe’ or it could simply describe a territorial borderline. Horse-shoes are usually, but not always, open-ended like the crescent moon of Artemis or the head-dress of Hathor. Some people posted these horns-upward over their thresholds while others reversed them like the the arch of spilled blood at the Judaen Passover or the halo image behind the head of a painted saint. A horse-shoe on a door was ever a protective talisman and to pass unwanted through that doorway was to breach some other’s sanctuary.

 OF ‘passerra’ is from ‘passer’ and ‘passera par’ or ‘passera sur’ can mean a perturbation, even a shock running through the state.

 Line 4, OF ‘temple’ is a sanctuary, not always of worship. It can mean many different kinds of important or esoteric buildings or palaces, including underground, such as the ‘Temple de Thémis’ or Palace of Justice or the ‘temple d’amour’, a brothel, or else a Templar lodge. It might also mean the human body as the temple of the soul. Figuratively, it could mean a suit of armour. This would be a strong image. The only way to overcome a full suit of knight’s armour was to entrap its wearer or to penetrate through its weakest point.

 OF ‘ouert/overt’ is not the same spelling as ‘ouuerte/ouverte’ in Line 1, making it difficult to deal with. Possibly it is the OF adjective ‘ouvert’, meaning publicly or openly, or the OF verb ‘ouvrir’ to open, reveal, start, train, deploy or deviate. Other translation candidates include ‘houer’ (scraping the ground) ‘hoir’ (heir) ‘ouïr’ (hear, witness, follow orders).

 The penultimate word, OF ‘plastre’, is not clear. The common translation for Line 4 is plaster, the white matter derived from gypsum, or else – following OF ‘paster’ – a medicinal preparation for external use. But it could just be OF ‘plaistre’, a building location, or it might be akin to, or a regional version of, OF ‘phistre/fischtre’ which was an interjection and acted as an emphasizer or a verbal exclamation mark, like ‘blasted!’ or ‘bloody!’ would in English.

 An odd word often slips into some Nostradamus researcher’s translations here by their understanding the printed OF ‘grillés’ as having intended OF ‘glisser’, to slip-slide, in its stead. These leaps of imagination are suspect but not necessarily worthless. If intuitive, they should prove heuristically useful to some degree along the path to full revelation. OF ‘grillés’ is not necessarily a plural noun and possibly could be the verb to injure torture or kill by fire or to bake or roast food or to make the grate. As well as kitchen equipment the noun ‘grille’ could suggests an ‘ouverture’, like ‘la ferre’, whereas ‘graille’ would suggest a ‘couverture’. Definitionally the ‘grille’ is a see-through thing, an assemblage of slatted bars. A pill-box or operation command bunker is like a ‘grille’, simultaneously a defensive barrier and an observation post. A visor would certainly fit to this.


This Nostradamus Quatrain VI 65 is fairly difficult to crack, quite possibly because it was meant to apply to more than one future occurrence. Reading multiple events into one brief prophetic writing is not at all the same thing as the babbling ‘Barnum effect’. This is based almost entirely upon a lecturer called Forer who once tricked his students into imposing their own view of their own personalities onto a phonily contrived sunsign horoscope so as to ‘prove’ a point about all our pre-inclinations to (non-scientific) belief. A predilection to believe scientific jargon, on the other hand, comfortably shelters under the aegis of necessary and sufficient social validation.

 Social arrangements proscribed by an elite require a taboo or else a sotto voce approach to expressing certain informations and Astrology has been pilloried in this respect to the point that the ‘ignorant and profane’ feel satisfied to assume their personal superiority over astrologers in a way that they would never dare with the loftier astronomers. Yet these are merely those astrologers who have since satisfied themselves that humans are the mental masters of matter and beyond the invisible influence of the planets. Gravity? Science cannot define gravity other than in a mystical way as being a spooky ‘power’ that somehow laps up people stepping into gaps and can lever light mysteriously. (I dismiss the Einstein-derived description of a mass denting a mattress as that substitute and imaginary explanation uses the self-same spooky Power of Down attraction to persuade us of its absence.)

 The USA’s recent NDAA and Monsanto Protection Act (cf the “too big to fail” banking ethos and the granting of retrospective immunities from prosecution) is proof enough among many current proofs that the West under its American purchase has entered into the AGE OF UN-REASON.

 To face any fact with its counter-fact would in the scientific process require knowledge-based data on all of the variables. This longest course has been abandoned during research corner-cutting by ‘Big Pharma’ and ‘Big Chemical’ who now hold extremely high financial positions in their global gains groups but a lower moral-ethical status in the everyday world than homeopathy or household gardening. In fact, science itself has faltered since finally confessing that it grasps nothing at all about 95% or more of the observed materials permeating the Universe. It would help if craft and judgement were not used for self-serving selections of methodologies, data and evidence. I guess that ‘science’ is laid up in Heaven whilst being merely aspired to here on Earth, so not truly deserving of the domain that many interested parties have sunk their millions into securing for World Science, mainly for its disturbing collective persuasiveness. (A new type of Religion?) Isn’t it time that we accepted that science is for the step-by-step finding-out and re-defining of natural information and not a pursuit of Truth? (To which end one of our elusive ‘enlightened ones’ may yet donate a de-mystifying ‘box of tools’ à propos each one of us accelerating our individual way through that Narrow Gate by our own inner path.)