§ 633.Louis-Napoleon in the beginning, in the middle and in the end

19th century:
§633. Louis-Napoleon in the beginning, in the middle and in the end (1848-1870): VIII-43.

On account of the fall of the two bastard things,
The nephew by blood shall occupy the reign.
Into the vehicle shall be the strokes of darts,
The nephew for fear shall fold the ensign.

(Par le decide de deux choses bastars
Nepveu du sang occupera le regne
Dedans lectoyre seront les cops de darts
Nepveu par peur pleira l'enseigne.)

Keys to the reading:
Par (vers 1& 4): Preposition for a cause, a reason (Brunot & Bruneau);

Le decide (the fall): from decido, tomber, déchoir (to fall, to decline) (Torné-Chavigny, 1860, p.76);

The two bastard things: The July monarchy (1830.8.9-1848.2.24) and the republican government following it (1848.2.24-1848.12.20), « the word bastard being interpreted often as government of fact and without legitimacy» (Torné-Chavigny, id.). In fact, of 8 uses of the word in the Prophecies, 5 refer to such a ruler or government (III-73, III-80, V-15, VIII-43 and IX-19), and 3 are in the proper sense (V-45, VIII-24 and VIII-50);

The nephew by blood: Louis-Napoleon, a genuine nephew of the emperor Napoleon Ist, elected President of the Republic of France on the 20th of December, 1848;

lectoyre: Etymologically the same as lictiere (litière) (litter) (§383, I-3: for the royal litter, a symbol of Louis XVI or of the Bourbon dynasty): « litière, Sänfte (litter), from Gallorom. lectaria to Lat. lectarius (belonging to the rest) » (Gamillscheg). The orthography "lectoire" is more literal than lictiere: : Lat. lectus (rest, bed) (Walde) + oire (suffix for a place) (cf. Vignois, 1910, p.239). A neologism of Nostradamus for an imperial vehicle of Napoleon III, as a modern substitute for a litter (litière);

Cops: = coups (blows, strokes). Another example of cop for coup, cf. VIII-41;

Darts: It having been bombs thrown and flown to the victims like a dart as to the arms striking Napoleon III in 1858;

Pleira: = pliera, by the attraction of a Romance verb: pleiar (Clébert, 2003, p.889);

The nephew by blood shall occupy the reign: « The formation of the constitution having been at length concluded, it was finally adopted, on the 4th of November, by a majority of 737 to thirty votes. By the constitution thus adopted, the form of government in France was declared to be republican, the electors being chosen by universal suffrage, and the president in the same way. The right of the working classes to employment was negatived, it being declared, however, that the government, so far as its resources went, was to furnish labour to the unemployed. The punishment of death was abolished in purely political offences. Slavery was to be abolished in every part of the French dominions. The right of association and public meeting was guaranteed; voting, whether for tne representatives or the president, was to be by ballot; the representatives once chosen might be re-elected any number of times. The president required to be a French citizen, of at least thirty years of age, and one who had not lost on any occasion his right of citizenship. He was to be elected for four years, and a simple majority was to determine the election. The president was re-eligible after having served the first four years; he was to reside in the palace of the assembly, and receive a salary of six himdred thousand francs a year. All the ministers of state were to be appointed by the president, who also was to command the armed force, declare peace and war, conduct negotiations with foreign powers, and generally exercise all the powers of sovereignty, with the exception of appointing the judges of the supreme courts in Paris, who were to be named by the assembly, and to hold their offices for life. Disguised under the form of a republic, this constitution was in reality monarchical, for the president was invested with all the substantial power of sovereignty; and as he was capable of being re-elected, his tenure of office might be prolonged for an indefinite period. Though there were several candidates for the high office, yet it was soon apparent that the suffrage would really come to be divided between two - General Cavaignac and Prince Louis Napoleon.» (HH, XIII, p.104-105)

« Both Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte and General Cavaignac had exceptional advantages: the first, that of a great name; the second, that of the immense resources with which executive power is necessarily invested. But in addition to the advantage of his name, Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte belonged to no party whatsoever. Isolated between the army of socialism and the "party of order,'' he offered in his very person a sort of compromise. His attitude, his remoteness from the stormy debates of the chamber rendered his conduct conformable with his situation. In his seclusion at Auteuil, he had held conferences with men of all parties. All could place some of their hopes on him, without his binding himself to any single one. He belonged at the same time to the democracy, on account of the worship of the proletariat for the name of Napoleon; to socialism, by a few of his pamphlets; and to the party of order by the religious and military tendencies of his policy: and this is what no one in those times of blindness perceived. In the election of December 10th, 1,448,302 votes were returned for General Cavaignac, whilst Louis Napoleon Bonaparte obtained 5,534,520; Ledru-Rollin had 371,434 suffrages, Raspail 36,964, and Lamartine, who had once been simultaneously elected by ten departments, received a dole of 17,914 votes. The election of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte greatly surpised many zealous minds; and seriously disturbed the dreamers. Like carrion crows wheeling round to seek their route and filling the air with their cries, they were seen raising their heads and scenting the wind, seeking the meaning of an event they could not comprehend. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte appeared upon the scene like Fortinbras at the end of Hamlet. Brutal in fact, his election cut the knot of a thousand intrigues. The people, by their vote, had expressed the idea of a great popular dictatorship which put an end to the quarrels of the citizens, to the subtlety of utopians, to party rancour, and guarded them against the endlessly recurring crises engendered by the parliamentary regime amongst nations with whom sentiment dominates reason, action and discussion. The poll also expressed an ardent desire for unity. The proletariat knows well that what takes place in the republic of barristers and landlords concerns it but little. It was by analogous reasons that Cæsar triumphed in Rome. Having nothing to gain from party struggles, knowing by experience that for them the only result is lack of work, imprisonment, exile, or death, the people always aspire to rise above them. Louis Bonaparte, in his electoral address, was careful to give expression to this thought: "Let us be men of the country," he said, "not men of a party!" Louis Napoleon Bonaparte was proclaimed president of the republic on December 20th at four o'clock, by the president of the national assembly.» (HH, XIII, p.105-107)

Into the vehicle shall be the strokes of darts: « Orsini's attempt to kill the Emperor. The evening of the 14th of January, 1858, at the moment of the arrival of the emperor and empress at the opera, three explosions were heard. Three bombs had been thrown at the emperor's carriage. Cries of grief and horror resounded on all sides. The bursting of the projectiles had injured more than one hundred and forty persons, some of whom were mortally wounded. The carriage of the emperor was broken and one of the horses killed. A terrible anxiety filled the opera house as the royal pair entered their box; both had escaped injury. The police arrested four Italians. It was seen immediately that three of them were but instruments; the fourth, Orsini, was remarquable in every way. His father had perished in 1831 in the insurrection against the pope in which Napoleon III and his elder brother had taken part. The son since his childhood had taken part in all the national Italian conspiracies. In its form the attempt on Napoleon III recalled that of Fieschi under Louis Philippe; but in reality there was a wide gulf between the Corsican bandit of 1835 and the Roman conspirator of 1858. In spite of the horror of a crime which took aim at its object across so many indifferent and unknown victims, Orsini inspired in all those who saw and heard him during his trial an interest which it was impossible to withstand. This man had been actuated solely by an impersonal passion; he was under the spell of a misdirected patriotism. He had chosen as his counsel Jules Favre, who defended him as he wished to be defended, by endeavouring to save, not his head, but his memory as far as it could be saved. A profound impression was made on the audience when Jules Favre, by permission of the emperor, read aloud a letter addressed to the latter by Orsini. The criminal did not ask mercy for himself; he asked freedom for his unhappy country, ''the constant object of all his affections." He did not go so far as to demand that the blood of Frenchmen should be shed for the Italians, but only that France should interdict the support of Austria by Germany - "in the struggles which are perhaps soon to begin. I adjure your majesty,'' he wrote, " to restore to Italy the independence which her children lost in 1849 by the fault of the French themselves (by the war of Rome). Let not your majesty repulse the last wish of a patriot on the steps of the scaffold!" » (HH, XIII, p.132-133)

« Orsini and his accomplices were condemned to death on the 26th of February. Orsini thanked the emperor for having authorised the publication of his letter. His second letter was not less moving than the first. He formally condemned political assassination and disavowed "the fatal aberration of mind" whicn had led him to prepare his crime. He exhorted his compatriots to employ only their abnegation, their devotion, their union, their virtue to deliver their country. He himself offered his blood in expiation to the victims of the 14th of January. The question of the commutation of the penalty was energetically agitated by those about the emperor. Napoleon would have judged such mercy politic if so many victims had not been struck by the instruments of death intended for his own person. Orsini was executed on the 14th of March, with one of his accomplices. He died without display as without weakness, crying, " Vive l'Italie! Vive la France!" His death was soon to bring forth happy results to Italy. Before that his crime had had deplorable ones for France. In 1801 the first consul had made the affair of the infernal machine prepared by some royalists a pretext for proscribing a host of republicans. Napoleon III imitated and surpassed his uncle.» (HH, XIII, p.133).

The nephew for fear shall fold the ensign: « [September 1870] The surrender of Napoleon III. At five o'clock all was ended. The emperor sent the following letter to the king of Prussia by one of his aides-de-camp:

Monsieur mon frère:

Not having succeeded in dying in the midst of my troops, nothing remains for me but to deliver my sword into your majesty's hands.

The king replied:

While I regret the circumstances in which we meet, I accept your majesty's sword and beg you to be so good as to name one of your officers furnished with full powers to make terms for the capitulation of the army which has fought so bravely under your command. On my side, I have named General von Moltke for this purpose.

Napoleon III could surrender his person - he was no longer a general; it was not his work to surrender the army. Another was to be entrusted with this mission. Wimpffen, with despair at his heart, was obliged to submit to it. He went over to the enemy's headquarters, to the castle of Bellevue, near Donchery. For three long hours Wimpffen struggled in vain to obtain some modification of the conditions which Moltke had fixed. This cold and inflexible calculator, who had reduced war to mathematical formulas, was as incapable of generosity as of anger. He had decided that the entire army, with arms and baggage, should be prisoners.» (HH, XIII, p.160)

As to the case of Orsini, cf. §644, V-8; §645, V-9; §646, V-10.

As to the Franco-Prussian war, cf. §682(X-30), §683(III-13), §687(V-30), §688(III-69), §689(I-64), §690(VI-33), §691(II-26), §692(V-100), §693(V-81) and §695(VI-34).

Many interpreters tried to set up the word lectoyre as an enigma and then to solve it in superfluous ways. For example, « Charles Nicoullaud [1914, p.201], whose study of Nostradamus appeared in 1914, has the brilliant notion of treating the whole phrase 'dedans Lectoyre' as an anagram and transforming it into 'Sedan le decroyt', that is 'Sedan deposes him'. But this is altogether too clever. That Nostradamus used anagrams to conceal proper names is admitted by every one who has studied the subject, but there is obviously no limit to what you can do in this way with phrases and sentences. Charles A. Ward [1891, p.295f.] made the interesting discovery that Blaew's [Blaeuw's] map, printed in Amsterdam in 1620, shows the meadowland on the opposite side of the Meuse from Sedan inscribed with the names of Grand Torcy and Petit Torcy. Now Lectoyre is the precise anagram, letter for letter, of Le Torcey. Even if this be nothing but a coincidence it is certainly a very happy one.» (Laver, 1942, p.213)

But, the defeat of Napoleon III in Sedan was such a unique one during his whole reign as not to demand a mention of the name of Sedan, in addition to the exposition of the fact of defeat, to mark it. Only a natural perception of the verse 3 associated with one of the most distinct events in his reign in 1858 suffices for its complete interpretation.
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2012. All rights reserved.

Koji Nihei Daijyo

Author:Koji Nihei Daijyo
We have covered 143 quatrains (§588-§730) concerning the World Events in the 19th century after Napoleonic ages [1821-1900] in the Prophecies of Nostradamus, and 219 in the 20th [1901-2000] (§731-§949).

Latest journals