Unitarian Dome (See comments on 'About this Book' page) has just posted that documented evidence exists for the alternate theory of where Michael Servetus was born and who his father is. I consider this to be big news in the Servetus Studies world. This debate has been going on for centuries primarily because of two different stories Michael told the courts in Vienne and Geneva. UD's quote, "What do we know? That he is miguel de Villanueva, born in Tudela, and that his father is Villanueva. Stated in inspected documents.". I have asked about this documentation and what it consists of. Although Unitarian Dome has repeatedly said he was leaving the discussion, I am hoping he will favor me with a return to explain this groundbreaking discovery. It would be exciting to have this evidence revealed on my website. As I said in my earlier post, "New research is always welcome. One of the greatest benefits of a big hit movie about Michael is that it will spur research of all kinds".
If someone has done the groundbreaking research necessary to solve this riddle of the ages, I hope we can see the results soon. That way other scholars can confirm the accuracy of the evidence or debunk it. But it has to be revealed to an eager world first. If we can't see it, we can't accept or reject it.
Where Michael was born does not affect my script. What he said about his past in Vienne and in Geneva is a matter of record and I won't change that in the scenes of the script. The script begins with Michael in Quintana's service (the second time) and follows him until his death. He speaks of missing his home and family without naming individuals. He is introduced to Charles V as Michael Servetus by Quintana. And, later in the story, he does admit to friends that he changed his name to Villenueve when he moved to Paris and adopted a secret identity. But these are minor things that can be changed easily if this newly announced discovery proves to be legitimate.
Supporting "The Passion of the Heretic", a narrative feature film script about the life of Michael Servetus (1511-2011).
Ok Mr Clayton, last one I promise this time. The big issue here is to know each document is not the same, those that require inspection and disclose of previous information are valid, those that are not, do not prove anything, nor they do today either. It is simple. You will not see any document that would require of previous information in which he is registered as Servetus, or in which he is related to Anton. there is that falsification of that notarial protocol of 1504. You can check all the primary sources in the life section here. The Registry in Paris, year 1537, the tagault note on the information he found, year 1538, the royal leters of naturalization, year 1548 and 1549, all documents from archives. All required previous information, nevermind what the old theory supporters say. www.michaelservetusresearch.com. You can check the falsification of the protocol of 1504, in the brief history of Servetism section, and who everyone happened to know him as Servetus, and you can check how Calvin lies on his letters, in the third one, on the information he provides in the previous one. You can check all through the explanation how michael talks about the Trinity EXACTLY the same way he talks about himself. Year 1553, Judgement of Vienne Isere, " and he answered he was not 'Servetus' but that he was happy to take the person of 'servetus' for arguing with Calvin , and answer him as 'Servetus'. He uses the term 'person' in all through the Dialogs of the Trinity, and the Errors of the Trinity for meaning , mode, appearance, mask,..., of a same entity. In Geneva, when he finally goes there, assuring to be Servetus, which is what Calvin wanted to hear, he got his objective, his friends were released, at least for some time. He sais in Geneva " and i Quote form the web, year 1553 :(There is a sentence in the third phase of the later judgement that is especially revealing on this aspect of the term “ person”, which Michael uses in this way all throughout the judgement:
ReplyDeleteI believe, after careful review, that I have misunderstood your statement. When you said, "Stated in inspected documents", I thought you meant documents you, or some other researcher, had inspected. I imagined from this that others could inspect them. After my review of your comments and the resources you directed me to view, I now believe you meant documents that French officials in the 1500s viewed that are no longer extant. There is, as I understand now, no document that shows Michael had a father named De Villanueva. Just the same as there is no document that shows Michael had a father named Serveto.
Delete“..But because this concept of “ person” is unknown to Calvin, and the whole matter depends on it, I will show here the points of the old doctors of the Church”.)
ReplyDeleteCan't anybody see what goes on? Calvin did not! As we read these lines, we feel soemthing is not right, the pieces of the puzzle fit, but not as one had imagined.. Anyway, it is a change of paradygm and very important one. And, there is a huge interest on it not to happen or not to be known. My advice, I think you should read the Brief history of Servetism section in that website. The life section is great, but long and has many data, the year 1511 is interesting too, it shows the two thesis and why the previous one does not match. The problem here is that if you expect to hear it is legitimate form the Michael Servetus Institute or from the Servetus International Society you should forget about it. They will not do that. My advice? read it all, slowly, I would even contact Gonzalez EcheverrÃa via his website, contact section I think. ( never tried). And ask him any doubt you wonder about. Some will claim this turns like a Da vinci Code, well, sometimes life is more fascinating and curious than what it looked like. Trust your gut. And just decide what to do when you are sure of it. You are right in one thing, everyone knows " if this would be true, this changes many aspects of Michael's life", not his theology, but yes his life. But again. you are reaching levels of scholarly that nobody has, who to ask about it? none. Thats it, you have the experts of Servetus International Society , you have the Experts of Michael Servetus Institute, and you have by himself but with international support Gonzalez Echeverria. They key is,.. relevance. What I mean is, you can start to feel this issue is biased. My advice, just read, relax, focus on how much you love servetus, and trust on what makes sense to you, and on what you feel true, after you have asked all the doubts. But do not be lead by number of opinions. But by quality. Best regards, sincerely , I can't keep this discussion. Good luck
( btw, I just noticed. I did not meant catalina conesa is not the mother, I really think she is, it was just an example on how one has to pay attention on which kind of documents are each, conesa is a key factor, and she fits perfectly, in both the old and new theory. But she is not in a official document being related to Michael, so what I mean is not that conesa is the mother, but the hugest documentary proof is , the one of his father, the unknown De Villanueva, in the registry of Paris.
DeleteSorry two notes, note that a big factor is Calvin's ignorance. He calls Michael, " portuguese" , it means he did not actually had access to his works, but that he was told about em, he knows his ideas, of that " Servetus" from basel, but he never saw the cover " Servetus alias Reves, from Aragon, Spanish". He didn't meet Michael, either, besides it is senseless, he assured it in 1556, once michael was already dead, that meeting he said Michael did not attend in paris. First the anonymous letters were after that meeting? What a curious thing? no, simply false, what happened was calvin exchanged letters and figured out that person that was writing back, the Doctor Miguel De Villanueva, had the same ideas, than that person, persued by the insquition, and he plused 2+2 and he got a 7. He is who got that idea of michael taking that pseudonym from the village where he was from, indeed Michael had some connexion , with that village, but by his step father, It is the worst pseudonym ever. for escaping, cause it is not a pseudonym, it is a name. But well, I am repeating things, Just read all you can, but just that, reflect on what makes sense, not on what it is said by many, goodluck.
ReplyDeleteYes, there is repetition. But that is ok. The more you say something the more likely someone will believe it. On thing I am very curious about, and mostly to see how you fit it into your hypothesis of Michael's last name is this. Why would he allow himself to be tried and killed under the name Servetus by Calvin? If he was De Villanueva by birth, why did he not insist on being called by his real name? If he was going to be martyred for his beliefs without recanting, would he not at the very least want to die as himself?
DeleteBecause , my dear friend, his own friends, the printer Arnoullet had been arrested, Frellon questioned, the technitians of the printshop of Arboullet arrested as well, and the distributers already condemned. He uses his name again " Servetus" as he promised in Vienne Isere " I will be happy to take the Person of Servetus for confronting Calvin and answer him as Servetus" ( Vienne Isere Judgemenet) He did exactly what Calvin wanted, Calvin did not get what happened, and actually believed it was his true name. ( no proofs he had, evidently) But yes. Michael went to defend everyone but himself. At the same time he uses the same romantic technique for talking as another "Person"= Per Sonare, "for sounding like", he redirects all the guilt towards himself. He does explicitly say that no printer, no friend, no distributor,.. none is guilty but him. THere is no need of saying who he really is, and he could always use that name " Servetus" for once again send the authorities against the Serveto alias Reves family. He was dying for theological aspects, and in those moments, he always chose to take the person of this mystical aspect of himself " Serveto" or "Servetus".
DeleteI hope I answered your " groundbreaking" evidences, I guess, accepted communications in societies of more than a thousand of historians, primary sources, of the registers, naturalizations, dioceses..., notarial protocols,( not falsified like the 1504 one, you can check it was althered as I said.) I can name some people that support it besides the ISHM, Manel de Fuentes Sagaz, Catalonia servetian, ( he also talked about this in the V centenary of Michael's birth, on his true origin and name, u can check in the news section I sent you, first page, in 2011, a pic with 3 people) What I mean is this, narrow subject, whoever is interested is mostly involved, the answer is in neutral huge organizations, with peer review systems, of historians, not in scholars from organizations devoted to Servetus, which are both small, and defending a doctrine. (Scientific is what I said, documents, that can be seen,Trust nobody- documents that wh are official, ( previous information issued by an institution or organism) That is scientific. That is why that is what we know. Do we know his mother is calalina conesa? no, cause there is no document. Do we know he had a father called Villanueva? yes, the registry required information in the University of Paris, and yes, Dean Tagault, an enemy, inspected the documents, and wrote about what they said. What he says is not bad for michael, which means it is true. Even with that correct information, ( hiim sharing the last name with the father) the dean tagault didnt get to kill him, which is what he wanted in 1538. He would have loved to find something wrong in his documents. He could not, they were real, fine, and true. A Spanish father, Michael born in Navarre, but staying in Zaragoza diocese. There is no a try of faking a navarre identity. It is true information, not specially convinient, and of course what matters, it was registered so cause he disclosed documents which were inspected. Well anyway, I am repeating the same things, No more messages, I know I keep saying the same thing over and over, no more. That is how one has to judge a historical document on proving something. It is how it works today too.ANd though the Sijena people repeat it athousand times, those naturalization, and University documents required disclose of documents. I am sorry for em. Good luck
ReplyDeleteYou never did disclose any groundbreaking documents that showed Michael's father was a real person. But I did realize that you never actually said there was one. It was my mistake and misunderstanding. When you now say "Do we know his mother is calalina conesa? no, cause there is no document." My question remains why doesn't the same statement apply to his father? Do we know Catalina even had a husband before Anton? No, because there is no document. The same lack of documents applies to any story about Michael's life.
DeleteI clearly said there is a difference. His father is referred " Hispanus progenitus" which does not match with the thesis of him trying to be from Navarre. And again, I already explained the notarial power of the official documents. You do not get a French naturalization without presenting documents, which were checked for more than a year. By the chamber des Comptes of France, the Parlament of Grenoble, and the Royal notaries. That is why there is much more proof of his father De Villanueva than of his mother. The name of the father had to be presented in official documents, specially from the diocese of Zaragoza, as he was from, if you check the University registry, which does not match again with the theory of him trying to say he is from Navarre. So yes, I did disclose the Royal document of French naturalization. Its information is a reflection of the documents Michael gave, the primary documents from Spain, would be good to have em, but they are not necessary for proving what it was already registered by all the institutions I listed, as any French Historian knows. Considering Gonzalez found documents of Juan Serveto, tracked books of Frellon, 10 new ones, and the documents of the Royal retinue, he showed that Hillar, ALcala and Baron were wrong, for the " Ghost Bible" of 1545 did exist, ( study done by baudrier, but it was Gonzalez who showed it graphically, and proved against consensus that Baudrier was right), or when he demonstrated against consensus again the Jewish Converso Heritage of Michael, notarial protocol of Mateo Solorzano, with number of Bundle, and page, and picture. Finally he found the French Royal document, none knew where it was, not even me, he tracked France castles, and found it in Grenoble. Did anyone else find documents in the last 50 years? none. He is as relentless as Servetus, it does not matter if it is the Petit Conseil of Geneve, Strasbourg, or the board of Trustees of the MSI. He is just 56, do not worry, he will find it all.
DeleteI emailed you twice, to the user "thomas clayton" of this blogger, if you do not get my emails you tell me and provide me your email address f you wish, mine is unitariandome@gmail.com. You can delete this message after noting it , thanks.
ReplyDeleteRest assured, google send me emails of everything that happens on my blog. I welcome your comments and have no reason to delete them.
Delete