I have reviewed Mr. Dome's comments to my last post, I appreciate his return to explain his position. I believe now that I have misunderstood his statement. When he said, "Stated in inspected documents", I thought he meant documents he, or some other researcher, had inspected. I imagined from this that others, even you and I, could inspect them. After my review of his comments and the resources he directed me to view, I now believe he meant documents that French officials in the 1500s inspected that are no longer extant. There is, as I now understand, 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.
The documents referred to my Mr. Dome , from my understanding, are documents viewed by registrars of the University of Paris when Michael matriculated there, Tagault, head of the medical school, when he was tried for teaching astrology, and the officials who conferred citizenship on him while he was living in Vienne.
If only any one of these officials would have saved a copy of the documents they viewed.
If only any one of these officials would have saved a copy of the documents they viewed.
I extend my apologies to Mr. Dome for misunderstanding his words and I appreciate him showing me sources to help me recognize my misunderstanding.
Not exactly like that. " now understand, 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." Directly no, but it shows there were documents , inspected ones which had that information. In the other hand, no inspected document had ever " Serveto" as his father. No, no copies of the original lets say document that relates both exists anymore, cause of the french Rebolution ounslaught. What happens is that Michael has an indirect proof that his father is De Villanueva, the review of Tagault of his inspected documents. ( which were issued by La Seo Cathedral of Zaragoza, as Gonzalez shows an example, he went throw many other registries and checked the documents they gave in the University, name of the father, name of the son and diocese. There is another example there too. All was inspected, the information Michael provided to the ubniversity was inspected, same than Saint Ignatius of Loyola, Saint Francis Xavier, or any of the 7 original Jesuits provided, as you can check in " The jesuits documents" section. Everyone was real, cause there were inspections, so, yes we can concluide that cause of the registry of the university of Paris, Michael is Michael de Villanueva, and indirectly , we can conclude, his father too, both cause nobody could register with a different name, of the father, and cause even his enemies accepted it. The basic point is inspection, Registry of paris, inspection, Naturalization, inspection. " Servetus"? no inspection. Official documents transfer their valid criteria to the next Official documents, means, that if the scribe wrote down, after the committe inspection that Michael is Michael de Villanueva, is cause there was a disclose of information which proves it. Same than if lets say that document from Zaragoza Cathedral was issued, it was cause there was a document from a church in tudela, as gonzalez showed in diff examples. So, if we would find the document of the La Seo cathedral whcih is what they saw in Paris, would we satsfied? Apparently no, if we apply same criteria one could say , we would need teh original document they saw there, the church of Tudela. It is not like that, we do not need your birth certificate for noting where you were born, as long as you have your identity card, or your library card ,( some have this info) The notarial, and legal power of official documents is transfered, By Inpsection, and written down as statement. For Michael is in ALL, his inspected registries as Michael De Villanueva , he is Michael de Villanueva, and not a fake name just for 3 books, and for accusing his father in Geneva, without documents. So yes, Groundbreaking events. As the more than a thousand historians from the ISHM, the Royal Accademy of Catalonia among others concluded. Definetly ground broken. Did u follow my advise and talk to more people? perhaps those who are answering you,(if it is the case, I just thought of it cause all the post dissapeared) are very involved in the MSI or the SIS, and try to tel you that an official document is not valid if we do not have access to the documents which were inspected. That is False. And any history student knows it. French documents required inspection, and any official document now, same than before, is a proof of the information they contain. As it is your national card, your driving licence, etc. So, new ground broken. And you can check it yourself, the proofs. Can u check any "servetus" proof? no, So there is a huge difference between the proofs of one and other side. Inspection and disclose of documents. And documentary proof is transferred, as in all your documents today.
ReplyDeletethat if we don't talk of the absurd theory of him hiding as a navarre guy, which is absurd, as one can check and irrealistic cause documents do not say that there, he never hides his father is Spanish( not from Navarre!) nor that he is living in zaragoza. So it is false, and then,we have no therory for saying he chooses that origin, and that so unconnvinient last name for escaping, the VERY NAME of the village entitled in the dangerous books. All is just absurd. As you can see. Both Calvin and Bainton and most servetians that have followed him, Alcala, Baron, etc and all the MSI and SIS have been relying on a conjeture, which started with Calvin, on his origin, and confusing his true common name in Spain ( in the 20 first more common names in Navarre in 1500) with his fake city of origin in the dangerous books. very common name too 62 in Spain, He just though that would feet, thought it is absurd for escaping. And then Bainton added the " navarre conjecture" which is not true, Spanish father, and Michael giving information on a spanish diocese? you could choose Pamplona, diocese of navarre and say your father was form Navarre, not from Spain, It is simply not true, Michael did not fake anything, he simply have information, not specially convinient, not all " navarre" data at all which would have been what anyone would have done. Well, that and that the notarial power of official documents is transfered one to the following, as I said, in your National card, or other kind of official document which had inspected documents, for very few things you have to present the birth certificate.At least me. It was like that before. And of course your birth certificate info was inspected, and was noted, after inspecting, that is why you do not need it anymore. Well,I repeat things, but do not be mistaken. Sense, lack of paradox, explanation of all his life, and documentary truth, says , all at once, that his true name is De Villanueva. What happens is many interests are around on trying to say the contrary. And if they did not try it with you they will. And if you keep going doubting they will get more and more tense. Cause you are starting to see the castle of cards have no documentary evidence.
ReplyDeleteGo ask some historians who have nothing to do with Servetus, ask them about how official documents work. And see what they answer. They will conclude it is evidence on his name, though, the name of the father is not know yet. In the other side all we know is " anton servetus is the father" but surprisingly, no official document ever, says that , not even in Geneva, cause it is stated he did not present documents cause he had " left em in vienne", how convinient for Michael. So yes, in the other theory we know all about teh " father" and it is mentioned in that document, without proofs. That is all. So does that mean if someone mentions that " I am the son of Pedro Servetus from zarazoza, doctor, " he is his son?? if we suppose there are Servetos in Zaragoza, which there were. So , no It means I am giving an information on someone I KNOW. Do I have to be the son? No. If I present official documents from the La Seo Cathedral of Zaragoza, and they are inspected by the Registry of Paris the royal chancellorship of France, and the Chambre des Comptes, and they say I am Miguel de Villanueva, does that mean I am Miguel de Villanueva? YEs. Groundbreaking evidence. And even more, we have indirect proof of what those documents none has now stated, Tagault read em. And they are not harmful for Michael. The enemy of Michael, tells his what was there. Not what he expected to find, nothing he could attack him with. Anyway, I repeated it many times. I was even surprised someone who has in the book comments by " alcaca, or Opi" would even doubt of what the public fiction on Servetus is. I guess they were surprised of that too, and they did tell you. As you noted they apparently even try to change perception in Wikipedia!. That is what they do, anything but researching. And if you dare doubt, they will attack you, as it happened with Gonzalez. Your decision.Servetus checked the primary documents in the Bible cause it was not exactly saying what it was thought. People did not like it, but he was right, and none stopped his work. Good luck.
ReplyDeleteJust a small detail, the headquarters of the International Society for the History of Medicine, is in Paris, and many of their historian members are French. They praised the procedure and success of the study of Gonzalez. Cause they do know all those official documents are actually proofs, cause they required disclose of documents. It is always wise to listen to the opinion of those who know of French history and historical procedures. The French, and specially the ISHM ones, which are historians but very scientific ones. Just that detail.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyway, the basic point is the army of Notaries that King Dauphin had, prepared to reject any naturalization, for the French State had to pay money, for it to be issued. That's why it took a year. No system had higher inspections than the Royal Chancellorship of France & Spain.
ReplyDeletePerhaps "Unitarian Dome" has a problem that we do have documents that there was a Antón Serveto living and working in Villanueva, but there are no documents that there was a "[no name provided] de Villanueva" in Tudela...
ReplyDeleteAnd forget about "the army of notaries". Their work was not to verify identities, but to check if the person who asked for naturalization was in good standing and had gold and possessions to pay for the naturalization tax (several witnesses were required to confirm that). Asking for some kind of ID was not part of the process in the 16th century. Respectable witnesses declaring in your support were more than enough.
Perhaps " Jaume" has a problem in understanding that the fact there are documents of Anton Servetus, in Villanueva, and of everyone else but " Michael Servetus" which does not show up at all, the exception, proves nothing on Michael. It would be the same that if a document woudl be found at Tudela with a person named " De Villanueva" for, none of them would be proved to be their father. So if the required proof is to have a document of someone, which is not proved to be related to someone, then it matches also, with the theory of Tudela, where Michael does not show up in Villanueva, for he was not his son.
DeleteWrong, It was verified by the chamber des comptes, and registered in the Parlament of Grenoble twice. Verbal processes were not enough, nor for the chancellorship, not for the Chamber des Comptes, and that is why, they had to Verify, the whole process. Other issue is that you did not study French Royal Law nor you know what you talk of,and apparently you did not read the Edicts of King Henry II which describe the whole process.
Another false statement there is no a " De Villanueva" in Tudela, you seem to say there are no. Manta de Tudela, amde in the XVII century, with names from the XVI century. http://michaelservetusresearch.com/ENGLISH/img/fotos/Diapositiva20.jpg
DeleteProtocol of 1510 Leonor de Villanueva http://michaelservetusresearch.com/ENGLISH/img/fotos/Diapositiva19.jpg
So there are many " De Villanuevas" in Tudela during those years. Just for letting you know.
Let us also remember de Trie's letter to his cousin: "He declares about his name, that he has disguised, because he calls himself Villeneufve, whereas his name is Servetus alias Reves, saying that he has taken his name from the village where he was born". There are many places called Villanueva (literally, "New Town"), both in Aragon, in Catalonia, in Navarre, and elsewhere. And there may be many people who say that they are "from Villanueva". It is good as a nickname. But "Serveto alias Reves" is not good as a nickname, because there was only ONE family that had this name: the Serveto family of Villanueva of Aragon, because an ancestor had married someone from the Reves family (well attested in documents) and descendants used both surnames jointly or alternately.
ReplyDeleteOther branches of the Serveto name did not use the Reves alias because they or their ancestors had not married anyone by that other name. Actually there are documents showing a "Serveto Bardaxí" in the town of Benasque. But no other "Serveto Reves" but those from Villanueva.
Therefore, if Miguel had used "Serveto Reves" as a nickname, it is a terrible thing to do, it is pointing at a specific family living in a specific place, making them suspects of being related to a heretic. Whereas using the "Villanueva" name, it is virtually impossible to locate the original family. It is a good nickname, because it protects you and it protects your true family from inquisitors.
So lets see if I understood your fascinating theory. He could have been named " Blanco", "perez", "Gonzalez", " ALain", " de Pierre" or anything, and he chose the name of the small village where the inquisition went to look for him, right? it is great for escaping. Second in the list after " Servetus" , which appeared in the books. So your theory is great, he chose the second most dangerous name he could think of, for escaping , from an endless list of names. De Villanueva, is a Horrible name, for a person who was thought by the inquisition to be form Villanueva de Sijena.
DeleteSecond: You talk of last names of the Serveto Villave , Valley and Huesca, so what?
Villanueva is a horrible name, for someone who was thought to be from Villanueva, and he could have chose any , ANY, of the other French and Spanish last names, And he did create a true danger for his family with that name " Servetus alias Reves, " with all the details, in purpose, and three times. ( Better said four), any time there was danger. He did not protect his family, he uses the name of the family of Villanueva, whenever there is danger, ( or in protestant lands, where everyone has a nickname around him) So, this is what happens, all the time there is no danger, he uses his name and is issued by the state, anytime there is danger, there is that name " Servetus alias Reves from Aragon Spanish", caring about his family and protecting his family, either in Haguenau, in the colphon of CHirstianismi Restitutio or , in Geneva, all in common, : Danger. Your reasoning is absurd. Inquisition in France knowing that the Spanish inquisition had looked for him in Villanueva and he chooses Villanueva, great, no Gonzalez, no Perez, no De Marcos, no Quevedo, no "Montaigne" no " Palmier " no " Toubaide", nor" Laplace" no " La Porte" , no, it had to be " De Villanueva". Such a crazy fabrication.
Then, why did Servetus use his true name to write his first heretical book? The answer is given at the beginning of his second book, "Dialogorum de Trinitate": "That which came forward in a barbarian, shameful, and incorrect way in the previous book, must be ascribed to my ignorance and the inaccuracy of printers". A few sentences befor, he had even retracted from what he had written in his first book. Young Servetus (he was about 21 or 23 years old) had candidly written a book on Christian religion, and he was dumbfounded that there was such an uproar, and therefore he wrote a second book, using his own name again, with the best intention of mending his poor expression and any misunderstandings. He naively thought that, given the proper arguments, most people would recognize the truth and dismiss the trinitarian dogma. He could not be more mistaken. Shortly afterwards, we find the very first document in which he calls himself "de Villeneufve" in France.
ReplyDeleteAh the innacuracy of Printers in, the Title? This is hillarious, and they commit the same mistake again in the second? Again against his family? This is gettign even better Jaume, I should read to you what he says in Christianismi Restitutio, and in Dialoges of the Trinity, right after signing as " Michael Servetus fron Aragon Spanish"? He talks of the names of God, he talks of being sons by adoption, he talks about " that his name was Jesus nobody ever questioned it. " He talks of the names, of the persons. The Holy Spirit is the Third person, " A person, a disposition, another aspect" Jesus takes the person of Chirst ( Errors of the Trinity), I am not Servetus but I take the Person of Servetus for confronting Calvin ( Michael de Villanueva, Vienne Isere Judgement) That is what goes on. He Signs, jeopardizes his family, and hiddenly says watch out with that name, will people ever doubt it is "his"? Not for 500 years. Exactly the same sentence, Michael de Villanueva, Name issued in any official document but in Geneva process, where anyone can read " Michael did not present documents", in which he always answers as "Servetus" from the very begining, righht after saying he would take the PERSON of Servetus for confronting Calvin, exactly the same expresion he uses for all his theology. Case Closed, thanks for your senseless tries though.
DeleteAgain.. I repeat: "Person is used in ancient texts oftenly for meaning, disposition, aspect, " And I can list, all the sentences of Errors of the Trinity where he talks of this concept which is the BASIC concept of all his modalist Theology!
Delete" JESUS TAKES THE PERSON OF CHRIST"
" and he said that though he was not 'Servetus' he would he happy to take the PERSON of 'Servetus' for confronting Calvin and answer him as 'Servetus'"
Sentences by Michael de Villanueva ( " Servetus"), If you keep with your senseless speech I will post here a link to every sentence where he uses this word, which later substitutes by " entity" and is preminent almost in any page of Errors of the Trinity. So lets stop being cynical, my theologian colleague. Your institute does not have either a reasoning for him to say he is from Tudela in Navarre, and match it with all the documents. Numbers do not add up. Anyway it has no sense to talk to you, you are here for politics of your own institution, with small knowledge of what u talk, and a lot of what happens. Bye
Again, do not be as foolish as Calvin, and have a look at the cover, No imprint mark nor mark of Printer nor city of Printing!. Everyone used a pseudonym for dangerous books. And he does again in 1532, and 1553, and in 1553 in Geneva, yes he was naive all the time. Until he was 42, he simply wants to let his "father" enjoy the benefits of, appearing in a heretical book, in a second heretical book after the first one was a hell, and a third one, after the effect it created was to look for the name of that who signed that book, for decades. Ah , and again, once condemned to die, and in a very risky situation, again, the naive "Servetus", thinks it is a good moment for telling those who persue him, where he comes from. Sorry I am allergic to nonsenses
DeleteInterestingly, another man used a nickname related to a town: John Calvin. He used the name "Charles d'Espeville" several times. "Espeville" aka Eppeville was a village from the chaplaincy of La Gésine which belonged to the Hangest family, Calvin's protectors. So both Calvin and Servetus used pseudonyms to conceal their identities when needed. Chance? I don't think so.
ReplyDelete? This is the best. First if you have read the letters you should know Michael birthplace does not show up anywhere. And Second, You have absurdly worked against your own theory. You have found a very good reason of how Calvin thought he was from Villanueva. We think others do what we do ourselves. Calvin used a name, referring to a place, he thought Michael did that too. Stupid it was, for his name does not show up in the letters, nor villanueva nor nothing!. Calvin makes a fabrication, based, on his own experience and slashed information. You do not get to know how much you have hurt your own theory with this, for it reveals, how Calvin applied his own criteria to the name of the person he was exchanging letters with , Michael de Villanueva. Data is data. No Names, Michael does nor write down any name and it can be checked in the letters. So, all we get is letters from a person named Michael de Villanueva, and a guy who replies letters , and signs then ( Calvin does write a name that pseudonym) and his pseudonym comes from a place he is related to , so , he applies what he does, to his senseless theory. Thanks for your support for the true identity of Michael Servetus, with one of the ideas that made Calvin think that that person who did not put any name in the letters and was Michael de Villanueva, was using a pseudonym from a place he was related to. And, please do not waste my time any more. For your own good I mean, and the five biographies you read.
DeleteCalvin, " blablablabla... and signs " Charles D'espeville""
Deletereply to Calvin by Michael de Villanueva " Blablablabla.. and signs as Nothing nor he mentions anything"
Calvin great math: Ah, I use a pseudonym for letters, and I am related to it, so this doctor must use his, for I believe he is actually Servetus, and I was told by spies that the inquisition looked for him in a Village called Villanueva.
(((Wrong Calvin, De Villanuevas are everywhere, same than villages called Villanueva, and your enemy is not retarded -like for choosing out of any possible last name , if he would wish to hide, the most dangerous after " Servetus", Servetus alias Reves" in his condition-he is perhaps the smartest and most brilliant man of his time. Perhaps calvin you shoudl have noted that there is no imprint mark nor mark of printer nor city in that book, and that perhaps, or.. just perhaps, ...the name that shows up is weighted too, before being used. ))) Not interested in going on with this discussion Jaume. It is not a matter of understanding, so has no sense to provide you any reasoning. Documents. Edicts of Henry II, study French Royal Law. Go to the archives, and check how law was. If you happen to know French and paleography, of course. If not, you can always talk of what you think things are, as apparently your president does all the time.