This is the cover of the book I wrote about Michael Servetus, doctor, theologian, and martyr during the middle of the sixteenth century. The book contains my original feature film script The Passion of the Heretic, along with supplemental material on Servetus: chronology, biography, reading scripts, and filmmakers who portray history on screen. There is a link to buy the book to your upper right.
For I think you are interested in Servetus you have to read a book that is becoming very important in USA, " Love for truth. Life and Work of Michael Servetus"( E amor a la verdad). We got the spanish edition in our faculty at Boston. It is written by the same researcher that proved his jewish converso origin, Gonzalez Echeverria, who I knew personally when he proved the new works and true identity of Michael Servetus in 2011, at Barcelona International Congress. It gives proof of 10 additional works, of Michael. This data has been verified by the famous International Society for the History of Medicine. The most important aspeck though, it is that he does recover the "human" Servetus. None had done it before. Also proofs that his identity is not Servetus. It is " Miguel de Villanueva". Servetus is a name created for defending his theological ideas. And used by calvin for relating him to those works. So it means he was not born at Sijena, he was born at tudela. There is no document that relates Anton Servetus to Michael. It is " assumed". But it is not true. He lived there, with his step father Anton Servetus. There is a Royal Document of Naturalization , issued by Henry II of France, that requires previous legal documentation of spain, saying he is Michel de Villeneuve. So, basically, there are no proofs his name was Servetus. He just says that in the geneva judgemnet. But again, D'artigny and it is written " he did not present any document, they were all in vienne" So. he assured he was Servetus. He used the name of his theological works ( 3 out of 8 that we have signed) for confronting Calvin. This is very interesting because it did affect his theology. the orphan, the lost father, the trinity. He applies the same trinity concepts of person to his own life. You would also be interested in his friends, the editors and printers of Lyon, that helped him and wrote a Materia Medica book, in his name, hidden, in 1554. This can be checked in any of the book of abstracts Dr Gonzalez Echeverria attended in the International Society for the History of Medicine. We are present in 50 countries, and we have 12 national delegations, and a peer review system.
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate this post, it sounds a lot like Unitarian Dome who posts about an hour later.
DeleteWhen I search for " The Love for truth. Life and work of Michael Servetus(El amor a la verdad. Vida y obra de Miguel Servet)" the only reference I find is back to this post. That is surprising for a book that is becoming "very important in USA". What faculty in Boston has the Spanish copy?
It is frustrating to get more information about this information without open academic inquiry.
Eight months later and I still cannot find Boston Clifford Center, or a copy of the book he/she claims is so very important in the USA. Unitarian Dome has told me he doesn't know BCC, but I think he could benefit from finding him in a faculty in Boston, since they have similar views. I must conclude this is a 'hit and run' message. Or a troll.
DeleteWe just saw the documents that the scholar Gonzalez Echeverria has recovered, the impressive royal document of French naturalization, inspected by the Chamber of Compte for more than half a year, and how the parliament of France issued it, with our own eyes. Such a solid proof issued by a King inspected by two impressive organisms such as The Chamber of Finances and the Royal Chancellery of France. right from the official documents. We had not seen any before, just the "infanzon" of Anton Servetus, but as you say that proves nothing on the paternity. You are right. Certainly that scholar has changed the concept we had of Servetus. It turns out his personality is much more interesting, and that he wrote much more. Michael de Villeneuve is much more than what we had been told. Now all has sense. Why he goes to Geneva, why he mentions " Tudela" in his Geography of Ptolomei, how he knows so much of Astrology , mathematics, and more, for tudela was a jewish converso haven. And how it is clear he was not called "servetus" at Spain. When the inquisitors look for him, his people dont know him by that name. So, Michel de Villeneuve is a much more interesting and amazing character than what we knew so far. I agree with you, Gonzalez Echeverria wrote at the same time an amazing work of 2 decades of research in the archives(lost documents he recovered,and the proof of the 10 new non signed works, and last but not least the confirmation of the authorship of the manuscript of Paris, via the manuscript of the Complutense, written by the same hand, according to paleographers. Also the proof of his jewish converso origin in a document , as you said, that he he demonstrated in 1999, for the 1st time ), a whole explanation of Michael life, ( which had no sense before), and a touching, enriched, and very human biography of this great character of the history of mankind.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why this comment attributes to me things I have never said or written. "Unitarian Dome", as you can see by clicking on the name-link above the comment, has a rather limited profile page.
ReplyDeleteAs to the content of the post, I welcome more information on Servetus. The things of which UD speaks can be seen in more detail at:
http://www.scoop.it/t/discovered-new-works-and-true-identity-of-michael-servetus-proofs?page=4
and
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Servetus
I have no wish to take a side in the Villenueva de Sijena versus Tudela birthplace investigation. As far as the name, I'd like to learn more about the evidence he was named Villeneuve in Spain. Information I have seen indicates that the call for his arrest by the Inquisition in Aragon (after he published the Errors on the Trinity) named his as Serveto. Servetus was the latinized name the took in Toulouse, as was popular with students. So he I agree he was not called Servetus in Spain.
Dear Mr. Clayton, this "Unitarian Dome" is one of a few staunch promoters of Dr. González Echevarría and his fringe research. Echeverría claims that Servetus was actually a Jew, that his true name was Miguel de Villanueva, born in Tudela of Navarre, and "Servetus" was only a pseudonym to write his most controversial books. Of course these fanboys do not care about documental proofs that his real name was Michael Servetus from the village of Villanueva in Aragon (hence his fake name during his self-imposed exile in France), including the acts of the Geneva trial, and his own letters written in prison and signed as "Michael Servetus", because these and other documents break their solid mental schemes and beliefs. These people will not attend to any reason given against their outrageous theories.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the French document of naturalisation was not even discovered by Echeverría, as "Unitarian Dome" claims. It was first published by F. Rude in a famous anthology of essays published in the Netherlands in 1953. Just a hint of how far these people may go in support of their own particular thesis.
ReplyDeletethat scholar has passed communications in peer reviewed word wide organizations. All the letters, in prison, all the documents in geneva, on him, assume his name is " Servetus". The document of Geneva, which I checked, says " he did not present any document", So, either the letters from Vienne Isere, the letters of Calvin, with the evident lie in the third letter by the way, the act in Geneva, so what? none of this required any previous information. It has no worth in proving the identity of someone today, it did not have it before. Rude did not transcribe all, and that document was never shown graphically. It was lost for more than 50 years. And it was that scholar who found it, in Grenoble. So, there is no document which would require previous documentation in which it is stated , he is Servetus. Basically, he never got to prove it. He got to prove he was De Villanueva, before the highest organisms of France, with documents. What you forgot to say is that scholar was expelled from the Michael Servetus Institute, cause he thought differently. He was expelled from the organization that says to defend tolerance. That is what I think of the MSI, it is a small organization, radical, and patriotic, and expels the different. Just a hint on how far these people may go in support their own particular thesis, and interests. There is those who follow a free and responsible search for truth and meaning, as Gonzalez checking any primary source for figuring out what the truth is, and there are others who "know" the "truth" from the very moment they are told so, and they are granted a seat in a member of trustees. Radical Intolerance. Michael would throw up.Bye
ReplyDeleteJust go to the police now, and give all the letters you want, and utter to be someone Jaume, that says a lot about who you are? no, that says who you say you are, or others say you are. Legally? no worth. In Past the same. But i have no intention of talking to a person from an intolerant institution. You can keep saying nonsenses such as " documentary proof", when you have no documents which require previous disclose of written information. But it is ok, we all now see what goes on. Keep going, expel or burn, what a shame. y the way any right opinion is in the beginning a fringe one. And there is always people who try to avoid them ( even if they are passed by the ISHM, the American society for the history of Pharmacy,and many other "tinny" institutions. My God, what a fraud and what a shame for anyone who loves Servetus, the MSI just went too far. Bye forever,
ReplyDeleteI just noticed, "these people will not attend to any reason". It is your opinion, I cannot prove it otherwise. But I can say this : The MSI will not attend any reason, and will REMOVE any different voice from their members list. Bye
ReplyDeleteThank you all for honoring me with your comments on this topic. I entreat everyone to be civil. I do not understand name calling to be civil.
ReplyDeleteAs there seems to be no disagreement on the first name of the person we all study, I will call him Michael.
That said, I have some questions. What name for Michael is on the decree for arrest of him by the Spanish Inquisition? What name for Michael is on the document from Toulouse naming the students who strayed from the accepted church dogma? I ask because I see no reason for Michael to be changing or hiding his identity at this time of his life. Are there any existing records from Charles's reign that list Michael as being a clerk for Quintanna? What name did Oecolampadius and other reformers use for him before he wrote Trinitatus and Dialogorum. In this time, he would also not have been trying to hide his true identity, he thought he would be a hero for saving Christianity.
And another question. Who are you Unitarian Dome? Your profile page is very sparse. There is nothing about you on there except you follow my blog (which I appreciate). For someone who is concerned with the identity of someone dead for hundreds of years, you seem to be overly concerned with hiding your own identity. If you click and look at the profile of Jaume and myself, there is information on our background and credentials.
ReplyDeleteBoston Clifford Center, who are you? Clicking on your name shows the profile of "Academic Bastion" with ties to the "Academic Center" in Los Angeles. Is this "Academic Center" the one at Union Institute and University? Why was it necessary to post as Boston Clifford Center if you are Academic Bastion? Why hide your identity at all? I know it is popular to have a cute name to go by, like a CB radio handle, but why have so little information in your profile about who you actually are? I must say, it would lend credibility to anything you post here if readers could see your are a real live human.
ReplyDeleteAnd you are right, there is no reason for him not to be called De Villanueva there, as Gonzalez defends. That is what logic indicates, and it agrees with the fact, the inquisition looked for him there or any data, but they found nothing at all. Perhaps cause he was not registered as " Serveto/Servetus" at all, but as Michel de Villeneuve/Miguel de Villanueva.
ReplyDelete"Oecolampadios" ( true name Heussgen), "Bucer"(has a way complex name I don't remember now, you can figure it out for sure in some books, also pseudonym), "Capito"( true name Köptel) and "Melachthon"(true name Schwartzerdt) refer to him as "Servetus/Serveto"s, and it is the first time we hear that name written down in a record. It was very typical to change one's name during Renaissance, in a romantic way. Yes all these people call him Serveto/Servetus, but again, it proves nothing. It proves he was calling himself that there, same they were called all those names there too. In protestant lands and in theological works he is " Servetus/Serveto". There were no " danger" reasons for hiding his name, there was fashion romantic tradition of doing it ( Erasmus.. etc, the list is huge,). There is that data people do not talk much of, before writing any dangerous work, he travelled with the imperial retinue, and two high nobles of the retinue, which was not that huge at all, and in which they travelled for a long time, to Bologna etc, as you know..., well after he publishes his works as " Serveto/Servetus" the Spanish inquisition asks them if they know who " Serveto from Aragon alias Reves" is and they have no idea. One of these two, has the Title " For the Issues of Aragon"...... very weird uh?.
So, who knew that Michael during his visit ( few years) to basel posed as " Servetus"? Quintana, they were very close. And, the family of Sijena, after the risky works, they did know who sent the risk against them. So just these two knew the truth, an also the printers of Lyon, so sorry after the death of " Servetus". And very possibly his beloved Pierre Palmier, Archbishop. So, people who stayed with him for a long time,and I mean decades. He just faked during a period of time of( lets say 2 years in basel... ) and some monthes in Geneva. During all his life, clearly in France of course (20 years), and before Basel, .... no data, but absolutely all indicates his name was not " Serveto" there either.
ReplyDeleteIt also explains why he chose such a "smart " pseudonym "Michel de Villenueve". he did not change is first name, he did refer the place he was in the last name, and he said he was from a converso city, such as Tudela, even after all the converso persecutions. He did not do it either in order to pose as from Navarre, for the diocese he refers, Zaragoza is from Spain, so. Why did he do all this?? Cause it was a true name. Not for hiding. For hiding he chose " Servetus", name of his stepfather, and just two people could connect these two names, ( The inquisition had no ways of figuring out who " Servetus" was, and connect him to his stay in Toulouse as " De Villanueva") Anton Servetus -his family of Villanueva, and Quintana.
Record of Quintana Michael in Spain, No. non existent.
But indirectly in France there are documents inspected by the highest organisms of France. In the other hand, every document in which it is said he is " Serveto or Servetus", is a declaration of him with no documents, or a name in a book, or an opinion of other person.
Well, I will not keep this discussion here. If you need anything, you send me a message. Good luck, and I am glad we both love Michael.
Uhm I sent three messages, if you just got two, you tell me. L.B.
ReplyDeleteHi Tom, how interesting. I have ordered a book tonight, if it comes directly from you, will you please autograph it for me? I can hardly wait to read it! Give my love to Marilyn and save some for yourself!
ReplyDeleteHelen, Thank your for your book purchase, and the additional ones that followed. When you finish it, you can come back here and post what you thought about it. Or you can email me and I'll post it on the home page. Thanks again to a dear friend.
DeleteThere is indeed a record from Quintana about Michael. It is surprising that such a basic fact is ignored by "Unitarian Dome". The document is nuncio Aleandre Sangal's letter that refers to the recent publication of "De Trinitatis Erroribus" by a "Mihel Serveto alias Dereves" (sic). Aleandre says in this letter that "His Majesty's confessor [Quintana] says he knows him, a 26-year-old man, of immense ingenuity, and a great sophist."
ReplyDeleteIf Michael's name was "Miguel de Villanueva", from Tudela in the kingdom of Navarre, and if he was known by this name and birth before pursuing his career as an antitrinitarian heretic, Quintana would not have recognized him as the author of "De Trinitatis Erroribus", because the author of the book was "Michael Servetus alias Reves ab Aragonia Hispanum". There is no hint in Aleandre's letter that he was shown a picture, so Quintana must have recognized him by his name only. This letter proves that Michael Servetus was Michael Servetus before he wrote his first theological book, and the whole theory about using Servetus as a pseudonym to write heretical books is debunked.
As for the documents for the naturalisation process, it is a common mistake to believe that procedures in the 16th century were like those in our times, i.e. with identity cards, birth registers, etc. No, it was all about prestige and fame, and having good friends who supported your claim. Giving naturalisation was a high privilege given by the King himself, and this privilege was given only to those who had to be protected politically, or who had a prestige where he lived. And "Villeneuve" said he was from Navarre (a kingdom who had a long-time connection with France), and he was the bishop's physician. And it was always good to have a bishop on your side to ask for the privilege of naturalisation (which, among other things, gave you the right to make a will). I recommend reading Peter Sahlins' book, "Unnaturally French:
ReplyDeleteForeign Citizens in the Old Regime and After" (Cornell U. Press, 2004) for a better understanding of how naturalisation really worked in the Ancient Régime.
First As a confesor, the statements by QUintana shows he is trying to protect,Michael is always registered as " De Villanueva", so , the only way to find him is to say he is actually " De Villanueva." by saying he is truly " Servetus", he sends the inquisition to a lost track, and so, they will not find how close he was to him, and so he will keep being the confersor. Quintana knew what was going on, and traveled with him. And he would of course know him cause he was from Huesca too, same than Anton Servetus, and cause it was very possible he had something to do with Michael working for him. As for naturalization. It is false what you just said. You should study Royal French Law, as I did in 1983. It is taught. Every application was reviewed by the Chamber des Chomptes, and by the Royal Chancellorship, and all of them required disclose of documents. You can either contact the Chamber des comptes. It still works. ( dep of Isére) or you can either study a little bit more before saying false stuff. Michael invented a " false identity form Navarre", but with a Spanish father? he could have easily chosen a diocese of Pamplona, just like Loyola or Francis Xavier, and also, he could have chosen a Navarre father. if he was faking. He was not, that is why he said the truth, that he was born in Navarre(diocese of Tarazona, in the Archdiocese of Zaragoza), from the diocese of Zaragoza, (not Archdiocese!), and that his father was Spanish, those were the documents, inspected by the Dean Jean Tagault, by the University of Paris. SO first, he would have chosen another city, not tudela, for example pamplona, with a navarre diocese, second, he could have not changed it in the false documents, third, he would have chosen a Navarre father. Anyway. As you can study in the University of Paris, French Royal Law, it uses to be first semester. Anyway I can see it is not a problem of understanding.but in believing. I will not debate here.
ReplyDeleteIt is curious that you mention a book by an american on French naturalizations, specially cause we have like 20 French ones just in the faculties of Paris, 15 in Grenoble, and 12 in Lyon. Perhaps you can't speak French, nor you studied History, and you just googled " French Naturalization", my god. Bye
ReplyDeleteAh yes, I was asked " any Spanish document Quintana-Michael". no. that one is German. The one that shows that Quintana, born in Sariñena( most certain option according to Aragon historians), 8 miles from Villanueva de Sijena, actually knew the Anton Servetus family, and what was going on, and how to protect Michael and himself, lying on his name, age and diocese. If he would have said " Lerida diocese" it would have led the inquisition to the real Servetus family. By saying " Huesca", he gives a diocese with no data on the Servetus family, registered in Lerida. Very smart move by Quintana. Wrong name, wrong year, wrong place to look for him. Anyway, I will not debate anymore, I know what goes on. No more replies. Good luck with the book, Clayton.
ReplyDeleteHi "Unitarian Dome", unlike you do, I will make no comments about your education or intelligence. Your writings show it for themselves. BTW why you do not quote any of those 47 books? Perhaps because you do not know what to quote?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you say that Quintana was protecting Michael. Was he protecting him by admitting that he knew who he was? That is hardly a way of protecting someone.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to protect someone is to say: "No, I do not know anyone by that name. I had a secretary of the same age, but his name was Villanueva and he came from Navarre, not Aragon. This heretic must be someone else." By pointing out that he had met Servetus before, he was opening a way to find him.
BTW, perhaps you are not aware of Spanish geography, but the diocese of Huesca lies next to Lérida, so if inquiries started in Huesca, it was not difficult to find the Servetus family in nearby Villanueva, particularly because Antón Serveto was the notary of the Royal Monastery of Sigena, not exactly a small and forgotten place.
Fortunately for Quintana, he was under the protection of the emperor himself, and died a couple of years laters after becoming the abbot of Montearagón, or he could have had some unpleasant meeting with the Spanish Inquisition to "learn" more about his acquaintance. And the Inquisition could be very convincing when trying to obtain information.
I am sorry that you and other defenders of the Echeverría theory are so blinded by distorted facts that you are unable to study facts impartially. But I have found out again and again that any rational conversation with you will only end in your stubborn refusal to accept even the slightest questioning of your theory. It reminds me of those Christians who insist in Biblical inerrancy.
BTW are you aware that the nickname "Revés" refers to a family living in Villanueva? At some point in the 15th century, the Serveto family (coming from the village of the same name in the Aragonese Pyrenees) married someone from the Revés family in Villanueva (probably a daughter). The Revés family name was so popular in Villanueva that, rather than being lost in the next generations, it became the nickname for the Servetus family itself. Therefore "Servetus alias Revés" was very clearly pointing at a real family in a real place, and it was not a pseudonym or an invented name to be unnoticed. On the contrary, it was a track that was easy to follow. And they were found. That's why the Servetus family paid for an altar to be built at the church of Villanueva, to be forgiven for their relative's "sins".
ReplyDeleteDear sir, perhaps you are a translator, and you have no idea on history. You do not worth my time. I do now where the dioceses are. The anthar does not name michael at all, and proves nothing, but that the family was sorry, his mother and half brother. Second, a diocese is a diocese nevermind how close, third, from a heresy not even the emperor could protect you, and , of course it is clearly intended and easy to locate, the result is quintana does not get it it to remain hidden, and the Servetus family is found, but, from the requiremenets of Medina del Campo, not from Quintana's instructons, check the dates. 4rth. You are so unprepared it does not worth my time to debate. People need a preparation, when you can read greek, latin, hebrew, and french, or when you study anything else thn history of religions, well you come back to me. Otherwise it simply is like a Obama Romney debate. On French books, perhaps you can go to any,library in almost any small town, and ask for naturalization books, you should know by now how rigurious and discrete French historians are on his history. Perhaps one of the most tidy and rigurious ever. Bye, Do not expect a reply.You deliveratelly hide half of the work by Servetus to our Unitarian community. That is unforgiveable. Period. As I said, you are not prepapred for debating on History, and your intentions are nothing but keeping a birthplace at all costs. You deliverately hid half of the work of Michael to our comunities. This is the last time I speak with you.
ReplyDeleteIf you check my profile you will see that I have a Master's degree in History of Religions from the Autonomous University of Barcelona. I have written two books and several articles, and given quite a few lectures, on Michael Servetus and his times both in Spain and in other countries including Britain and the Netherlands. So your concern is answered.
DeleteOn the other hand, nobody knows who you are or what your qualifications are. Please note the beam in your eye.
Really, was it even two years in History of religions? ( maybe it was me who mentioned it before you?) Ah, you are Spanish I see, well, we had here your ex-president Aznar giving lectures near here & in Georgetown. And presented some books.He is actually prepared, right. My god. bye.
DeleteAh one last thing for you. THe fact he does not say that about : "No, I do not know anyone by that name. I had a secretary of the same age, but his name was Villanueva and he came from Navarre, not Aragon. This heretic must be someone else." Can this work? yes for some time. But what if the inquisition gets to prove his true name is actually De Villanueva?? Example, Michael is captured, and they see his name De Villanueva. Ok, now you have again the strong relation to Quintana, and he is introuble again. Quintana is way smart, he separates those two identites, by supporting a fiction. It is way better than saying " I dont know anyone". By that he creates a lost track, separates the heretic from Michael, and diverts the attention. ANyway, that's it. Last time I speak here to you. Resonsible search for truth, not " check biographies" and believe em. It is you who is the church. Never accepting any change. But instead of conviction, you just have interest. And you hid stuff, and in vain. No more words to you.
ReplyDeleteIf Anton Serveto was not Michael's father, who was? What do we know of him; name, occupation, family, etc? If there is a claim that one man is not his father, surely there must be a repalcement.
ReplyDeleteIt is too bad Unitarian Dome has left before being able to explain this gap in the story.
For my part, none of this affects my script, I am staying with the account of Michael's life that is in the source books I have. For all the assurance that Boston Clifford gives above about "For I think you are interested in Servetus you have to read a book that is becoming very important in USA, 'Love for truth. Life and Work of Michael Servetus'", I have been unable to find a way to acquire a copy of that book in English in the USA (I assume it must be in English. I can promise you a book will not become important in the USA if it is not in English). I am not even sure it is available in Spanish, since, on Echeverría's own website, there is no way to purchase the book. I could understand (as my own book is sold out) that there are reasons the book may be unavailable, but there is no explanation for this on the website.
I'm going to miss Unitarian Dome's frequent comments. And I still want to know who Boston Clifford Center is. Speak up friend, you will not be harmed.
Dear Thomas, it can be bought in Spain (I have a copy). AFAIK perhaps it could be bought in the USA in its Spanish version through Amazon, but I am not aware of any English (or any other language) translation.
DeleteThe edition is by the regional Government of Navarre, although printed in Zaragoza, 2011.
@Unitarian Dome, obviously Quintana was not a heretic himself, therefore he could be protected by the Emperor if he claimed that he was not aware oh his secretary's beliefs and had not persuaded Servetus with anti-trinitarian beliefs, which I am sure he didn't. Quintana stopped being the Emperor's confessor, so in a way he was punished, but he was given the title of abbot of the very relevant abbey of Montearagón, i.e. a way of giving Quintana a "golden retirement".
ReplyDeleteThomas is right: Echeverría's theory lacks a father. We all know Antón Serveto, the notary at the Royal Monastery of Sigena. But who is the biological father, according to Echeverría?
ReplyDeleteAll that Echeverría himself can say about this in his book is (my translation from Spanish): "He could refer to two fathers: a biological father, a "De Villanueva", whose name we do not know, maybe the same as his son, Michael -and we ignore if he had any family connection with the "De Villanueva" families living in Zaragoza or Tudela- and another father, a notary, Antón Servet, alias Revés, who is an "adoptive" father, who later married his mother Catalina Conesa." (Amor a la verdad, p. 69).
A pretty lame explanation for such an ambitious theory. In a single sentence, Echevarría accumulates the following words denoting uncertainty: "could", "whose name we do not know", "maybe", "we ignore if", and then a theory about an adoption that is not supported by any document or witness. And we do not know the father's name, when and where he was born, what he did for a living, how he met Catalina and whether they got married or not, how he disappeared or died, etc. Come on, Unitarian Dome. Show me the father.
First what we "know" is what documents say. Gonzalez speech is too humble. What do we know? That he is miguel de Villanueva, born in Tudela, and that his father is Villanueva. Stated in inspected documents. What does the old theory have? A document that relates Anton and Michael? no, a document that relates Michael and Villanueva de Sijena? no, a document in which he is registered somewhere as Servetus after an inspection? No. Ah and by the way Anton was as far as I know the one infanzon that was not attacked by the inquisition, as they always were for the sins of their sons during middle age and modern history. Perhaps he was not the father? Indeed he was not. Bye, I will just not check this anymore.Last time for real. I should not waste my energy with someone who has tried to hide half of the work of Michael. Farewell.
ReplyDeleteI am the son of Servetian Gonzalez Echeverria. I will not go into a historical debate, though I could, I think the discussion shows rather well what goes on. I am surprised by the words of "Jaume de Marcos" anyhow the most remarkable part is the words from his first post "few staunch promoters of Dr. González Echevarría and his fringe research" and "these and other documents break their solid mental schemes and beliefs. These people will not attend to any reason given against their outrageous theories." Is that the way a trustee from the MSU talks now? It was not when my father was one,since 1995 for many years, before even "De Marcos" would be an ordinary member of the MSU. It is surprising to hear someone gets outraged by listening to a different opinion. I do not consider that the proper language for talking of someone who share our interest in Michael Servetus.
ReplyDeleteDear Miguel, you do not know me just as I do not know you. You seem to be very concerned about my expressions, but apparently you do not have any opinion about other people who are always willing to slander and manipulate arguments in order to destroy their opponents, rather than having a serious but respectful academic debate.
DeleteI do not know anything about your father's relationship with the MSU because, as you say, I was not a member then. I understand that there were serious differences and they split in non-friendly terms. These things happen. I do respect you and I respect your father, even if I do not agree with many of his theories and interpretations of facts. I cannot say the same thing about people who are alledgedly his supporters but are doing him a disservice with their particular campaigning here, in the Wikipedia and in other forums. Take care.
Dear Jaume. As I read the conversation I find no derogative commentary for the Michael Servetus Institute before August 14. Anyway lets forget all this issue. I do not know if you ever had the opportunity of meeting my father or contacting him, but I guess you know he has always treated everyone ok. Regards.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete(edition mistake I forgot a "see each other")Ah, concerning the Michael Servetus Institute, my father was always friendly. After he contributed he was expelled, cause he thought Michael was not born in Villanueva de Sijena, I was there with him in the presentation of the Notarial Protocol of Gabriel Zaporta with Miguel Lavilla, in 1999 taking pictures and recording a video. My father is and has always been friendly with that institute, in any of his works. He was expelled in 2005, and no, those things do not happen in any of the institution dedicated to historical figures I know about. The world is not as it happens, it is shaped as the result of our actions. It is not the first time we see each other, De Marcos, I just recognized you from the picture. I was in the V centenary of Michael Servetus in the Museum in Zaragoza (and in other four more too). During the morning lectures, you arrived late, with a light blue (I am almost sure, perhaps purple, but I would say blue) sweater, and a blonde woman. We were there next to each other, as we were eating the catering in the central courtyard. May I know if you ever contact my father or met him in person? for I have found two notes in his last book which refer to your work, Edict of Torda in p.417, and in the list of contributors of the Michael Servetus Institute, in its task of promoting Servetus's teachings p.432. So I presume there is mutual respect and friendly enriching interaction.
DeleteAs the son of Mr. Echeverria, perhaps you know who "Unitarian Dome" and "Boston Clifford Center" (the two posters above your comment That Mr. de Marcos replied to) are. As enthusiastic supporters of your father's work, it is curious that they want to keep their identities so secret. I don't mind if anonymous people comment on my blog, but I prefer they be real identifiable people. It would lend a bit of credence to what they say, even when they don't say anything about my book or screenplay. You know, the reason this blog is here.
ReplyDeleteAs the Son of Mr. Echeverria I do know many things, concerning Servetus and have access to many manuscripts, but I do not know all the supporters my father has. I am not an Unitarian nor I've ever been in Boston but once. The supporters of my father's work can be either Unitarian, researchers from the International Society for the History of Medicine, presidents of the American History of Pharmacy such as Riddle, or French societies, or basically of any kind of Modern History, Jewish doctrine, Lyon printers, librarians, manuscript and rare book societies, and things like that. So no, I know some but not those two names, nor any "clifford". My name is Miguel González Ancín ( Echeverría). As far as I read "By the way, Unitarian Dome has given me his name privately, but wishes to remain anonymous publicly.." so apparently you already know who he is, though I do not.
DeleteI did not have access to your script, after you did not answer me on facebook after I send you a message a week ago, and today again, I googled your name and I found this blog. That is why I write to you here which is a blog on your work and I do not send you more messages on facebook, more proper, but no answer, in contrast with this almost immediate answer on your blog. Anyway though I will not dig in historical aspects, after checking all the conversation is apparently on my father's work, I noted what I thought of certain comments. I will be glad to talk to you as one of your friends suggested me on facebook, and not here in the blog about your book. That is the reason I knew about you, and not your blog. Anyway it looks like a very nice blog and I encourage you to go on with it and good luck with it in all you plan. I even think those commentaries about Unitarian Dome, Clifford and Demarcos are not necessary, for this is a blog about a book, and I will not deal here with some of the inconsistencies I can read in the commentaries on Servetus. Not the place, but yes, I do not agree with certain commentaries, on my father who, btw apparently is mentioned in here as much as Servetus. If those commentaries are not constructive or are not related to the topic of the Blog, they could simply be removed, and mine ones too. I comment on what I read, which affects me directly. I will try to get your script, sounds very good. Miguel G.A.