JESUIT TREASURES - ARE THEY REAL?

[somehiker]

Joe:
Then again,this may be where he thought that he went wrong--

"I may have made matters worse by refusing to furnish information about the latest incidents with our enemies although I did say that day by day, in spite of the precautions taken by the governor, the Seri and Apache Indians are gaining on us, the former having killed nine soldiers at Aigame. These are matters upon which His Excellency would be more thoroughly informed [than I]."

...though I'm not sure why such a refusal might be warranted.

Regards:SH

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

Somehiker - that catastrophic loss due to diseases was partially hidden by the Jesuits, through the artifice of constantly adding new groups (tribes) to their missions. There are other irregularities as well, and Spanish authorities complained about Jesuits receiving Royal stipends for missions which had no missionaries manning them.'

The Jesuits of French colonial America had similar incidents to those of the Spanish southwest.

The bigots at the court of Old France who guided that king's conscience were devoted to the jesuits who appear by all their own relations to have made the conversion of the Indians the primary object of the colony whereas in pursuing those conversions as they did it was threatened with ruin because the savages no sooner became converts than they lived like drones upon the public stock and indulged their irresistible propensity to indolence. It is in vain for the jesuit historians to pretend that the interests of the colony were connected with those of religion.

<from Modern History being a continuation of the Universal History Volume 39
By George Sale, George Psalmanazar, Archibald Bower, George Shelvocke, John Campbell, John Swinton, London 1763 >

Even more peculiar was the Jesuits' failure to instruct the Indians in the language of the authorities, we have already seen that the Franciscans found the Indians formerly under Jesuit charges to be un-instructed of Spanish, and what a surprise, in French colonial America we find that the Indians had not been instructed in French.

The ascendancy of the jesuit counsels at the court of France could not render it entirely insensible of their engrossing practices amongst the savages and therefore repeated orders were sent to Talon that the missionaries should by all means instruct the children of the savages in the French language. The jesuits have not informed us why that instruction fo evidently beneficial to the colony was not followed but we are given to understand that they had the address to gain ever to their interest Colbert as well as Tracy and in general that the instruction was dropt because of the difficulties attending it.

<ibid>

There are a number of questionable activities or failure of executions of duties of the Jesuits, so I don't think it safe to make sweeping assumptions of innocence.
Wishing you all a Happy New Year,
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Dear Lamar,

Just curious here......."I happen to have studied Fr. Poltzers' (AVM) research and while it is very accurate, it is also somehwat limited in scope and detail. I also understand quite clearly that Fr. Poltzer was an ordained Roman Catholic priest, therefore he had many other responsibilities and duties which limited the amounf of time which he could dedicate in pursuit of his historical interests. I, fortunately, suffer from no such debilitating tasks, therefore I was able to devote much more effort and to the task at hand than he."

Are you referring to Father Charles Polzer? None of his books have his name spelled, or signed "Poltzer". Was that just a simple mistake on your part, or did you mean someone else?

In any case, Father Polzer (Charlie) had plenty of time to pursue his historical interests in the later part of his life. He spent a good deal of his time camping in the desert around Tucson, with his dog and other associates. One was a lady named Diana.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

In your opinion, was there anything that the Jesuits did right, or that was beneficial to the Natives?

Thanks in advance,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Joe - you may have the correct book "Ocios" I do not own a copy and unfortunately there are several Spanish books with Ocios Espanoles in the titles.

As for what good did the missionaries bring, we would have quite a list - wheat, cattle, sheep, fruit trees, etc and the exchange benefited the Europeans as well through native American products. Their efforts in education are a big question, for we have two wholly-divergent views of it, and considering intra-Order rivalry, the statements of the Franciscans may be colored in a negative way concerning the state of Indian literacy and Christian faith. However as the same complaint is found elsewhere (where there are no Franciscans) it is puzzling - what kept those padres SO busy, that they were unable or unwilling to do the educating of the natives, which was supposed to be one of their leading missions? Cattle ranching can keep a fellow busy, but remember the padres had plenty of help on hand for menial labors.

Now to turn your question around, is there anything the Jesuits did, which you feel was not beneficial? (Other than the introduction of diseases from Europe, which is hardly their fault and would have occurred sooner or later via contacts.) Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Dear cactusjumper;
It was explained to me that Fr. Poltzer's last name originally was spelt with a T therefore I tend to spell his name in it's original form out of respect for his ancestory. Polzer or Poltzer, either/or is correct as far as I am aware. Also, I went wayyyyyyyyy out on a limb once and *questioned* one of Fr. Poltzer's statements that the meaning of the name "Sonora* is shrouded in mystery and lost to time. It was widely believed that the name Sonora was in reference to a native word meaning CORN, if memory serves, yet this not the case.

Simply put, the name Sonora is derived from the title Nuesta Señora. Over time Spanish cartographers dropped the Nuestra and shortened the name to Señora. Now, fast forward a bit to American cartography. It seems that when the Americans cartographers wished to copy the word *Señora* verbatum, however they were unable to do so because their cartographic typesets did not include the N with the tilde, :ñ:, like so, therefore they used a Englisized version of the name Señora, which they thought equalled the pronounciation and thus the name was changed to Sonora. This is in fact how many white English speakers tend to pronounce the :ñ: even today, especially those without proper Spanish language training.

Now, we fast forward a bit more to the Mexican Republic. It seems that during the late 1800s Mexico wished to update all of it's national maps and charts and realizing that the current American maps of the day were the most accurate ones available, they therefore copied all of the American maps, including the name Sonora! And that's how Nuestra Señora became Sonora. It was simple case of one mistake being compounded by another.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Will be back shortly - staying signed in.

 

[lamar]

Somehiker - that catastrophic loss due to diseases was partially hidden by the Jesuits, through the artifice of constantly adding new groups (tribes) to their missions. There are other irregularities as well, and Spanish authorities complained about Jesuits receiving Royal stipends for missions which had no missionaries manning them.'

The Jesuits of French colonial America had similar incidents to those of the Spanish southwest.

The bigots at the court of Old France who guided that king's conscience were devoted to the jesuits who appear by all their own relations to have made the conversion of the Indians the primary object of the colony whereas in pursuing those conversions as they did it was threatened with ruin because the savages no sooner became converts than they lived like drones upon the public stock and indulged their irresistible propensity to indolence. It is in vain for the jesuit historians to pretend that the interests of the colony were connected with those of religion.

<from Modern History being a continuation of the Universal History Volume 39
By George Sale, George Psalmanazar, Archibald Bower, George Shelvocke, John Campbell, John Swinton, London 1763 >

Even more peculiar was the Jesuits' failure to instruct the Indians in the language of the authorities, we have already seen that the Franciscans found the Indians formerly under Jesuit charges to be un-instructed of Spanish, and what a surprise, in French colonial America we find that the Indians had not been instructed in French.

The ascendancy of the jesuit counsels at the court of France could not render it entirely insensible of their engrossing practices amongst the savages and therefore repeated orders were sent to Talon that the missionaries should by all means instruct the children of the savages in the French language. The jesuits have not informed us why that instruction fo evidently beneficial to the colony was not followed but we are given to understand that they had the address to gain ever to their interest Colbert as well as Tracy and in general that the instruction was dropt because of the difficulties attending it.

<ibid>

There are a number of questionable activities or failure of executions of duties of the Jesuits, so I don't think it safe to make sweeping assumptions of innocence.
Wishing you all a Happy New Year,
Oroblanco

Dear Oroblanco;
What's untrue is the statement that the Jesuits recieved a Royal stipend for manning the missions, my friend. The fact is that ALL missionaries recieved a small form of start-up capitol from the Royal exchequer (the treasurer, for lack of a better word) and they were then exempted from paying taxes, duties or royalities of any type for a period of 7 years. This period was also liable to extensions per individual request from each Superior General. At no time did the Jesuit missions receive any form of continuing payment from the Crown.

Also, the Jesuits had no pressing need to instruct their charges in the language of the Crown of any particular mission simply because the Jesuits were intelligent enough to learn the language of the natives under their charge. The Jesuits tended to embark upon a much more subtle form of conversion, whereas the more traditional Mendicant Orders tended to do things as they were done in Europe, that is forcing the natives to embrace the European way of life at the point of a sword or lance, instead of gradually easing them into it. In retrospect, the Jesuit manner of conversion was vastly superior to the other older methods which were employed, therefore the only thing that I find *pecular* is that the Jesuits had the courage and temerity to use such a new and untried system.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Dear Oroblanco;
Once more, we MUST consider the source before attempting to draw conclusions. For example:
The bigots at the court of Old France who guided that king's conscience were devoted to the jesuits who appear by all their own relations to have made the conversion of the Indians the primary object of the colony whereas in pursuing those conversions as they did it was threatened with ruin because the savages no sooner became converts than they lived like drones upon the public stock and indulged their irresistible propensity to indolence. It is in vain for the jesuit historians to pretend that the interests of the colony were connected with those of religion
From the preceeding paragraph we can plainly read of the vast amounts of brotherly love between the English and the French which was pre-dominate in the mid 1700s, my friend. It's to be expected however. The Bitish were firmly Protestant whereas the French were devoutly Catholic, yet this was only one of the MANY reasons for the hatred which was sowed between the two nations. This has been fermenting in both countries since time began and it shows no signs of slacking off soon. Great Britain and France had maintained a state of conflict which spanned CENTURIES. A prime example of the deep seated hatred between the two nation is the recent completion of the Channel tunnel, which is more commonly known as the Chunnel.

Many people on both sides of the tunnel did NOT want the tunnel to be constructed, mostly because it connects the two nations together by solid roadway. This thought is unbearable to many residents of both Great Britain and France and there was a lot of legislation on both sides, trying to halt the tunnel's construction, with a great many reasons being brought to the forefront as to why it should not be attempted, yet at the heart of the matter was simply that the two cultures did not wish to be that closely tied together. Old hatreds die hard, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

Dear Oroblanco;
What's untrue is the statement that the Jesuits recieved a Royal stipend for manning the missions, my friend.

So you are saying that no Spanish authorities ever complained about this habit, since they never were paid any such payment? Thank you in advance.

Lamar also wrote

Old hatreds die hard, my friend.

I might be tempted to ask whether you are referring to the English and French with this statement, or some one of us, but will let this one slide.

So your explanation Lamar (and Joe, and others whom hold the same views as you) is that all of those sources which state there were Jesuits mining and having good success, is that the first one lied and the rest compounded it? Can't you examine this from a different angle for once? For it is just as likely (in fact I would propose it is the case) that those later historians and Jesuits, examining the remaining records they could find in the 1880's, failing to find them since they were already LONG gone, then concluded there never were any in the first place, and have since compounded that error.

Can you say with absolute authority, that no records of any Jesuit mines exist in Spain? Again thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Lamar wrote

Dear Oroblanco;
What's untrue is the statement that the Jesuits recieved a Royal stipend for manning the missions, my friend.

So you are saying that no Spanish authorities ever complained about this habit, since they never were paid any such payment? Thank you in advance.

Lamar also wrote

Old hatreds die hard, my friend.

I might be tempted to ask whether you are referring to the English and French with this statement, or some one of us, but will let this one slide.

So your explanation Lamar (and Joe, and others whom hold the same views as you) is that all of those sources which state there were Jesuits mining and having good success, is that the first one lied and the rest compounded it? Can't you examine this from a different angle for once? For it is just as likely (in fact I would propose it is the case) that those later historians and Jesuits, examining the remaining records they could find in the 1880's, failing to find them since they were already LONG gone, then concluded there never were any in the first place, and have since compounded that error.

Can you say with absolute authority, that no records of any Jesuit mines exist in Spain? Again thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

Dear oroblanco;
Certainly we examine the other side of the coin as well, as I often do just this. If there existed records at one time, then in order for this theory to remain valid, there also would have been an effect related to the cause, that being the arrest and imprisonment of the offending Jesuits, yet this never took place.

We do know the cause and effect of serious crimes committed against the Crowns of Spain and Portugal during the timeframe in question and we also are aware that the secular Royal Courts of the time kept meticulous records yet we cannot locate any proceeedings against either a single Jesuit or a group of Jesuits related to illegal mining activites in any of the secular archives.

We also know that all official correspndence was written in triplicate in order to help curb falsifying documents and also to have a backup archive in the event that one archives suffered a diasterious fate. Taking this into consideration, along with the dispersal of the archives, and also the fact that until quite recently the archives were not catalogued, we can conclude that the removal of documents from any one of the existing archives in any sort of cohesive and consisive manner would be nigh impossible. In other words, it would have been a virtual impossibility to remove every document from every archive. merely searching the individual archives would have taken a lifetime. In light of this, it would have required a small army of Jesuits in order to have been successful at their endeavors, my firend.

Next, we can examine perhaps the most important question of all, that being WHY would any group, including the Jesuits, wish to expend the time and effort to remove the documents in the first place? We can examine the Jesuits vast history and conclude that they were accused of crimes which would have posed a much greater embarrassment to the Order than mining gold and/or silver. In light of the other, more serious charges I would think that illegal mining activities would be of secondary importance to the Order, yet none of those records are out of place and they remain as part of the historical record.

Why, therefore would the Jesuits seek to remove any and all incriminating documents related to illegal mining in the New World colonies. Also, taking into consideration that the one single thread which runs through of the accusations is the curious omission of WHERE the original accusation stemmed from, we may conclude that all of the accusations stem from the secular New World colonists. The reason why we are able to conclude this is simply because the accusations from the colonists are the ONLY existing documentation in any of the archives.

Also, if the Jesuits or anyone else wished to remove all traces of their illegal mining activities, then why not remove the documents from the secular colonists which accuse the Jesuits of illegal mining, as well as everything else? Surely, if the Jesuits wanted to have cleaned their collective skirts, then those documents would have been removed as well, yet they remain in the archives, safe and sound.

Also, we can examine exactly when the accusations from the colonists occurred and we can cross-reference the dates of those accusations with the ones which the Jesuits claimed the colonists were enslaving natives and other cruelities. It seems that the colonists started accusing the Jesuits of illegal mining activities in retaliation for the Jesuits tattling on them for excessively cruel behavior in regards to the native populations. prior to this time there were no accusations of the Jesuits illegally mining gold and/or silver, curiously enough.

It was only during the preceeding forty years prior to their expulsion that the Jesuits were accused of mining gold and/or silver. Why then, were they not mining earlier, and if so, how did they manage to keep their acitivies in strict secrecy for almost 200 years prior? Also, what reason would the Jesuits have had to illegally mine gold and/or silver when they had vast cattle herds and other profitable enterprises which were not only supporting the missions but were legal as well? In other words, what reason would the Jesuits have had to mine for gold and/or silver when their missions had already been firmly established? I could perhaps understand the mining of gold and/or silver when a mission was first being established, but to illegally mine oce a mission was successful just doesn't pass the common sense test.

Also, from virtually all sources we do not read of a incident where the author stated something such as "I personally read the original copy of this document in the archives at Seville (or elsewhere), I held it in my hands and it was dated XXXX and was signed by XXXX". I do not need an aisle number or a shelf location, merely the city or parish where the original document is housed would be more than enough, yet this has yet to happen, also curiously enough. The only thing that is true and correct are the documents from Spanish colonists accusing the Jesuits of mining gold and/or silver illegally. Beyond that, there is nothing. In other words, that is where the paper trails begins and ends.

And most certainly, lies, rumors, accusations, mths and untruths often times get repeated, my friend. I see them and hear them every day. Just the other day I happened to see a televangalist stating that the reason why the Vatican did not want to translate the Latin Vulgate Bible into English was so that the commoners could not understand for themselves the true Scriptures and therefore must rely on Roman Catholic clerics in order to understand God's will. That particular crock has been making the rounds for the last 500 years and here it is, at the start of the 21st century and it's STILL making the rounds and it's just as untrue as ever it was, yet people STILL hear it and they STILL pass it on as the truth. It's amazing.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar what is amazing is your twisted logic. First you are mistaken about no Spanish authorities ever complaining about Jesuits receiving a Royal stipend for empty missions, it is fact. Next you are mistaken that no documents exist, sorry if I don't have free passage to Spain to examine the archives in order to locate the mission records for the sake of settling an online forum argument, but unless someone can go there and do a thorough search, we can not say no documents exist.

You are further mistaken in that at least one firsthand source has already been posted, including a translation of a Jesuit mining claim. Father Polzer stated that two cases of padres mining were known and punished by removing them from their posts, both in the Sierra Madre district - I say these two are very far from being the ONLY two, and we know that other mines in Mexico, Arizona and California were Jesuit.

Yes lies get repeated all the time, especially when someone whom is guilty keeps claiming he is innocent. Ever been to a prison amigo? How many men do you suppose will state openly that they are guilty? I found a grand total of one out of thousands, but he was about to go free anyway.

I don't know why you keep going for the "anti-Catholic" argument Lamar, it really won't work as it is not relevant to our discussion. Do you suppose that I must have some hatred for Catholics? Let me try this from a different angle.

Whom would you credit as being the first Europeans to discover silver and gold in Arizona? Thank you in advance,

I must sign off, no rest for the wicked as they say!
Oroblanco

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Lamar,


I'm going to have to chime in, as there is another thing, in which you are incorrect. It was not just the 40 years before expulsion.

Back since the 1600's, at the very least - there is proof that has already been posted, where it was known that the Jesuits were mining, everything from copper to silver to gold. It was just during the expulsion that they had enough evidence, and the Jesuits had ticked enough people off (including a few kings that one wouldn't want to tick off), that proof started coming to light.

They have gotten thrown out of almost every country they went to, at least once. (if not every single one).

B

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Oh, and one more thing.

You seem to be of the opinion that "everybody is always picking on the Jesuits". Well, don't you - doesn't anyone - think it is strange that a religious organization should be so offensive to so many people, at one time or another, as to be thrown out of country after country after country.

I can see if the countries were closely related, that, they might be ganged up on - but that's not the case - they were ostracized at one time or another, from countries all around the world.

B

 

[somehiker]

Good morning Lamar:
edit--and SWR
How would you answer to this--
His gold was ``out of context``?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20691542/...rivate-Notes-and-Documents-1688-1847-Volume-1

Page 119......re: Father Lavaur (Superior of the Jesuits at Pondicherry,India)

Seems like the "one word at a time business" started when the ink on Jesuit paper was barely dry.

Once again,it's not about whether or not the Jesuits were Pickin an Grinnin,but did they individually or collectively accumulate and hide from the King and his other subjects anything that we here would consider "treasure".

Regards:SH

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

I have been quietly listening in the back ground and ---sheesh.

A) Swr, you posted -->

Did we ever get any validation or documentation stating picking up copper, on top of the ground, was considered as mining back then? Nope. Yet...somehow.....it is proof?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Haven't you ever heard that picking up pieces of metal that was deposited by Illuvial /Alluvial, or in place decomposition of a vein structure, is officially known as mining by every sense of the word, in every country in the world??

Do you have some form of proof that it wasn't??

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[lamar]

Good morning Lamar:
edit--and SWR
How would you answer to this--
His gold was ``out of context``?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20691542/...rivate-Notes-and-Documents-1688-1847-Volume-1

Page 119......re: Father Lavaur (Superior of the Jesuits at Pondicherry,India)

Seems like the "one word at a time business" started when the ink on Jesuit paper was barely dry.

Once again,it's not about whether or not the Jesuits were Pickin an Grinnin,but did they individually or collectively accumulate and hide from the King and his other subjects anything that we here would consider "treasure".

Regards:SH

Dear somehiker;
I've researched the happenings which led up to the statement and also the claim that a *large sum of gold, along with a long memoir, written by Fr. Lavaur*, which accused the commander of the Pondichéry colony in India, Sir Thomas Arthur, Count of Lally, with treason.

Undoubtedly, the reason why Thomas Arthur was executed was because the French government needed a scapegoat for it loss of the Pondichéry colony to the British in 1761 AD, after the English besieged the colony for some five months and Thomas Arthur was thereby to forced to surrender the colony to the British commander, a certain Sir Eyre Coote.

He was then held captive by the British but he successfully pleaded for his parole, against strong advice of his British captors and his French associates. He maintained his innocence against the charge of treason and immediately upon his return to French soil he was apprehended and held as a prisoner for two years before he was tried for treason against the King of France, Louis XV.

His trial lasted for 17 months and in the end he sentenced to death on 06 May, 1766 AD and was executed by the guillotine three days following the verdict. Immediately following the execution of Sir Thomas Arthur, Louis XV attempted to wash his hands of the trial and placed the burden of Sir Thomas' trial and execution upon his judicial ministers, however that did not quite work as planned.

It was soon surmised that Sir Thomas Arthur was executed for nothing more than losing the Seven Year War in India to the British. The supporting trial documents and testimonies were reviewed at length many times over the preceeding centuries and the general concensus is that Sir Thomas Arthur was executed amidst trumped-up false charges and he was not a traitor to the French Crown.

Also, curiously enough, the incriminating letter *supposedly* penned by Fr. Lavaur, Superior General of the Jesuit community in the Pondichéry mission in India, has never been located, nor was any of the alledged gold ever produced at the trial. All of the physical eviedence seemed to had vanished into thin air, as it were.

Also, it befuddles me why Fr. Lavaur would have been in France at all if he were in fact in the possession of a *large sum of gold*, when his original purpose for returning to France after the loss in India was to petition the French government for a soliciting a pension from the French Crown for the time he spent in India under the auspices of the Crown. Why indeed would a man, who possessed a *large sum of gold* be petitioning the Courts of France for a paltry pension in the first place, my friend?

Also, please note that Fr. Lavaur's residence was searched after he passed away (AVM), therefore, by sheer coincidence I am sure, he could not be called upon to act as a eyewitness for the prosecution. And yet once again, we are left with NOTHING! We have only the testimony of a certain Mssr. M. Pasquier that Fr. Lavaur had written a letter incriminating Sir Thomas Arthur of treason and no gold was ever produced at the trial. In other words, Sir Thomas Arthur was framed and the prosecution used the very timely death of Fr. Lavaur in order to strengthen their case by supposedly *discovering* some gold and a letter.

Also, one must ask themself where did the gold originate from? Surely, no one believes that the Jesuits were conducting mining operations in Pondichéry, India as that locale is strictly barren of gold. Also, Pondichéry happens to be quite a long walk from the Kolar gold fields of India, my friend. About 300 statute miles, to be precise.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[somehiker]

Hi LAMAR:
Thanks for your reply.Nice try.

I did of course follow the principle of due diligence and look to other sources as well.There was nothing,that indicated to me,any reason to introduce the gold that was found amongst the effects of Fr.Laveur as evidence in the trial of Sir Thomas Arthur in regard to the loss of India to the British.

I am at a loss as to what your purpose is in trying to mount a defence of the actions of Thomas Arthur while dismissing the mention of a large quantity of gold being confiscated from the departed Father's residence.After all,1766 was not a good year to be a Jesuit by some accounts.As to the journal itself,with entries critical of Arthur,it may have followed the same route as most other prosecution evidence.At any rate,I doubt that it,or the gold in question,would have been given to the Jesuit order for posterity post trial.

I would also tend to think that ex-bureaucrats of those days felt just as entitled to their pensions,regardless of personal wealth,as they do today.I also suspect that his return to France was precipitated by sudden unemployment,compounded perhaps by ill health.

As far as the events are concerned,I think that the memoirs of someone who was actually present and witnessed the testimony first hand would carry more weight than those who--

"soon surmised that Sir Thomas Arthur was executed for nothing more than losing the Seven Year War in India to the British. The supporting trial documents and testimonies were reviewed at length many times over the (preceeding?) centuries and the general concensus is that Sir Thomas Arthur was executed amidst trumped-up false charges and he was not a traitor to the French Crown."

I also did not attempt to connect the Friar's gold with any form of Jesuit mining,but you really must read the post to understand that.As to your observation that the nearest gold source was 300 Statute miles from Pondichery,at Kolar,would make the testimony bogus?--How far is it from Mexico City to Madrid anyway?

Regards:SH

 

[somehiker]

Hi SWR:
"Nice try? You asked a question, and got an answer"
---was my response to his,and now your own attempt to deflect the attention to a "letter" and away from the gold.
---my own reply addressed the reason that the gold,not being connected to the trial,would not likely have been submitted as "evidence" but in all probability would have been forwarded to the most likely claimant.That certainly would not have been the Jesuit Order,now would it have been?The matter of the gold was brought up in court as an adjunct to the discovery of the Father's own journal,that which apparently contained the information that the prosecutors felt pertinent to the case.Perhaps you can provide a transcript or other reference that can give me good reason to "surmise" that the claim of Lavaur's gold was false.Perhaps the executioner Sanson just felt a need to add a little "spice" to his memoirs?

Regards:SH

 

[somehiker]

SWR:
"What is "a large sum of gold" in that time and place? $20...$50...$100 ?

I guess I'm confused at what you are eluding too. You said..." How would you answer to this-- His gold was ``out of context``?" and dropped a page number. Who exactly is saying gold was discovered....and who has validated that claim?"

Well,first you have to click on the link that I provided.
Then you go to the page that contains the reference.
When you are done reading that.....you can also google "father lavaurs gold" and read what was written about the amount in "A history of the military transactions of the British nation" which is a google book result on the first page of results.The amount of the Friar's estate is stated to be 60,000 pounds in gold,diamonds and bills of exchange.Not exactly your poverty plagued typical Jesuit apparently.

Regards:SH