Produced by Stan Goodman, Pilar Somoza and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team









HISPANIC
NOTES & MONOGRAPHS

ESSAYS, STUDIES, AND BRIEF
BIOGRAPHIES ISSUED BY THE
HISPANIC SOCIETY OF AMERICA

I

[Illustration: EL MAESTRO FRAI LVIS DE LEON]




FRAY LUIS
DE LEON

A Biographical Fragment

BY

JAMES FITZMAURICE KELLY, F.B.A.


_With a Portrait from
an engraving after Pacheco_.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
HUMPHREY MILFORD
1921

PRINTED IN ENGLAND
AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
BY FREDERICK HALL




PREFACE


This biographical sketch is, in fact, a fragment of a book which will
now never come into existence. This particular chapter has been
snatched from the burning by an accident. The name of Luis de Leon
deservedly ranks as high as that of any poet in the history of Spanish
literature; but his reputation as a poet is mostly local, while he is
known all the world over as the subject of a dubious anecdote. The
attempt is now made to render him more familiar than he has hitherto
been to English-speaking people, and to do this, to exhibit the man as
he was, it proved necessary to analyse the two volumes of his first
trial, the evidence of which is brought together in vols. X and XI of
the _Coleccion de Documentos inéditos para la Historia de España_.
Edited by Miguel Salvá and Pedro Sainz de Baranda, these volumes
appeared in 1847; their value is incontestable, but, though they give
the evidence as it occurs in the register of the Inquisition, this
evidence is not arranged in consistent chronological order, nor is it
supplied with an index. The work, printed seventy-three years ago, is
not within easy reach of every reader; and of those who have access to
it not all are patient enough to read steadily through so large a mass
of somewhat incoherent matter. Should any such readers be tempted to
examine the record closely, it is hoped that this sketch will do
something to make their task easier. An attempt is made here to
picture the man as he was, full of fortitude, yet not exempt from
human weakness. I trust that I have avoided the temptation to go to
the opposite extreme, and lay the blame--as has been done--for the
irregularities of the trial at Luis de Leon's own door.

In dealing with his Spanish poems, I have tried not to put his claims
to consideration too high. Laboulaye, in _La Liberté religieuse_,
calls Luis de Leon 'le premier lyrique de l'Europe moderne'. This
phrase dates from 1859, and was addressed to a generation which
delighted in arranging authors in something like the order of a class
list. Though I have the highest opinion of Luis de Leon's genius, I
have not felt tempted to follow Laboulaye's example; I have by
preference discussed, so far as space allows, such points as the
probable chronology of Luis de Leon's poems. Once more I repeat that
this is a chapter of a book that will now never be written.

It may be as well to add at this point a few explanatory words
concerning the plan of accentuation adopted here. There seems to be no
valid reason for applying, in a book primarily intended for English
readers, the modern Academic system to proper names borne in the
sixteenth century by men who lived more than three hundred years
before the current system was ever invented. Except of course in the
case of quotations, that system is applied rigidly only to the names
of those who have adopted it formally (as on pp. 114 _n._ and 191
_n._). I have gone on the theory that accents should be sparingly used
in a work of this kind, and that, as accents are almost needless for
Spaniards they should be employed only when the needs of foreigners
compel their use. It is a fundamental rule in Spanish that nearly all
words ending in a consonant should be stressed on the last syllable.
But since nobody, however slightly acquainted with Spanish, is tempted
to pronounce such words as Velazquez (p. 79) or Gomez (p. 250)
incorrectly, no graphic accent is employed in such cases. Names ending
in _s_--such as Valbás--are accentuated, however, when the stress
falls on the last syllable: this prevents all possibility of
confusion with the pronunciation of ordinary plural forms.
Place-names--such as Béjar (p. 58) and Córdoba (p. 184)--are
accentuated; so are trisyllables and polysyllables such as Góngora (p.
209) and Zúñiga (p. 57 and elsewhere). It will be seen that, in this
matter, I have been guided by strictly utilitarian principles.
Inconsistencies are perhaps unavoidable under any system. The plan
followed here, while it tends to diminish the total number of accents,
probably involves no more inconsistencies than any other. It is based
on rational grounds, and is, it may be hoped, less offensive to the
eye than the current system. Quotations, I repeat, are reproduced
exactly as they stand in the sources from which they profess to be
taken.

With these words, I close what I have to say here on this subject and
commend these pages to the indulgent judgement of my readers.

The following works, or articles, may be usefully consulted by the
student of Spanish.


EDITIONS. LUIS DE LEON: _Obras_, ed. A. Merino, Madrid, 1804-5-6-16. 6
vols. [reprinted with a preface, by C. Muiños Sáenz, Madrid, 1885, 6
vols.]; _Biblioteca de Autores Españoles_, vols. XXXV, XXXVII, LIII,
LXI, and LXII; _De los nombres de Cristo_, ed. F. de Onís, Madrid,
1914-1917 [Clásicos castellanos, vols. XXVIII and XXXIII]; _La
perfecta casada_, ed. E. Wallace, Chicago, 1903; _La perfecta casada_,
ed. A. Bonilla y San Martín, Madrid, 1917; _El perfecto predicador_,
ed. C. Muiños Saenz in _La Ciudad de Dios_ (1886), vol. XI, pp.
340-348, 432-447, 527-537; (1886), vol. XII, pp. 15-25, 104-111,
211-218, 322-330, 420-427, 504-512; (1887), vol. XIII, pp. 32-38,
106-114, 213-222, 302-312; (1887), vol. XIV, pp. 9-17, 154-160,
305-315, 449-459, 581-591, 729-743; _Exposition del Miserere_
[facsimile of the Barcelona ed. of 1632], ed. A.M. Huntington, New
York, 1903.


WORKS OF REFERENCE: _Proceso original que la Inquisicion de Valladolid
hizo al maestro Fr. Luis de Leon, religioso del órden de S. Agustin_,
ed. M. Salvá and P. Sainz de Baranda, in _Coleccion de Documentos
inéditos para la Historia de España_ (Madrid, 1847), vol. X, pp.
5-575, and vol. XI, pp. 5-358; J. Gonzalez de Tejada, _Vida de Fray
Luis de Leon_ (Madrid, 1863); C.A. Wilkens, _Fray Luis de Leon_
(Halle, 1866); A. Arango y Escandon, _Frai Luis de Leon, ensayo
histórico_, 2ª ed. (Mexico, 1866) [the first edition appeared in _La
Cruz_ (Mexico, 1855-56)]; F.H. Reusch, _Luis de Leon und die spanische
Inquisition_ (Bonn, 1873); M. Gutiérrez, _El misticismo ortodoxo_
(Valladolid, 1886); M. Gutiérrez, _Fray Luis de León y la filosofía
española del siglo_ XVI, 2ª ed. aumentada (Madrid, 1891) [_Adiciones
póstumas_ in _La Ciudad de Dios_ (1907), vol. LXXIII, pp. 391-399,
478-494, 662-667; vol. LXXIV, pp. 49-55, 303-414, 487-496, 628-643; in
_La Ciudad de Dios_ (1908), vol. LXXV, pp. 34-47, 215-221, 291-303,
472-486]; J.M. Guardia, _Fray Luis de Leon ou la poésie dans le
cloître_, in the _Revue germanique_ (1863), vol. XXIV, pp. 307-342; M.
Menéndez y Pelayo, _Horacio en España, Solaces bibliográficas_ 2ª ed.
(Madrid, 1885), vol. I, pp. 11-24, vol. II, pp. 26-36; M. Menéndez y
Pelayo, _Estudios de crítica literaria_, 1ª serie (Madrid, 1893), pp.
1-72; F. Blanco García, _Segundo proceso instruído por la Inquisición
de Valladolid contra Fray Luis de León_ (Madrid, 1896); F. Blanco
García, _Fray Luis de León: rectificaciones biográficas_, in the
_Homenaje a Menéndez y Pelayo_ (Madrid, 1899), vol. I, pp. 153-160;
J.D.M. Ford, _Luis de León, the Spanish poet, humanist and mystic_, in
the _Publications of the Modern Language Association of America_
(Baltimore, 1899), vol. XIV, pp. 267-278; F. Blanco García, _Fr. Luis
de León: estudio biográfico del insigne poeta agustino_ (Madrid,
1904); _Acta de la reposición de Fray Luis de León en una cátedra de
la Universidad de Salamanca_ in the _Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas
y Museos_, Tercera época (1900), vol. IV, pp. 680-682; L.G. Alonso
Getino, _La Causa de Fr. Luis de León ante la crítica y los nuevos
documentos históricos_, in the _Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y
Museos_, Tercera época (1903), vol. IX, pp. 148-156, 268-279, 440-449;
(1904), vol. XI, pp. 288-306, 380-397; C. Muiños Sáenz, _El 'Decíamos
ayer' de Fray Luis de León_, (Madrid, 1905); L. Alonso Getino, _Vida y
procesos del maestro Fr. Luis de León_ (Salamanca, 1907); C. Muiños
Sáenz _El 'Decíamos ayer'... y otros excesos_, in _La Ciudad de Dios_
(1909), vol. LXXVIII, pp. 479-495, 544-560; vol. LXXIX, pp. 18-34,
107-124, 191-212, 353-374, 529-552; vol. LXXX pp. 99-125, 177-197; F.
de Onís _Sobre la trasmisión de la obra literaria de Fray Luis de
León_, in the _Revista de Filología Española_ (Madrid, 1915), vol. II
pp. 217-257; R. Menéndez Pidal, _Una poesia inédita de Fray Luis de
León_, in the _Revista de Filología Española_ (Madrid, 1917), vol. IV,
pp. 389-390; C. Pérez Pastor, _Bibliografía madrileña_ (Madrid,
1891-1906-1907), parte ii, pp. 254-255, and parte iii, pp. 404-409; G.
Vázquez Núñez, _El padre Francisco Zumel, general de la Merced y
catedrático de Salamanca_ (1540-1607), in _Revista de Archivos,
Bibliotecas y Museos_, Tercera época (1918), vol. XXXVIII, pp. 1-19,
170-190; (1918), vol. XXXIX, pp. 53-67, 237-266; (1919), vol. XL, pp.
447-466, 562-594.

J. F-K.


PS. Had they reached me in time, the following two items would have
been included in the respective sections of the foregoing summary
bibliography: _Poesías originales de Fray Luis de León_, ed. F. de
Onís, San José de Costa Rica, 1920; Ad. Coster, _Notes pour une
édition des poésies de Luis de León_ in the _Revue hispanique_ (1919),
vol. XLVI, pp. 193-248.




I


We are all of us familiar with the process of 'whitewashing'
historical characters. We are past being surprised at finding Tiberius
portrayed as an austere and melancholy recluse, Henry VIII pictured as
a pietistic sentimentalist with a pedantic respect for the letter of
the law, and Napoleon depicted as a romantic idealist, seeking to
impose the Social Contract on an immature, reluctant Europe. Though
the 'whitewashing' method is probably not less paradoxical than the
opposite system, it makes a stronger and wider appeal, inasmuch as it
implies a more amiable attitude towards life, and is more consonant
with a flattering conception of the possibilities of human nature. A
prosaic narrative of established facts does not immediately recommend
itself to the average man. Possibly few have existed who were so good
and so great that they can afford to have the whole truth told about
them. At any rate, it is easier to convey a picturesque general
impression than to collect all the available evidence with the
untiring persistence of a model detective and to present it with the
impartial acumen of a competent judge. Moreover, the inertia of
pre-existing opinion has to be overcome. Once readers have been
accustomed to accept as absolutely authentic an idealized conventional
portrait of a man of genius, it is difficult to induce them to abandon
it for a more realistic likeness. In the interest of historical truth,
however, the attempt must be made. We are sometimes told that
'historical truth can afford to wait'. That may be true; but it has
waited for nearly four centuries, and, if it be divulged in English
now, the revelation lays us open to no reasonable charge of
indiscretion or indecent haste.

It may be that the name of Luis de Leon is comparatively unknown
outside the small group of those who are regarded as specialists.
Luis de Leon is nothing like so famous as Cervantes, as Lope de Vega,
as Tirso de Molina, as Ruiz de Alarcon, and as Calderon, whose names,
if not their works, are familiar to the laity. This is one of chance's
unjust caprices. With the single exception of Cervantes perhaps no
figure in the annals of Spanish literature deserves to be more
celebrated than Luis de Leon. He was great in verse, great in prose,
great in mysticism, great in intellectual force and moral courage.
Many may recall him as the hero of a story--possibly apocryphal--in
which he figures as returning to his professorial chair after an
absence of over four years (passed in the prison-cells of the
Inquisition) and beginning his exordium to his students with the
imperturbable remark: 'We were saying yesterday.' Mainly on this
uncertain basis is constructed the current legend that Luis de Leon
was a bloodless philosopher, incapable of resentment, and, indeed,
without a touch of human weakness in his aloof and lofty nature. His
works do not lend colour to this presentation of the man, nor do the
ascertainable details of his chequered career. The conception of Luis
de Leon as a meek spirit, an unresisting victim of malignant
persecution, is not the sole view tenable of a complex character.
However, the recorded facts may be trusted to speak for themselves.




II


What was Luis de Leon's full name? Was it Luis Ponce de Leon? So it
would appear from the summarized results of P. Mendez printed in the
_Revista Agustiniana_.[1] The point is not without interest, for Ponce
de Leon is one of the great historic names of Spain. If Luis de Leon
was entitled to use it, he appears not to have exercised his right,
for in the report of his first trial[2] he consistently employs some
such simple formula as:--'El maestro fray Luis de Leon... digo'.[3]
The omission of the name 'Ponce' during proceedings extending over
more than four years can scarcely be accidental. It may, however, have
been due to monastic humility,[4] or to simple prudence: a desire not
to provoke opponents who declared that Luis de Leon had Jewish blood
in his veins.[5] Whether this assertion, a serious one in
sixteenth-century Spain, had any foundation in fact is disputed. It
is apparently certain that Luis de Leon's great-grandfather married a
Leonor de Villanueva, who is reported to have confessed to practising
Jewish rites and to have been duly condemned by the Inquisition in
1513 or thereabouts.[6] This does not go to the root of the matter,
for Leonor de Villanueva is alleged to have been Lope de Leon's second
wife. His first wife is stated to have been Leonor Sanchez de
Olivares, a lady of unquestioned orthodoxy, and mother of Gomez de
Leon,[7] the future grandfather of the Luis de Leon with whom we are
concerned here. If this statement be correct,[8] obviously there can
be no ground for asserting that Luis de Leon was of Jewish blood. But
it must in candour be admitted that the point is not wholly clear from
doubt.[9]

It is now established that Luis de Leon was born at Belmonte in the
province of Cuenca: 'Belmonte de la Mancha de Aragon' as he calls
it.[10] When was he born? On his tombstone, he was stated to be
sixty-four years old when he died on August 23, 1591.[11] This is
almost the only scrap of evidence available, for no baptismal
registers dating back to the third decade of the sixteenth century are
preserved at Belmonte.[12] Did the inscription on Luis de Leon's tomb
mean that he had completed his sixty-fourth year, or did it mean that,
at the time of his death, he had entered upon his sixty-fourth year?
According to the answer given to these questions, the date of Luis de
Leon's birth must be fixed either in 1527 or 1528.

Apart from the fact that Luis de Leon was taught singing,[13] as
became the future friend of Salinas, we know next to nothing of his
early youth. From himself we learn that he was taken from Belmonte to
Madrid when he was five or six, that at the age of fourteen he was
entered at Salamanca University, where one of his uncles--Francisco de
Leon--was lecturer on Canon Law, and that shortly afterwards he
resolved to enter a religious order.[14] The eldest son of a
judge,[15] Luis de Leon renounced most of his share of the paternal
estate,[16] and gave it up to one--or both--of his younger brothers
Cristóbal and Miguel, each of whom had been _veinticuatro_ of Granada
at some date previous to April 15, 1572.[17] On January 29, 1544, Luis
de Leon was formally professed in the Augustinian order.[18] In his
monastery we may plausibly conjecture that he led a solitary and
bookish existence, poring over his texts and attending lectures
assiduously. As early as 1546-1547 his name appears on the list of
students of theology at Salamanca; the registers of theological
students covering the years 1547-1548 to 1550-1551 are missing; Luis
de Leon's name does not appear in the register for the academic year
1551-1552, but it recurs in the University books for the years
1552-1553 and 1554-1555. He there figures still as a student of
theology.[19] He would seem, therefore, to have shown no amazing
precocity in the schools; but his application, we may be sure, was
intense, and there is nothing rash in assuming that during part of
the two years that he was absent, as he tells us,[20] from Salamanca,
he was lecturing at Soria. The remaining eighteen months he probably
devoted to exegetical studies at Alcalá de Henares, where he
matriculated in 1556.[21] He was about thirty when he rather
unexpectedly graduated as a bachelor of Arts at the University of
Toledo.[22] Why he preferred to take his degree at Toledo instead of
at Salamanca is not clear; it is plausibly conjectured that economy
may have been his motive, as the obtaining of a bachelor's degree at
Salamanca was an expensive business.[23] Confirmation of this
conjecture is afforded by the fact that he speedily returned to his
allegiance, was 'incorporated' as a bachelor at Salamanca in 1588,
graduated there as a licentiate of theology in May 1560, and in the
following month became a master of theology.[24] It soon became clear
that he did not regard a University degree as a mere distinction. The
retirement of Gregorio Gallo caused a vacancy in the chair of
Biblical Exegesis at Salamanca. Luis de Leon, though but a master of a
few months' standing, presented himself as a candidate for the post.
He failed to obtain it, being defeated by Gaspar de Grajal, a future
ally and fellow victim:[25] so far as can be ascertained, this was
Luis de Leon's sole academic check. Manifestly he was not daunted. He
claimed, and established, his right to take part in certain
examinations in his faculty,[26] and 'con mucho exceso' thwarted the
designs of the famous Domingo Bañez, whom he afterwards described as
'enemigo capital'.[27] His combativeness did him no immediate harm,
for, in December 1561, he was elected Professor of Theology at
Salamanca.[28] He was obviously not disposed to hide his light under a
bushel, nor to perform his academic duties in a spirit of humdrum
routine. Whatever he did, he did with all his might, and his strenuous
versatility made him conspicuous in University life. In 1565 he was
transferred from the theological chair to the chair of Scholastic
Theology and Biblical Criticism, in which he succeeded his old master
Juan de Guevara.[29]

Such successes as Luis de Leon had hitherto won he owed mainly to his
own talents.[30] Brilliant as he was, there is no reason to assume
that he was personally popular in Salamanca.[31] It does not appear
that he made any effort to win popularity; nor is it certain that he
would have succeeded even if he had sought to win it. His temper was
impulsive, his disposition was critical and independent; his tongue
and pen were sharp and made enemies among members of his own order;
moreover, he contrived to alienate the Dominicans, a powerful body in
Salamanca, as in the rest of Spain. No doubt he had many admirers,
especially among his own students. Yet the University, as a whole,
stood slightly aloof from him, and before long in certain obscurantist
circles cautious hints of latitudinarianism were murmured against him.
For these mumblings there was absolutely no sort of foundation.[32]
As might be inferred from the simple fact that he was afterwards
chosen to be the first editor of St. Theresa's works, Luis de Leon was
the most orthodox of men. His selection for this piece of work may
have been due to the influence of the saint's friend and successor,
Madre Ana de Jesús, who had the highest opinion of him.[33] But it was
not often that he produced so favourable a personal impression; he had
not mastered the gentle art of ingratiation; it is even conceivable
that he did not strictly observe St. Paul's injunction to 'suffer
fools gladly'.[34] Though fundamentally humble-minded, he was
intolerant of what he thought to be nonsense: a quality which would
perhaps not endear him to all his colleagues. He set a proper value on
himself and his attainments; he was prone to sift the precious metal
of truth from the dross of uninformed assertion; he had an incurable
habit of choosing his friends from amongst those who shared his
tastes. A good Hebrew scholar, he was on terms of special intimacy
with Gaspar de Grajal and with Martin Martinez de Cantalapiedra,[35]
respectively Professors of Biblical Exegesis and of Hebrew in the
University of Salamanca. Frank to the verge of indiscretion and
suspecting no evil, Luis de Leon scattered over Salamanca fagots each
of which contained innumerable sticks that his opponents used later to
beat him with. Lastly, he had the misfortune, as it proved later, to
differ profoundly on exegetical points from a veteran Professor of
Latin, Rhetoric, and Greek.[36] This was Leon de Castro, a man of
considerable but unassimilated learning, an astute wire-puller and
incorrigible reactionary whose name figures in the bibliographies as
the author of a series of commentaries on Isaiah--a performance which
has not been widely read since its tardy first appearance in 1571. The
delay in publishing this work, and the contemporary neglect of it,
were apparently ascribed by Castro to the personal hostility of Luis
de Leon who, though he did not approve of the book, seems to have been
perfectly innocent on both heads.[37]

The fires of these differences had smouldered for some years when,
during the University course (as it appears) of 1568-1569, Luis de
Leon gave a series of lectures wherein he discussed, with critical
respect, the authority attaching to the Vulgate. The respect passed
almost unnoticed; the criticism gave a handle to a group of vigilant
foes. Since 1569 a good deal of water has flowed under the bridges
which span the Tormes, and it is intrinsically likely that, were the
objectionable lectures before us, Luis de Leon might appear to be an
ultra-conservative in matters of Biblical criticism. But this is not
the historical method. In judging the action of Leon de Castro and his
allies we must endeavour to adjust ourselves to the sixteenth-century
point of view. Matters would seem to have developed somewhat as
follows. In 1569 a committee was formed at Salamanca for the purpose
of revising François Vatable's version of the Bible; both Luis de Leon
and Leon de Castro were members of this committee,[38] and as they
represented different schools of thought, there were lively passages
between the two. It is customary to lay at Castro's door all the blame
for the sequel. Nothing is likelier than that Leon de Castro was
incoherent in his recriminations and provocative in tone: it is
further alleged that his commentaries on Isaiah contained gratuitous
digs at the views on Scriptural interpretation ascribed to Luis de
Leon. It may well be that Luis de Leon, who had in him something of
the irritability of a poet, took umbrage at these indirect attacks,
and entered upon the discussion in a fretful state of mind. According
to Leon de Castro, whose testimony on this point is uncontradicted,
the climax came about in connexion with the text: 'Out of the mouth of
babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise.' Castro obstinately
maintained that Vatable's interpretation of this passage was an
interpretation favoured by the Jews against whom he cherished an
incorrigible prejudice. Luis de Leon is reported to have lost patience
at this assertion, and to have said that he would cause Castro's
_Commentaria in Essaiam Prophetam_ to be burnt. Castro, whatever his
faults, was not the man to be cowed by a threat, and he retorted with
the remark that, by God's grace, this should not come to pass, and
that if there were any burning it would be applied rather to Luis de
Leon and his family.[39] Having fired his bolt, but conscious that he
was in a minority on the committee, Castro concluded with the sulky
declaration that he did not propose to attend any further meetings of
that body. He would seem to have changed his mind later on this point,
modestly alleging that he gave way to the insistence of others who
deemed his presence indispensable, on account of his knowledge of
languages.[40] Whatever his linguistic accomplishments, they did not
produce the desired effect, for Vatable's version of the Bible was
passed as revised by the committee of Salamancan theologians in 1571,
though, for some unexplained reason, their revised text was not
published till thirteen years later.

The quarrel between Castro and Luis de Leon soon became public
property. Passions were ablaze in a moment. Parties were formed, and
Castro found much support, especially among the body of
undergraduates, of whom one at least ingenuously described himself as
'del bando de Jesucristo'.[41] There was almost as much tumult in the
University of Salamanca as in Agramante's camp. Even if Castro thought
that the hour of his triumph was at hand, he was too experienced and
too Spanish to be precipitate. He may well have had an inkling that,
if many were repelled by Luis de Leon's austerity and implacable
righteousness, his own reputation as a pedant and reactionary did not
mark him out for leadership. His lack of expository power may also
have struck him as a disqualification.[42] Further, on tactical
grounds, he may have argued that his notorious hostility to Luis de
Leon made it advisable for him not to figure too prominently in the
ranks of the attacking party. Whatever his motive may have been,
Castro gave place to a younger and far abler man, the well-known
Dominican, Bartolomé de Medina, whose relations with Luis de Leon,
never cordial, had grown strained, owing to various checks and
disappointments. Medina honestly differed from Luis de Leon's views as
regards Scriptural interpretation; he would have been a good deal more
(or less) than human if he had not been galled by a series of small
personal mortifications. He particularly resented, as well he might,
being out-argued when he presented himself before Luis de Leon to be
examined for his licentiateship of theology; the knowledge that this
incident was talked over by mocking students did not improve
matters.[43] Medina was, however, too wily to delate Luis de Leon
directly; he reported to the Inquisition on the general situation at
Salamanca, and in this document no names were mentioned. Luis de Leon
was not in a position to counteract the manoeuvres of his opponents.
It is not certain that he could have done so, had he been continuously
in Salamanca at this time: as it happened, he was absent at Belmonte
from the beginning of 1571 till the month of March, and on his return
he fell ill. All this while, Medina and Castro were free to go about
sowing tares, making damaging suggestions, and collecting such
corroborative evidence as could be gleaned from ill-disposed
colleagues and garrulous or slow-witted students.[44] It appears that
Medina's statement, embodying seventeen propositions which (as he
averred) were taught at Salamanca, reached the Supreme Inquisition in
Madrid on December 2, 1571; on December 13 the Inquisitionary
Commissary at Salamanca was instructed to ascertain the source of the
statement,[45] and to report on the tenability of the views set forth
in the seventeen propositions.[46] Evidently the matter was regarded
as urgent: for, on December 17, the Inquisitionary Commissary opened
his preliminary inquiry at Salamanca. The sole witness called at the
first sitting was Medina,[47] who repeated his assertions, mentioning
Luis de Leon, Grajal, and Martinez de Cantalapiedra as offenders. A
committee of five persons was appointed to examine into the orthodoxy
of the views alleged to be held by these three. As Leon de Castro was
a member of this committee, and as none of the other four members was
in sympathy with Luis de Leon, the general tenor of the committee's
findings might readily be predicted. These findings were somewhat
hastily adopted by the local Inquisition at Valladolid on January 26,
1572, when the arrest of Grajal and Martinez de Cantalapiedra was
recommended.[48] Up to this point Luis de Leon would seem not to have
been officially implicated by name, though he was clearly aimed at,
especially by Castro who appeared before the Inquisitionary
Commissary at Salamanca, and reiterated Medina's charges with some
wealth of rancorous detail.[49]

With significant promptitude effect was given to the recommendation of
the local Inquisition: Grajal was apprehended on March 1; shortly
afterwards Martinez de Cantalapiedra was likewise apprehended; and, as
these measures seemed to arouse no feeling more dangerous than
surprise in Salamanca, it was conceivably thought safe to fly at
higher game. Manifestly, Luis de Leon must have known that something
perilous was afoot when he handed in a most respectfully-worded
written statement on March 6, 1572.[50] By about this time there had
arrived in Salamanca Diego Gonzalez--an experienced official, whose
conduct of the Inquisitionary case against Bartolomé de Carranza, the
Archbishop of Toledo, has earned him an unenviable repute.[51] Under
the presidency of Gonzalez, who might be trusted to keep the weaker
brethren, if there were any, up to the mark, the local Inquisition on
March 15 resolved to recommend the arrest of Luis de Leon. Apparently
the gravity of this step was recognized. Another sitting was held on
March 19, and a vote was taken with the result that the previous
decision was confirmed by four votes to two. It should not, however,
be assumed that the vote of the two implied any marked personal
sympathy with Luis de Leon. On the contrary: the difference between
the majority and the minority was concerned solely with a question of
procedure. The minority suggested that it would cause less fuss and
less scandal to seize Luis de Leon, Grajal, and Martinez de
Cantalapiedra, to place each of them in solitary confinement for a
short while in a Valladolid monastery, and thence to remove them,
without trial, to the secret prison of the Inquisition.[52] It is
difficult to detect the humanitarian motive of this alternative
proposal.




II


[Footnote 1: _Revista Agustiniana_ (Madrid, 1882), vol. III, p. 127.
'Lope Alvarez Ponce de Leon, Regidor de Segovia... casó dos veces: la
primera con Doña Leonor Sánchez de Olivares, hija de Díez Sánchez de
Olivares y hermana de aquel valiente caballero Don Pedro de Olivares,
comendador del Olmo, del orden de Calatrava en tiempo del Maestro D.
Rodrigo Téllez Girón. De este matrimonio tuvieron tres hijos. En
segundas nupcias casó con Doña Leonor de Villanueva, y tuvieron dos
hijos; pero no declaran quienes fueron del primer matrimonio, y
quienes del segundo. Solo de D. Gómez consta que es del primer
matrimonio.']

[Footnote 2: _Proceso original que la Inquisicion de Valladolid hizo
al maestro Fr. Luis de Leon, religioso del orden de S. Agustin._ This
_proceso_, edited by D. Miguel Salvá and D. Pedro Sainz de Baranda,
occupies the tenth volume and pp. 5-358 of the eleventh volume of the
_Coleccion de Documentos inéditos para la historia de España_ (Madrid,
1847).]

[Footnote 3: Ex. gr. _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 96-97,
184-185, 255-256; vol. XI, pp. 38, 131, 350.]

[Footnote 4: It is established beyond doubt, however, that some
members of the family used the name Ponce. The works of Luis de Leon's
eminent nephew, Basilio, an Augustinian like himself, bear on their
title-pages the words 'Basilius Pontius Legionensis'.]

[Footnote 5: This assertion is made emphatically by Diego de Haedo,
the prosecuting counsel on behalf of the Inquisition; he calls Luis de
Leon a 'descendiente de generacion de judíos' (_Documentos inéditos_,
vol. X, p. 206). An echo of the charge is faintly audible in Luis de
Leon's own testimony. It is repeated with violence by Leon de Castro:
'...enojado de la porfía el dicho fray Luis, despues le dijo á este
declarante que le habia de hacer quemar un libro que imprimia sobre
Exsahías, y este declarante le respondió que con la gracia de Dios que
ni él, ni su libro no prenderia fuego, ni podia; que primero prenderia
en sus orejas y linaje; y queste declarante no queria ir mas á las
juntas' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 12).]

[Footnote 6: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 157.]

[Footnote 7: See note 1.]

[Footnote 8: Luis de Leon apparently took no special interest in his
family history. Before the Inquisitionary Tribunal at Valladolid on
April 15, 1572, he traced his descent no further back than his
grandparents, adding that, as he entered religion when he was fourteen
years old, 'no tiene entera noticia de qué casta vienen los dichos sus
padres y agüelos, mas de haber oido decir que ciertos contrarios que
tuvo su padre, le pusieron en su hidalguía que venia de casta de
conversos.

E preguntado si sabe que alguno de los de su descendencia ó
trasversalía haya seido preso ó peniado ó condenado por este Santo
Oficio; dijo que no lo sabe' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 182).

By May 14, 1573, Luis de Leon had recalled further particulars:
'Porque mi padre fué un hombre muy católico y muy principal como
conoció todo el reino, y su padre que se llamó Gomez de Leon lo fué no
menos que él en su lugar, y este tuvo un hermano de padre y madre que
se llamó el licenciado Pedro de Leon, que fué collegial en el collegio
del Cardenal desta villa como se puede luego saber; y el padre de
ambos, visagüelo mio, se llamó Lope de Leon muy católico y de los mas
honrados y principales de su lugar; y el padre de este y visagüelo
mio, se llamó Pero Fernandez de Leon que le trujo el primer Señor de
Belmonte consigo á aquel lugar, y fué alcaide en la fortaleza dél todo
el tiempo que vivió, y el mas principal y mas limpio que habia en él,
desto que el mundo llama limpieza, como siendo necesario probaré
bastantemente' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 385-386). This
challenge was never taken up.]

[Footnote 9: It is not free from doubt because, though some of the
witnesses, whose testimony is given in _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X,
pp. 146-174, are doubtless in good faith in their evidence as to Luis
de Leon's Jewish descent, they refer to events which happened long
before; and their memories are apt to play them false and their
narratives are muddled. Luis de Leon appears to point to these
depositions when he says: 'Y no se hallará en memoria de hombres ni de
escrituras ciertas, que nombrada y señaladamente alguno de todos mis
antecesores se haya convertido á la fe de nuevo' (_Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, p. 386). In common fairness, it should be said that
the statement of P. Mendez [see note 1] is more in the nature of
assertion unsupported by full evidence.]

[Footnote 10: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 180.]

[Footnote 11: M.R.P. Francisco Blanco García, _Fr. Luis de León:
estudio biográfico del insigne poeta agustino_, p. 254.]

[Footnote 12: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 23. On April 15, 1572,
Luis de Leon stated that he was about forty-four (_Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, p. 180): '...de edad de cuarenta é cuatro años,
poco mas ó menos tiempo'. This is perhaps too vague to furnish a basis
for a conclusion.]

[Footnote 13: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 173.]

[Footnote 14: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 182. Luis de Leon
states that he made up his mind as to his religious vocation within
four or five months of reaching Salamanca.]

[Footnote 15: 'El licenciado Lope de Leon, oidor que fué de la
Chancillería de Granada, defunto, y Doña Inés de Alarcon su muger, que
agora vive en Granada.' So Luis de Leon described his parents at the
first sitting of the Inquisitionary Tribunal at Valladolid
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 180).]

[Footnote 16: 'Y en lo que toca á mi vida, aunque estoy lleno de
faltas y pecados mas que otro alguno; pero esto es verdad que yo tomé
el hábito de religion que tengo, de 14 años de mi edad, y dejé cuatro
mill ducados de renta que mi padre tenia vinculados en mi cabeza como
en el mayor de sus hijos' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 386).]

[Footnote 17: Luis de Leon seems to have arranged that his brother
Miguel should pay him annually a small sum which was, apparently, to
be spent on books. This is a fair inference from Luis de Leon's reply
to a claim lodged against him by one Lucas Junta, a bookseller of
Salamanca, on March 17, 1575 (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 51,
52). It seems doubtful whether Miguel reached Luis's standard of
punctuality in the matter of payment (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI,
p. 196). Luis de Leon had two sisters, Mencía de Tapia and María de
Alarcon. The latter had died before April, 1572. So had another
brother, Antonio, who was a priest (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p.
182).]

[Footnote 18: _Revista Agustiniana_ (Madrid, 1882), vol. I, p. 414.]

[Footnote 19: Blanco García, _op. cit._, pp. 47-48.]

[Footnote 20: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 182.]

[Footnote 21: J. Gonzalez de Tejada, _Vida de Fray Luis de Leon_,
Madrid, 1863, p. 10.]

[Footnote 22: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 59.]

[Footnote 23: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 59, note I.]

[Footnote 24: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 60.]

[Footnote 25: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 62, note 4. Grajal was so
greatly struck with his opponent's ability that he supported Luis de
Leon in all his subsequent candidatures. On this point we have an
explicit statement from Luis de Leon: 'Es verdad que el maestro Grajal
ha sido y es mi amigo, y querelle yo bien comenzó de que habiendo sido
primero competidores en la cátreda de Biblia que él llevó, en las
demas oposiciones que yo hice, sin sabello yo, trató en mi favor con
tanto cuidado y con tan gran encarecimiento de buenas palabras, que
cuando lo supe quedé obligado á tratalle, y del trato resultó conocer
en él uno de los hombres de mas sanas y limpias entrañas y mas sin
doblez que yo he tratado; y ansí nuestra amistad fué siempre, no como
de hombres de letras para comunicar y conferir nuestros estudios, sino
como de dos hombres que trataban ambos de ser hombres de bien, y por
conocer esto el uno del otro se querian bien' (_Documentos inéditos_,
vol. X, pp. 326-327).]

[Footnote 26: Gonzalez de Tejada, _op. cit._, pp. 21-22.]

[Footnote 27: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 261-262.]

[Footnote 28: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 63.]

[Footnote 29: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 64.]

[Footnote 30: Not altogether, for though Luis de Leon had, in an
eminent degree, the knack of success in all open competitions, the
students took part in the elections of professors at Salamanca, and
this element disturbed calculations.]

[Footnote 31: This is a fair inference from Luis de Leon's assertion:
'en aquella universidad yo tengo muchos enemigos por causa de mis
pretendencias' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 574).]

[Footnote 32: On this head, Luis de Leon's acquittal by the Supreme
Inquisition speaks for itself.]

[Footnote 33: 'Es muy santo... Tiene mucho caudal de Dios'. These
encomiastic phrases of the pious nun's are quoted by Blanco García
(_op. cit._, p. 245) from Angel Manrique, _Vida de la Venerable Ana de
Jesús_ (Bruselas, 1632), p. 328. Manrique's biography is not within my
reach.]

[Footnote 34: Luis de Leon's probity was not free from a touch of
brusqueness. This is disclosed by his own description of his behaviour
to a dullard who made his life at Salamanca a burden: 'Acerca del
capítulo cuarto, demás de lo dicho digo que creo que este testigo es
un bachiller Rodriguez, y por otro nombre el doctor Sutil que en
Salamanca llaman por burla; y sospécholo de que dice en este capítulo
que le dejé sin respuesta, porque jamás dejé de responder á ninguna
persona de aquella universidad que me preguntase algo, sino a éste que
digo, con el cual por ser falto de juicio y preguntar algunas veces
cosas desatinadas, y colligir disparates de lo que oia y no entendia,
me enojaba y le decia que era tonto. Y otras veces por no enojarme ni
desconcertarme con él no le respondia nada, sino huia dél'
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 357-358).]

[Footnote 35: This was the contention of the prosecuting counsel. Luis
de Leon, however, declared that, highly as he thought of Martinez de
Cantalapiedra's patristic learning, there was no marked intimacy
between them, and that he often did not meet Martinez de Cantalapiedra
for a year or two. 'Ni yo tenia con él trato ni conversacion
ordinaria; antes se pasaba un año y dos años que no le veia ni
hablaba.... Y siempre le tuve y tengo por el hombre mas leido en los
sanctos de cuantos hay en aquella universidad' (_Documentos inéditos_,
vol. X, p. 227).]

[Footnote 36: Leon de Castro's first appointment at Salamanca is dated
March 28, 1549: he was 'jubilado' on July 5, 1561. See Vicente de la
Fuente, _Historia de las universidades, colegios y demas
establecimientos en España_ (Madrid, 1884-1889), vol. II, p. 250.]

[Footnote 37: Francisco Sanchez, possibly _El Brocense_, testified to
Castro's saying: '_isti judæi et judaizantes_ me han echado á perder,
y por eso no se vende mi libro'. Sanchez bluntly told the Inquisitors
that he did not believe this, and attributed the book's failure to its
size and price (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 299-300). It is
suggested by Vicente de la Fuente (_op. cit._, vol. II, p. 289, note
3) that there was some basis for Castro's opinion. Luis de Leon
implicitly denied the charge, which he manifestly thought beneath
contempt: 'Y si yo hubiera tratado como Leon cree de que la
Inquisicion vedara su libro, yo hiciera que se advirtiera. Y aunque el
doctor Valbas en Alcalá á quien fué cometido por el Consejo Real, al
principio le quitó grandes pedazos adonde trataba á San Hierónimo como
me trata á mí agora, no le pudo quitar esto que yo digo, por que era
quitalle todo el libro,...' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 352).
Luis de Leon tried in a friendly way to convince Castro about the
errors in his book before it was published and as soon as the printing
began (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 351). This intervention
would nettle Castro, who seems to have had Jewry on the brain; he
mentioned, apparently, that Vatable, St. Jerome, and St. John
Chrysostom were all Jews or Judaizers (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X,
p. 294). What probably nettled Castro still more was that Luis de Leon
found fault with his knowledge of Latin and Greek: 'lo cual él sentia
mucho porque tocaba en propio de su profesion.' Luis de Leon proposed
to call five witnesses on this point (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI,
pp. 256-257), but this was ruled out as irrelevant (_impertinente_) by
the Inquisitionary Tribunal.]

[Footnote 38: The Chairman of this Committee was Francisco Sancho,
Dean of the Theological Faculty of Salamanca. The other members--at
any rate those who signed Sancho's copy of Vatable (_Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 521-522)--were Juan de Almeida, Don Carlos,
García del Castillo, Diego Gonzalez, Grajal, Juan de Guevara, Martinez
de Cantalapiedra, Bartolomé de Medina, Muñiz, and Juan Vique. As the
names of Luis de Leon and Juan Gallo are omitted, the list cannot be
thought exhaustive. So, also, are the names of Bravo and Muñon absent
from the list. These last two omissions are readily explained. Bravo
and Muñon had both died before December 26, 1571 (_Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, p. 10).]

[Footnote 39: Castro's statement was: 'Porfió de tal manera [fray Luis
de Leon] que no era el sentido este deste lugar, y despues de visto
que era ansí, porfió... que tambien podia ser verdadero el sentido de
los judíos...; dijo este testigo que aunque viniesen todos los
letrados del mundo, no podrian hacer que aquel sentido de los judíos
pudiese venir ni cuadrar con la letra griega, ni hebrea ni latina,...
y enojado de la porfía el dicho fray Luis, despues le dijo á este
declarante que le habia de hacer quemar un libro que imprimia sobre
Exsahías, y este declarante le respondió que con la gracia de Dios que
ni él, ni su libro no prenderia fuego, ni podia; que primero prenderia
en sus orejas y linaje; y queste declarante no queria ir mas á las
juntas' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 11-12). Though far from
friendly to Luis de Leon, the Dominican Juan Gallo was provoked into
saying that he would pare Castro's claws till the blood streamed from
him: 'queriendo decir por las uñas que era este declarante áspero
porque les decia que era aquello de judaizantes, y que no lo decia por
ellos, sino porque defendian las cosas de judíos;...' (_Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, P. 15).]

[Footnote 40: 'Y el colegio de teólogos envió al maestro fray Juan de
Guevara y á otro maestro, á pedirle y mandarle que no faltase de allí
porque no podían hacer nada sin las lenguas.' This is Castro's
version. (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 12.)]

[Footnote 41: Castro states (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 16)
that this pious student was Bernardino de Mendoza, son of the Marqués
de Mondéjar.]

[Footnote 42: Bartolomé de Carranza mentions (_Documentos inéditos_,
vol. XI, p. 279) Castro's muddle-headed knack of misunderstanding what
was said to him, and his propensity to argue points, imagining that
his opponents had said the very reverse of what they had said. As to
Castro's lack of expository power, Luis de Leon states, 'tiene falta
de lengua' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 327).]

[Footnote 43: This is established by the evidence of Mancio, a
professor who came to Medina's rescue: '...vió este testigo quel
dicho fray Luis de Leon arguyó al dicho fray Bartolomé de Medina muy
bien, é que no le concluyó, y ques verdad que tuvo el dicho fray
Bartolomé de Medina padrino en este testigo para ayudalle y le ayudó
para los argumentos que se le ofrecieron; é que lo queste testigo
contó á los estudiantes fué que tuvo necesidad el dicho fray Bartolomé
de Medina que le ayudase, aunque sin padrinos pudiera él responder'
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 317). This must be dated before
February, 1570, when Medina took his degree as Master of Theology
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 340). In May-June, 1571, Luis de
Leon and Medina had a squabble as to the distribution of lectures. The
Rector of Salamanca decided in Medina's favour: Luis de Leon appealed
to the Consejo Real at Madrid, and won his case on September 23, 1566
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 323-327).]

[Footnote 44: The evidence of Alonso Rejon (_Documentos inéditos_,
vol. X, p. 51) seems conclusive: '...preso ya el maestro Grajal, se
llegó á este declarante el maestro fray Luis de Leon... quejándose de
algunos maestros de esta universidad y particularmente del maestro
fray Juan Gallego, que admitian dichos de estudiantes, los cuales
decian algunas cosas diferentemente de lo que las habian leido los
maestros,...' As to Medina's action, Luis de Leon wrote (_Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, p. 228): 'Tambien me acuerdo que vino un
estudiante á mí, y tomándome palabra de secreto, me dijo que fray
Bartolomé de Medina andaba haciendo pesquisa de Grajal y Martinez,
aunque no me los nombró, pero entendílo de las señas que dió; y que á
él le habia preguntado, y él le habia dicho cinco ó seis cosas que les
habia oido, y acuérdome de dos dellas, porque me pareció que me tocaba
á mí tambien. La una era de la Vulgata que se podria hacer otra mejor,
y yo le dije riendo: _pues quieren atar las manos á Dios que no pueda
hacer un profeta en su iglesia_. Y la otra era que los Cantares eran
_Carmen amatorium_, y le dije: _Carmen amatorium_ ni dice bien ni mal.
Si dice _Carmen amatorium carnale_, eso es mal; pero si dice _Carmen
amatorium spirituale_, eso verdad es. Y á lo demás que me dijo, me
encogí, como cosa que oia entonces, y no entendia bien lo que queria
decir, á todo cuanto me acuerdo;...']

[Footnote 45: These data, given by Blanco García (_op. cit._, pp.
111-115), are derived from the record of Grajal's trial.]

[Footnote 46: The seventeen propositions are printed in _Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 286-287; they are reproduced by Blanco García
(_op. cit._, p. 111). According to Bartolomé de Medina (_Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, p. 66), the teaching of the doctrines embodied in
the seventeen propositions scandalized the Salamancan students.]

[Footnote 47: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 5-7.]

[Footnote 48: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 113.]

[Footnote 49: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 7-18.]

[Footnote 50: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 96-102.]

[Footnote 51: See _Documentos inéditos_, vol. LXVIII.]

[Footnote 52: Blanco García, _op. cit._, pp. 114-115.]




III


Though, in accord with the customary procedure in such cases, each
witness who appeared before Gonzalez was sworn to secrecy, it is
evident that there was no mystery in Salamanca as to the intention of
the Valladolid Inquisitors. On March 25, 1572, a day before the formal
order for the arrest of Luis de Leon was actually signed, Diego de
Valladolid was accepted as bail to the amount of two thousand ducats,
that the said Luis de Leon would go quietly to prison in Valladolid
without making any attempt at escape.[53] A document to this effect
was drawn up and was duly signed by three witnesses, of whom one was a
Familiar of the Inquisition, Francisco de Almansa. It seems likely
that Almansa may have suspected that, for the time being, the hours of
Luis de Leon's comparative freedom were already numbered; for, on the
following day (March 26, 1572), Almansa was appointed _alguacil_ of
the Valladolid Inquisitionary court, was directed to arrest Luis de
Leon wherever he might be--'in church, or monastery, or other hallowed
place'--and was further ordered to sequestrate any arms, cash, jewels,
or papers which the prisoner might have about him.[54] Almansa, to
whom Luis de Leon was perfectly well known,[55] obeyed instructions,
and reached the Valladolid jail with his captive at about six o'clock
in the evening of Thursday, March 27, 1572.[56] After being carefully
searched, Luis de Leon was lodged in the secret cells of the
Inquisition, and there, except for his appearances in court, he was
detained for over four years and eight months.[57]

Though he was notoriously in weak health, the prisoner does not seem
to have received any special consideration. On the other hand, it
cannot be maintained that, at the outset, his judges treated him with
inhumanity. That Luis de Leon was nervous about himself, and that he
believed it possible he might die without warning is the impression
conveyed by a fervent act of faith which, though undated, was probably
written almost as soon as his imprisonment began. On March 31, Luis de
Leon asked for various things besides four books: one of them a box of
powder with which he was usually provided by a nun named Ana de
Espinosa to alleviate his heart-attacks.[58] This petition was
granted. Luis de Leon's request for a knife to cut his food with was
so clearly against all prison regulations that he can scarcely have
expected a favourable reply.[59] The Inquisitors met him half-way by
ordering that he should at once be supplied with a rounded spoon,
sufficient for his purpose, though useless to a prisoner of suicidal
tendencies.[60] At this stage, it cannot be said that Luis de Leon was
treated with any want of lenity. There was no reason why he should be.
He was arrested mainly on suspicion of being concerned in the (purely
imaginary) Jewish propaganda imputed to his colleagues Grajal and
Martinez de Cantalapiedra; the evidence against him was second-hand
and meagre.

Before long matters began to take a graver aspect. A definite
charge[61] emerged that some ten or eleven years earlier[62] Luis de
Leon had translated from the Hebrew into Spanish the _Song of
Solomon_, to which he appended a commentary, also in Spanish. This he
did at the request of a nun whose name is incidentally revealed as
'Doña Isabel Osorio, monja de Sancti Espíritu de Salamanca'.[63] That
Luis de Leon's proceeding was most imprudent is undeniable. With
characteristic courage and candour, in his first _confesion_ of March
6, he volunteered the admission that he had made such a rendering.[64]
At this moment he was apparently unaware that the existence of this
rendering had been already brought to the notice of the Inquisition by
Medina.[65] Nobody questions Luis de Leon's good faith. Nevertheless
one gets the impression that he felt this to be a weak point in his
case. It was. He had committed a serious indiscretion by infringing
the general prohibition of vernacular versions of any part of
Scripture. No doubt it might be contended that his rendering of the
_Song of Solomon_, and his commentary on it, were originally meant to
be used by only one private person; that the prohibition referred to
the circulation of vernacular versions; that this particular version,
made for the exclusive use of Doña Isabel Osorio, did not amount to
circulation (within the four corners of the general prohibition); and
that such circulation as had taken place had occurred against the will
of the translator. This is not mere sophistry. What seems to have
happened was this. It appears that a lay brother, named Diego de Leon,
part of whose business it was to tidy Luis de Leon's cell, stumbled
one day upon the original manuscript of the vernacular version of the
_Song of Solomon_, copied it without leave or licence, and allowed so
many transcriptions of his copy to be made that it became absolutely
impossible for the translator to control or recall them
afterwards.[66] Manifestly Diego de Leon did not venture to remove the
original manuscript from its resting-place; it was still in Luis de
Leon's monastery-cell on November 7, 1573.[67] Search being made for
it, the version was found, handed over to the Inquisitionary
authorities, and retained by them when judgement was pronounced.[68]
There is evidence to show that many manuscript copies of the
vernacular _Song of Solomon_ stole into existence and were widely
distributed. On March 6, 1572, Luis de Leon, whose references to this
matter are tinged with regret, uses words which seem to imply that a
copy had reached Portugal; and an inquiry, opened at Cuzco in the
autumn of 1575, revealed the fact that a transcription of the
_Cantares que llaman de fray Luis de Leon_ had been made by Fray Luis
Alvarez and conveyed by him to South America. This transcription,
after being recopied by a Lima graduate, who appears to have left for
Spain to continue his studies at the University of Alcalá de Henares,
was deposited in the public library of Quito which was housed in the
Augustinian monastery there.[69] This episode denotes a morbid
curiosity which must have been revolting to Luis de Leon's austere
nature. He candidly avowed doubts as to the prudence of facilitating
the reading of the _Song of Solomon_ in Spanish, and would have
cancelled all manuscript copies if he could.[70] In this respect,
however, he was powerless, and no better remedy occurred to him than
to set to work on a Latin version which, when printed, should supplant
the Spanish rendering. This he hoped to be able to disown. But fate
was hostile to his design. Constant ill-health hindered him from
making rapid headway with his projected Latin translation. He
submitted himself to the Court which, naturally enough, vouchsafed no
reply to his request for alternative suggestions as to how he could
make amends for a preliminary error of judgement.[71]

If Luis de Leon's opponents expected to overwhelm him by the
suddenness, vehemence, or volume of their attack, they must speedily
have been disillusioned. The mystic poet proved to be a formidable
fighting-man. Before very long it must have dawned upon the
Inquisitionary deputies at Valladolid that they had caught a Tartar.
Unversed in the ways of the world, Luis de Leon came of a legal stock,
and was thoroughly at home in a law-court. A master of dialectics, he
was always alert, always prompt to criticize the evidence, always
ready to deal with every point as it arose, always prepared to furnish
elaborate written or verbal explanations as to every detail concerning
which the tribunal could harbour a reasonable doubt. The official
secretaries of the Court--Celedon Gustin and the rest of them--must
have grown to dread Luis de Leon's continual demands for sheets of
paper on which to write his long, considered replies. It would be
idle to attempt to summarize the technical arguments advanced by each
side in support of conflicting views on doctrinal or exegetical
problems. In this place, it will suffice to advert to points which
help to illuminate the character of Luis de Leon, or to exemplify the
attitude of the court towards him.

At the outset, as already stated, there seems to have existed no
decided prejudice against Luis de Leon in the minds of his judges:
they apparently administered the existing system in a not illiberal
spirit. There are indications, however, that this position of relative
impartiality was not maintained. That the court became gradually
biased against the accused seems to follow from the small but eloquent
fact of its rejecting Luis de Leon's petition that his University
chair should not be declared vacant till the end of his trial.[72] It
cannot be argued that the judges were concerned for the efficiency of
the teaching in the University of Salamanca--a matter in which they
took no sort of interest. The decision of the court in Luis de Leon's
case was in direct conflict with the ruling of the same court as
regards Barrientos, another Salamancan professor who was in custody of
the Valladolid Inquisition on May 20, 1572.[73] It was then settled
that Barrientos should not be disturbed, and that no successor to him
should be appointed so long as he was imprisoned. Luis de Leon's chair
was declared vacant as soon as his normal tenure of four years had
expired; the ordinary course of unquestioned renewal was not followed;
and, to make matters worse, his implacable opponent, Bartolomé de
Medina, was appointed to succeed Luis de Leon in his chair.[74] For
this appointment, no doubt, the University of Salamanca is entitled to
claim such credit as is due. But no such appointment would have been
possible had the Valladolid Inquisitors been consistent. What caused
the court to be more severe to Luis de Leon than to his colleague
Barrientos?

This instance of inconsiderateness is not unique. As time went on the
bias of the court against the accused waxed rather than waned. Luis de
Leon's ill-health was notorious and, in fact, so obvious that it is
recorded by the court in an official minute.[75] His state did not
improve in jail. Suffering from fever--'como á sus mercedes les
consta'--so he says plaintively--he had nobody to look after him in
his secret cell save a sleepy-headed boy, a fellow-prisoner who was
half a simpleton. Luis de Leon had fainted from lack of food, and, in
the circumstances, it is not surprising that he should have asked to
be allowed the companionship of a monk of his order--preferably Fray
Alonso Siluente--or anybody else whom the court should think fit to
name.[76] Somewhat later, while still suffering from fever, Luis de
Leon begged that, on his providing satisfactory bail, he might be
transferred from his prison-cell to some neighbouring monastery, where
he could be detained till the end of his trial. So depressed was he
at this moment that he even welcomed the idea of being placed in a
Dominican monastery; it was true that the Dominicans were hostile to
him, yet if he died among them, he should be dying like a Christian,
surrounded by religious--not like a heathen with a blackamoor at his
bedside.[77] The first of these two requests was made to the
Valladolid judges, who passed it on to the Supreme Inquisition at
Madrid; the reply of this body was discouraging, for, though the
request was granted in principle, impossible conditions, tantamount to
a refusal, were imposed.[78] Luis de Leon's second request was
addressed direct to the Inquisitor-General: this petition was
disregarded. In other matters, less urgent but not less important from
an orthodox point of view, the Inquisitionary judges at Valladolid
made no concession to the prisoner. He asked to be allowed to go to
confession, and to say Mass once a fortnight in the hall where his
case was heard.[79] Apparently a deaf ear was turned to his
entreaties. A hostile critic might be tempted to say that a vindictive
spirit prevailed in the deliberations of the Valladolid tribunal.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, as the case developed,
the attitude of the Valladolid judges became less and less favourable
to Luis de Leon. Judges are mortals and liable to error. The very
pertinacity of the prisoner may have impressed them badly.[80] It is
in the highest degree improbable that they attached any importance to
his few slips. He speaks of having a naturally weak memory which, so
he declares, had grown worse while he was in prison,[81] and he was
frankly sceptical as to the possibility of any man's recalling every
incident in squabbles that happened years before.[82] As it happens,
his memory seems to have been excellent. No doubt it failed him now
and then; but seldom did it mislead him on any essential point.[83] It
is conceivable that Luis de Leon's judges at Valladolid thought him
lacking in deference. Though perfectly respectful, his attitude to
them was anything but subservient. The judges were accustomed to see
prisoners who were brought before them crushed with awe and a sense of
impending doom. Conscious of the baselessness of the charges against
him, the accused seemed to take his acquittal as certain; and he stood
so little in awe of his judges that he announced his intention of
appealing over their heads to the members of the Supreme
Inquisition.[84] Timidity was not among his failings. A priest of
Astudillo, formerly a student at Salamanca, had occasionally strayed
into Luis de Leon's densely-packed lecture-room, and retained an
abiding impression of the professor's _desenvoltura_ in his chair.[85]
Luis de Leon had not become wholly subdued during the intervening
years. He did not mince words in court, and indulged in sweeping
denunciations of large groups of men; he branded all Dominicans as
'enemies';[86] he was scarcely more indulgent in speaking of the
Jeromites (who resented his opposition to the candidature of their
representative, Hector Pinto, for a chair at Salamanca);[87] and on
general grounds, not unconnected with ancient academic rancours, he
objected to the entire faculty of theology at the University of Alcalá
de Henares.[88] The evidence of such persons should, he suggested, be
discounted in advance. Slow to think evil of his neighbours, Luis de
Leon was apt, once his suspicions were aroused, to fling his net
widely. He had some inkling that he and his had the fatal gift of
rousing antagonism. His uncle had been a practising lawyer, and Luis
de Leon argued that all who had suffered through the professional
activities of his kinsman should be debarred from testifying in his
case.[89] The unworldly man manifestly took it for granted that
witnesses who harboured any such grudge against him would willingly
admit it, if pressed on the point.

Outspoken as was Luis de Leon with regard to groups, he was not less
outspoken with regard to individuals, and in this respect it must be
admitted that he does not appear at his best. Vehemence of language
had been the rule in the Salamancan _juntas_ of professors, and much
of this intemperate tone clung to Luis de Leon. No doubt large
allowances should be made for him. He knew that his honour was at
stake and that his life was in peril.[90] As he was persuaded--perhaps
rightly--he had been brought to this pass mainly through the intrigues
of an unscrupulous pair.[91] His provocation was extreme. It was
almost to be expected that he should use plain words when referring to
foes as malignant as Medina and Castro. These two men he accused of
deliberately organizing a conspiracy against him;[92] he spoke bluntly
of Medina's 'hatred', 'rage', 'trickery', and 'lying';[93] he was not
mealy-mouthed in describing Castro's 'malice', 'deceit', 'calumnies',
and 'perjury'.[94] Luis de Leon dealt no less faithfully with some
members of his own order who were spiteful or cowardly--or both. As
early as the beginning of August 1572 Fray Gabriel Montoya, Prior of
the Augustinian Monastery at Toledo, stated to the Inquisitors at
Valladolid that, in his opinion, certain remarks on the Vulgate, made
by Luis de Leon in the course of a lecture, were of an heretical
savour.[95] The value of this opinion is somewhat diminished by the
fact that Montoya had a personal grudge against Luis de Leon who, some
four or five years previously, had prevented Montoya's election as
Provincial of the Augustinians in Spain.[96] This check seems to have
galled Montoya, who gives the impression of being a rancorous gossip,
and, before leaving the court, he repeated a malignant rumour--derived
he knew not whence--to the effect that Luis de Leon's father had
enjoined his son to be submissive to his superiors and to follow the
current opinion in matters intellectual.[97] Luis de Leon indulges in
no circuitous phrases when he comes to deal with Montoya, whom he
describes as an enemy notorious for his untruthfulness.[98] It would
appear that much of Montoya's second-hand information came from
another Augustinian, Francisco de Arboleda,[99] who had once been a
student of Luis de Leon's,[100] and had been entrusted by the prisoner
with the delicate mission of collecting from certain theologians in
Seville opinions favourable to Luis de Leon's views upon the
Vulgate.[101] This very sensible precaution scandalized Montoya. It is
open to criticism solely on the ground that Luis de Leon chose his
agent badly. To this criticism the real answer is that Luis de Leon
had to employ what agents he could, and that nobody but Arboleda, who
was not above flattering his old master,[102] was available at the
time of his mission to Seville. Arboleda's evidence was not damaging;
it was ill-intentioned and impertinent, inasmuch as it repeated vague
rumours of the Jewish descent of the accused;[103] the gravest fact
the witness could allege was Luis de Leon's view that a friar,
despite his vow of poverty, might spend a couple of coppers without
mortal sin in buying an _Agnus Dei_.[104] Arboleda gives the
impression of being a dullard, and this is pretty much the description
of him by another member of the Augustinian order--Pedro de
Rojas,[105] son of the Marqués de Pozas and afterwards Bishop of
Astorga and Osuna. Luis de Leon apparently agreed with Rojas in his
estimate of Arboleda's ability, and this may account for his
comparative leniency to the poor numbskull. More severe treatment is
meted out to another Augustinian, Diego de Zúñiga, whom Luis de Leon
brands as a deliberate perjurer.[106] Who was this Zúñiga? He has
generally been identified with the Zúñiga who was among the first in
Spain to declare in favour of the Copernican theory;[107] this action
needed courage and Zúñiga has had his reward. As he is respectfully
quoted by Galileo, he has attained something like immortality.[108]
There is, however, no conclusive evidence to show that this
enlightened writer is the Zúñiga who came under Luis de Leon's lash.
The correctness of the current identification is, at least, doubtful.

The fact that Diego de Zúñiga is a frequent combination of names in
Spain is an embarrassment to the investigator. It is noticeable that
Luis de Leon's references seem to imply some doubt as to his
opponent's real name; he is obviously uncertain whether his accuser
should be called Zúñiga or Rodriguez,[109] and in this uncertainty he
is not alone.[110] It appears that there were at least two
Augustinians known as Diego de Zúñiga in Luis de Leon's time; it
further appears that neither of the two inherited from his father the
surname which he habitually used. Both men claimed relationship with
the Duque de Béjar--it was to the seventh Duque de Béjar that
Cervantes dedicated the First Part of _Don Quixote_ in 1605--and both
assumed the family name of that illustrious stock.[111] The original
name of the more celebrated of these Zúñigas was Diego Arias;[112] the
original name of the less celebrated was Rodriguez.[113] This is not
decisive, but it may well be one of those small facts which speak
volumes. Chronology confirms the conclusion to be drawn from these
considerations. The Zúñiga who appeared against Luis de Leon at
Valladolid was evidently professed as early as 1559 or 1560;[114] the
more celebrated Zúñiga was not professed till 1566.[115] General
considerations point in the same direction. The views of Zúñiga
(_alias_ Arias) were approximately those of Luis de Leon;[116] he
viewed matters from the same standpoint, was himself a university
professor,[117] and had something of Luis de Leon's fearlessness.[118]
Zúñiga (_alias_ Rodriguez) was a man of a very different type:
pedantically attached to the letter of the law, morbidly scrupulous on
points of discipline. There seems to be no touch of burlesque
intention in Luis de Leon's presentment of the man. According to Luis
de Leon, Zúñiga (_alias_ Rodriguez) was half-crazed with vanity, much
given to boasting of the esteem in which he was held at the Papal
Court. On one occasion, the fatuous Zúñiga produced a short treatise
entitled _Manera para aprender todas las ciencias_, and, stating that
he proposed sending this pamphlet to the Pope, made bold to ask what
his interlocutor thought of it. Can he have been vain enough to expect
a favourable verdict? If so, he did not know his man. Luis de Leon
drily expressed his regret that a work destined for the Pope should be
so slight and should contain a number of rather commonplace passages
such as might be found in any current book of reference--though, as he
added politely, he assumed that these passages were the fruit of
independent reading. This courteous assumption, which Zúñiga hastily
assured Luis de Leon was exact,[119] could not alter the fact that the
ambitious author had been severely snubbed, and this snub may well
have rankled in the mind of a man who is described as 'vindictive'.
Zúñiga had another grievance against Luis de Leon, who had taken a
severe view of his companion's insolence to an official superior at a
Provincial Chapter, and had joined in making representations the
upshot of which was that the culprit was publicly and ignominiously
punished.[120] It is well-nigh incredible that the Zúñiga who
championed Copernicus, and displays vigilant self-restraint in his
writings, should have been guilty of such flightiness as is brought
home to his namesake; it is by no means inconceivable that the Zúñiga
who deposed against Luis de Leon should have been guilty of occasional
lapses. He is said to have been impetuous as well as vindictive;[121]
he had the dangerous gift of pulpit eloquence[122] and may have
acquired the trick of saying rather more than he meant. His evidence
against Luis de Leon, though fluent and clear, is not what we should
expect from a man of talent, who recognized the gravity of the charges
against the prisoner. His testimony, such as it is, has less
intellectual substance than the testimony of Castro and Medina; it
turns mainly on petty personal questions or on points of morbid
scrupulousness. The more closely his evidence is scrutinized, the more
difficult is it to avoid the suspicion that Zúñiga was not a perfectly
trustworthy witness. For instance, according to his sworn statement he
was thirty-six years old when he deposed at Toledo on November 4,
1572.[123] The declaration is made positively without any of the
qualifying phrases--'about', 'nearly', 'more or less'--so frequent on
the part of witnesses. Nevertheless, it seems possible that this
assertion is erroneous. Zúñiga refers to a discussion respecting Arias
Montano which he had with Luis de Leon in the latter's cell some
thirteen years previously. At this time Zúñiga would, on his own
showing, be but twenty-three. From what we know of Luis de Leon, it
seems improbable that he would admit to his confidential intimacy a
man so much his junior. No doubt Zúñiga (or Rodriguez) was young at
the time--hardly old enough, by his own reckoning, to be an ordained
priest--a _mancebo_, as he seemed to Luis de Leon's retrospicient
eyes.[124] Yet it is very hard to believe that Zúñiga was no more than
twenty-three when he took it upon himself to cast doubts on the
orthodoxy of Benito Arias Montano;[125] nor is it likely that Luis de
Leon would discuss so delicate a topic with the most brilliant of
youths. Let it not be said that the question of Zúñiga's accuracy in
stating his age is relatively unimportant. It is highly relevant; for,
if Zúñiga were capable of making a mistake on such a point, he was
manifestly more liable to error when dealing with other matters on
which he necessarily knew less. However, Zúñiga's evidence is not
weighty enough to call for detailed examination. He may be left to
bear the burden of Luis de Leon's scorn. I am more concerned here to
suggest that, on the facts before us, we are not compelled to identify
the Zúñiga who deposed against Luis de Leon with a namesake of a
higher intellectual type. To us who read the testimony in cold blood,
more than three centuries after it was given, it seems that Luis de
Leon deals as impartially with his brethren as with members of other
religious orders. This was not his intention, at any rate. He knew his
fellow-Augustinians better than he could know the rest, and he himself
tells us not obscurely that, out of consideration for his gown, he was
silent on various matters which, if proclaimed aloud, would not make
for edification.[126]

Members of the Valladolid Court could see for themselves that while
Luis de Leon's opponents--Dominicans, Jeromites, and the rest--were
banded solidly against him, the Augustinians were by no means
unanimous in his favour. That he was difficult to deal with personally
the Court had opportunities of knowing. His unbending fidelity to
principle and his impetuosity probably produced on the tribunal an
impression of obstinacy combined with caprice. On May 6, 1573, a
certain Dr. Ortiz de Funes was, as is recorded, nominated counsel to
the prisoner;[127] there is no reason to suppose that Ortiz de Funes
was in ability below the average level of the bar, but he was no match
for his client, and though he may have given valuable advice on purely
legal points, when these arose, it soon became plain that Luis de Leon
was the brain of the defence and that he meant to conduct that defence
in his own way. Ortiz de Funes became a nullity or, at least, a mere
figure-head whose main duty consisted in signing papers which the
prisoner had drawn up. A time came when, according to the practice of
the Inquisition, it became necessary for Luis de Leon to nominate
_patronos_, and in this matter Ortiz de Funes intervened somewhat more
prominently than was usual with him. A _patrono_ has no exact
counterpart in English ecclesiastical law; it was his business, within
narrow limits, to defend the interests of the accused from the
theological point of view. On June 26, 1574, Luis de Leon was brought
into court, and was told that he was to choose two _patronos_ out of
four men whose names were given him.[128] He was obviously taken aback
at this proposal, and replying that, since he did not know any of the
four, he was ignorant as to their qualifications, added that he had
already requested the appointment of Sebastian Perez, professor of
Theology at Párraces, as _patrono_. He renewed his request, adding
that either Dr. Cáncer or the Dominican Hernando del Castillo could be
appointed with Perez; but before any determination was taken, he
begged leave to consult his legal adviser.[129] As might have been
expected, Ortiz de Funes fell in with his client's view and two days
later made a formal application to the Court that Perez be appointed
_patrono_, with either Cáncer or Castillo to help him.[130] No
appointment was made at the moment and, as it turned out, this was
perhaps just as well; for by June 30 Luis de Leon had changed his
mind, and appeared in court to ask that Castillo's name be removed
from the list of acceptable _patronos_.[131] On July 14 Ortiz
de Funes announced his client's intention of appealing to the
Inquisitor-General against the decision forcing him to select
_patronos_ from a list of persons unknown to him.[132] Neither Luis de
Leon nor Ortiz de Funes seemed to have guessed that the Valladolid
judges were acting on instructions from the Supreme Inquisition at
Madrid.[133] For a moment the step taken by Ortiz de Funes and his
client appeared to have some slight effect. Luis de Leon was informed
that he would be allowed to appoint Perez as his _patrono_ but on two
conditions: (1) he must undertake to pay all the travelling expenses
of his _patrono_, and (2) an inquiry must be held to establish the
_limpieza_ of Perez. This last proceeding, it was significantly
added, would be slow.[134] Again Ortiz de Funes was consulted; but it
is difficult to believe that he had more than a technical
responsibility for the startling decision which he announced: the
decision to accept as _patronos_ Fray Mancio de _Corpus Christi_ and
either Bartolomé de Medina or Dr. Cáncer.[135] Mancio, whose pupil
Luis de Leon had once been at Alcalá, was a Dominican;[136] hence he
would be suspect--perhaps doubly 'suspect'--in the prisoner's eyes.
Medina, also a Dominican, was an overt foe; Cáncer, of whom Luis de
Leon knew nothing except that he was a professor at Salamanca, proved
to be not over friendly. Luis de Leon may conceivably have thought
that Mancio's undoubted learning would ensure his treading in the
strict path of justice, and that Mancio's advanced age[137] would
enable him to press his views on his coadjutor. It is more likely,
however, that the three names were put forward in a paroxysm of
impatience--at a moment when Luis de Leon was willing to fall in with
any arrangement which might hasten a decision of his case.

Mancio was appointed _patrono_, and was duly sworn in at Valladolid on
October 9, 1574;[138] on October 13 he made a report favourable to the
accused.[139] The prisoner was not informed of this (as he should have
been), and took umbrage at what he thought was an act of insolent
remissness. He appeared in court on October 16, and protested against
any of his papers being entrusted to Mancio, lest he should take them
to his Dominican monastery where they ran the risk of being scanned by
hostile eyes.[140] On October 22 the prisoner showed signs of
increasing distrust, for he then requested the return of thirty-two
sheets of paper, covered with notes for his defence, which he himself
had handed to Mancio.[141] Luis de Leon's suspicions deepened rapidly.
On October 25 he asked to be allowed to cancel his nomination of
Mancio as _patrono_.[142] The local judges referred the application
to the Supreme Inquisition, and were instructed to proceed as though
nothing unusual had happened; Mancio, however, was to be told to stay
away still further notice.[143] On December 7 Luis de Leon handed in a
written explanation of his recent action. With regard to Mancio, he
complained of his _patrono's_ omission to confer with him, expressed
some suspicion that Mancio might have become a party to Medina's plot,
declined to accept as valid Mancio's excuse for not attending--that he
had to lecture in Salamanca--and vehemently declared that Mancio's
negligence amounted to very grave sin.[144] These phrases can scarcely
have been used in their natural sense, for Luis de Leon concluded his
written petition by stating that he was still willing to accept Mancio
as his _patrono_, if Mancio were able to be present at Valladolid.
Should this be impossible, the prisoner asked that Dr. Vadillo, Canon
of Plasencia, and the Augustinian Fray Francisco Cueto should be
assigned to him as _patronos_. A working arrangement thus became
possible, and the General Inquisitor at Madrid ordered that Mancio
should be given due facilities. These orders were received on December
13.[145] It appears that Mancio picked up the dropped threads of this
business on December 23, and spent another day or two in reviewing the
general situation.[146] Mancio's cautious policy was doubtless sound;
but to Luis de Leon, who maintained that the matters on which his
_patrono_ had to pronounce were as simple as could be, these tactics
seemed mistaken, and on January 13, 1575, he begged the Court to press
Mancio to give an opinion without delay.[147] On March 6 Luis de Leon
once more complained of being unable to confer with his _patrono_; but
now, rather late in the day, he came nearer to putting the blame on
the right shoulders. Hitherto he had been prone to ascribe all manner
of evil motives to Mancio, whom he should have known better: at last
it vaguely dawned on him that the obstacles might come (as, in fact,
they did come) from the tribunal which was trying him.[148] On March
15 Mancio wrote a letter to the judges, promising to attend at
Valladolid unless absolutely prevented from doing so.[149] Four days
later the General Inquisition wrote to the same judges, hinting that a
decision might be given shortly.[150] The Valladolid Court was stirred
into temporary activity. A sitting was held on March 30; Mancio was
present; a consultation took place between him and his client;[151]
and henceforth we hear no more of difficulties in connexion with Luis
de Leon's _patrono_. Nearly six months had been wasted owing to want
of tact on the part of the Inquisitionary officials.

As the event proved, the prisoner's protests in this matter were
thoroughly justified. It is easy to perceive this now. We cannot be
sure that we should have taken the same view had we been contemporary
spectators. If appearances were not actually against Luis de Leon,
they combined to reveal him in his least attractive posture. His
comparative promptitude in accepting Mancio as _patrono_, his
unwillingness to abide by his choice, his sudden hostility to Mancio,
his final acceptance of Mancio, are all explicable variations.
Nevertheless they showed a disregard for superficial consistency which
might easily be misinterpreted as caprice. The bias of the court had
been veering away from the prisoner for some time. His series of
actions with respect to Mancio lost him all judicial favour. His
judges considered him as an unreasonable man, a gifted sophist fertile
in inventing objections in and out of season, a hair-splitter
perpetually arguing for argument's sake. Luis de Leon was, as a rule,
so unaccommodating that some of his judges may have begun to think
they understood why he was not universally popular with members of his
own order. Nor did Luis de Leon's demeanour in court serve to
dissipate the atmosphere of almost arrogant rectitude which enveloped
him. He felt bound to criticize the machinery of the Inquisition. He
may easily have seemed to be criticizing those engaged in working the
machinery. At the best of times the procedure of the Court was not
expeditious. For example, though Luis de Leon was arrested on March
27, 1572, the first hearing of his formal defence did not take place
till April 14--more than a fortnight later. More than once Luis de
Leon complained of the Court's delays without going into questions of
motive.[152] In this he was clearly right, for, as we have seen, the
Supreme Inquisition was not wholly satisfied with the progress made.
At other times the prisoner stressed the fact that constant
postponements were apt to do him injury, and he hinted rather plainly
that there was an intention to wear him down by deliberately
prolonging the proceedings.[153] In this conjecture he was almost
certainly wrong. The Valladolid judges had no power to alter the
system which they found in existence; possibly, becoming accustomed to
it, they ended by thinking well of it. Its weak points were naturally
more evident to Luis de Leon, and his torrent of critical remarks may
have seemed to reflect on the intelligence and probity of the Court.
Administrators, however exalted, are human, and even the lowliest of
magistrates is prone to take offence, if given to understand that he
is considered dull and dishonest. Luis de Leon never was betrayed into
using disrespectful language; but his polite formulae could not
conceal the fact that he had no very high opinion of those in whose
hands his fate lay. Nor did the well-meant observance of established
forms on the part of the Court do anything to modify his sentiments.
It was in strict conformity with precedent that he should be adjured
to make a clean breast of it and should be informed that, while
truthfulness would meet with clemency, lying would be severely dealt
with.[154] It is strange that it should have been thought necessary
to use this formula in the case of Luis de Leon--a highly-strung,
sensitive man, with an almost morbid passion for truth. The sole
excuse for the Inquisitors is that this warning was given at the first
sitting. But, at the second sitting, the warning was repeated in
almost identical terms.[155] It seems scarcely possible to show less
tact in the conduct of a difficult case. No doubt the explanation is
that none of the Valladolid judges was sufficiently independent to set
a precedent of his own.

Large allowances must be made for those unhappy men. They cannot
reasonably be blamed for not taking it upon themselves to alter the
established procedure of the Court in which they sat. Their position
was always difficult, and it did not become easier as time went on.
They had good reason to know that a vocal group of influential persons
in Salamanca confidently expected them to condemn Luis de Leon; yet
some of them, at least, were uncomfortably aware that the evidence
before them would not warrant a conviction on the major charges. The
most damaging witnesses--Medina, Castro, and Zúñiga--had been called
at a very early stage of the proceedings. These heavy guns had been
fired without destroying the adversary. There was nothing for it now
but to hope for the worst from the reports of the official
_calificadores_, Dr. Cáncer, Fray Nicolas Ramos, and Dr. Frechilla,
who did their utmost to fulfil expectations.[156] Lest the
pronouncements of this trio proved unconvincing, the precaution was
taken of excluding evidence. At the beginning of the case, any sort of
second-hand gossip was admitted as evidence on the chance that its
cumulative effect might be damaging to the accused. At Murcia, on
February 4, 1573, a hostile Augustinian, Fray Juan Ciguelo, a man of
doubtful character, was permitted to retail idle chatter on the part
of another Augustinian who averred that Luis de Leon was prone to
saying _Requiems_ too often, and was in the habit of reading Latin
too quickly.[157] Ciguelo's testimony, though malignant, had done no
harm; later on, it was thought more prudent to adopt the opposite
policy and to prevent as many as possible of the witnesses for the
defence from being heard. As late as July 7, 1576, no less than three
interrogatories[158] by Luis de Leon were rejected on the ground that
they were irrelevant (_impertinentes_).[159] It is difficult to
reconcile these decisions, except on the hypothesis that the later
ruling was thought to be more likely to damage Luis de Leon than the
earlier one. In their despair, his adversaries trumped up an assertion
which was easily disproved.[160]

Disorderly and incoherent as it is, the record of the case enables us
to corroborate and, in one or two trifling particulars, to supplement
the details reported by Francisco Pacheco who, in his youth, may
easily have met Luis de Leon and must later have known many who had
seen him. According to that painter's _Libro de Descripcion de
verdaderos Retratos de illustres y memorables varones_, Luis de Leon
was below the middle height; he had a large but shapely head, covered
with thick and rather curly hair which grew densely on the crown; his
brow was broad; his features were more blunt than aquiline; his
complexion was darkish; his green eyes were bright; his aspect was
grave; and, we may add, he was prone to walk quickly. Pacheco, indeed,
regarded Luis de Leon as something of a universal genius: an expert in
mathematics, in jurisprudence, in medicine--and, though self-taught as
a painter--an artist of considerable skill. (This last was a
compliment, coming as it did from the future father-in-law of
Velazquez.) Evidently Pacheco was a whole-hearted admirer whose
enthusiasm needs discounting. However, so far as we can check it, his
account seems to be correct in the matter of direct observation. The
fact that there is scarcely one flash of humour in the interminable
record of the Valladolid trial confirms Pacheco's report of the
prisoner's habitual gravity. No doubt the tragic circumstances in
which he found himself were not conducive to displays of humour. When
being tried for his life, the merriest of men does not dwell on the
innate absurdity of things. Humour was, however, one of the few gifts
which nature had denied to Luis de Leon. He was aware of this himself,
to judge from his statement that he had nothing of the jester or
scoffer in him.[161] But if Luis de Leon was relatively poor in
humour, he had an abundant store of mordant sarcasm and a faculty for
ironic banter, as Medina and Castro learned to their chagrin.[162]
Pacheco's opinion of Luis de Leon's versatile talent is borne out by
the scrap of evidence given at the trial by Francisco de Salinas--the
sightless dedicatee of _El aire se serena_. Salinas bore witness that
some of Luis de Leon's admirers were persuaded that he could carry any
University chair against all competition.[163] Evidently to those who
met him frequently Luis de Leon conveyed the impression of
irresistible talent. Though students voted in professorial elections
at Salamanca, and supported Luis de Leon loyally, he did nothing to
conciliate them, and expressed his opinion of them with unquestionable
candour. We gather that he was profoundly attached to the ancient
order of things[164] and that, though accused of interpreting the
Bible in a rabbinical sense, he had never read a rabbinical book.[165]
We learn that among his teachers were Guevara, Mancio, Cipriano, and
Melchor Cano;[166] of these he would seem most to have esteemed
Cano.[167] With such masters, and being the man he was, Luis de Leon
would naturally have got together a good theological library, and he
was allowed to have some of his books in his prison-cell; it is but
natural that most of his requests should be for theological works
which would be of service in preparing his defence on technical
points. Reading was his sole solace during his imprisonment, and it
is noticeable that, whenever he asks for a book he speaks of it--not
with the dry, meticulous precision of a bibliographer but--with all
the caressing detail of a genuine book-lover. He indicates the sizes
of the various works which he needs, describes their bindings, and
mentions in what part of his monastery-cell they will be found. He
wants a Vatable with gilt edges, bound in black; it should be found in
a case for smaller volumes which lies on his writing-table. He asks
for a Bible, printed by Plantin, bound in black leather and fastened
with black silk ribbons. He demands a Biblical concordance which is in
folio. This lies on a high shelf near the window.[168] He begs to have
the works of St. Justin, which will be found in the shelves on the
left as you enter his monastery-cell. But not all his requests are for
theological works. A true son of the Renaissance, he finds
entertainment or instruction in communing with the best of antiquity.
When in this mood he asks for his Aristotle bound in sheep's-skin; it
will be found in the shelves on the right as you enter the
monastery-cell. He would like a Horace and a Virgil--of which there
are a great many ('_de que hay hartos_'), so that he does not
particularize. He wants his Homer (in Greek and Latin) bound in
sheep's-skin, and with red edges; it will be found in the shelves
where the works of St. Justin are.[169] Again, besides the works of
St. Leo, bound in parchment, he asks for his Sophocles in black calf;
for a Pindar (in Greek and Latin), bound partly in black leather, with
gilt edges; and for _Le prose dil Bembo_, a volume in small quarto
with a parchment binding.[170] This throws light on Luis de Leon's
progress as a linguist. An imprisoned man who asks for an Italian book
to becalm his fever may be safely presumed to know that language. In
or about 1569 when Arias Montano read aloud the anonymous Italian work
which disturbed Zúñiga's scrupulous conscience, Luis de Leon, though
of course able to catch the author's drift, did not really know
Italian at that time.[171] This deficiency had been made good, as he
gives us to understand, previous to March 12, 1573--twenty eight
months, or more, before Luis de Leon asked that his copy of _Le prose
dil Bembo_ should be given to him in prison.

The record of the Valladolid trial likewise reveals to us some of Luis
de Leon's intellectual foibles. But these were extremely few. Towards
the end of the proceedings at Valladolid the Inquisitionary judges
there summoned before them Juan Galvan, a young theological student
who lodged with Salinas, the blind musician. Galvan testified that for
about two years he had discussed matters of theology, mathematics, and
astrology with Luis de Leon.[172] It may astonish some that Luis de
Leon toyed with the pseudo-science of astrology: it cannot have
surprised his judges for, on April 18, 1572, while still bewildered as
to the cause of his arrest, he had stated to them in writing that he
had read a compilation on astrology which had been lent to him by a
student named Poza, a licentiate in canon law. Poza seems to have
doubted whether he ought to keep such a work, and consulted Luis de
Leon on the question. Luis de Leon dipped into the book, and came
finally to the conclusion that the whole thing was rubbish. But he
found in the work some curious observations, and was tempted to make
at least one experiment which involved the use of a pious formula. The
owner of the book left Salamanca to avoid an epidemic which was then
raging there. Luis de Leon had expected a visit from Poza that day,
and had intended to burn the volume in Poza's presence. He carried out
the main part of his intention by burning the work in the presence of
Fray Bartolomé de Carranza, to whom he explained the meaning of this
holocaust. No more was heard of Poza; yet it seems that Luis de Leon's
curiosity as to the possibilities of astrology continued with but
little abatement.[173] This half-belief in astrology as a kind of
black art was widespread during the sixteenth century, and vestiges of
this ingenuous credulity have survived in unexpected quarters till our
own time. It was perhaps unwise of Luis de Leon thus to furnish his
adversaries with ammunition which they might use against him; but
could anything bespeak conscious innocence more strongly than his
voluntary avowal?

Luis de Leon heaped one indiscretion on another. In his protestations
of innocence, he went so far as to suggest to the Court what course it
should take. He told the judges plainly that they ought to order Leon
de Castro to be prosecuted for perjury.[174] Later on, he declared
with vehemence that his detention was without a shadow of legality,
that his imprisonment ought not to continue for a single day, and that
he ought to be compensated for the injury done him.[175] These may
have been truths; but they were decidedly unpalatable, and the
expediency of making these assertions to a prejudiced bench is at
least doubtful. But expediency was not an arm that Luis de Leon could
bring himself to use. He complained again and again of delays,
attributing this loss of time to official mismanagement and
incidentally reflecting on the competency of the judges. As time went
on, and as the prisoner's health grew weaker, he lost patience, making
his complaints of delay more frequently and with increasing
vehemence.[176] He impressed on his hearers the fundamental absurdity
of certain charges against him, and, waxing indignant at the statement
that he had thrown doubt on the coming of Christ, he objected to
having so senseless a jest fathered on him. There was always the
alternative that he might be supposed to have used in earnest the
words imputed to him; in which case, even if the evidence on this
point were far more decisive than it actually was, 'before believing
it, it would be your duty to ascertain whether I had gone out of my
mind at the time, or were drunk'.[177] It is, no doubt, difficult to
meet a contention of this kind; but such a contention is not
calculated to capture the sympathies of a wavering Court. Nor should
it be overlooked that the judges were subjected to continual pressure
from the attacking parties. The official _calificadores_ took a
serious view of Luis de Leon's opinions on the authority of the
Vulgate; they showered reports upon the judges; naturally these
reports did not always agree with one another, but they were unanimous
in one respect; they declared against the teaching of Luis de
Leon,[178] and this perhaps decided the tribunal in giving judgement.
We may think that the court unconsciously allowed itself to be swayed
by personal prejudice against a prisoner who was at no great pains to
conceal his estimate of its capacity. However that may be, it must be
admitted that the decision of the Court had behind it a great body of
what may be called expert opinion. The question of the authority due
to the Vulgate was skilfully kept in the foreground; and the report
of even so liberal-minded a man as the Dominican Hernando del Castillo
was not wholly favourable. Castillo, indeed, came to the conclusion
that Luis de Leon had uttered nothing against faith; but while he
acquitted the prisoner of teaching 'erroneous, temerarious or
scandalous doctrine', he held that Luis de Leon was much to blame for
dealing with the question when and where he did.[179] The opinion of
other _calificadores_ was still more hostile, though it is to be noted
that their hostility diminished as time went on and the hour for the
delivery of a decision drew near.[180]

That decision had at last to be given. It had been put off year after
year. This series of postponements--ordered, despite the wishes of the
prisoner and (as he contended) against his interests--had got on to
Luis de Leon's nerves, had led to occasional moods of depression, and
had betrayed him into a few irritable or intemperate outbursts. But
these results were unintentional. The Valladolid judges were well
aware from the outset that no time was to be lost. As early as July
29, 1572, they delegated a piece of work to one of their commissaries
in Salamanca, and impressed on him the urgency of dispatch.[181] They
secured from Benito Rodriguez, the commissary in question, greater
speed than they attained themselves. This may have been due to
accident, or to incompetence on their part. But the policy of
continual adjournment could not be prolonged for ever. It had lasted
too long for the patience of the Supreme Inquisition:[182]

   ...even the weariest river
        Winds somewhere safe to sea.

On September 28, 1576, a vote was taken on Luis de Leon's case. Seven
members at least were present: Francisco de Menchaca, Andrés de Álava,
Luis Tello Maldonado, and Francisco de Albornoz voted that Luis de
Leon should be put to the torture--a moderate amount of torture in
view of his frail health--and, when this was done, the court should
sit again and determine accordingly. Dr. Guijano de Mercado and Dr.
Frechilla took a more lenient view, recommending that, in
consideration of the more exculpatory reports recently given by the
_calificadores_, in consideration also of the replies made by the
prisoner and by Mancio, Luis de Leon should be reprimanded for dealing
with so grave a matter (as the authority of the Vulgate) at an
unsuitable time, before an unsuitable audience; that he should be
called upon to renounce publicly certain views which seemed ambiguous;
that he should be told by his bishop to occupy himself with matters of
general interest; that he should cease lecturing altogether; and that
his _Song of Solomon_, done into Spanish, should be seized. The
Licentiate Pedro de Castro undertook to give his decision in
writing.[183] It may not have been committed to paper: at any rate, it
does not appear in the record. Even the milder judgement of Guijano
and Frechilla seemed excessive to the Supreme Inquisition, which
curtly ordered its deputies at Valladolid to acquit Luis de Leon, to
reprimand him and warn him to be more careful in future, and to
confiscate the manuscript copy of his Spanish version of the _Song of
Solomon_.[184] These orders, dated at Madrid on December 7, 1576,
were, of course, obeyed.[185] As the senior member of the Court, Dr.
Guijano gave the reprimand to which Luis de Leon listened, standing up
while it was pronounced.[186] The date is not stated, but it cannot
have been later than December 15, 1576; for on this day Luis de Leon
applied in writing for an official certificate of acquittal, and for
an order on the accountant of Salamanca University instructing that
officer to pay him arrears of salary from the date of his arrest till
his chair was vacated owing to the lapse of his four years'
tenure.[187] Both applications were granted. But the Ethiopian cannot
change his skin, and it was not till August 13, 1577, that the
petitioner received full satisfaction.[188]




III


[Footnote 53: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 143-144.]

[Footnote 54: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 174-176.]

[Footnote 55: Luis de Leon administered a fund left by the late Doña
Ana Abarca de Sotomayor whose servant Almansa had been. Out of this
fund a life-pension was paid to Almansa (_Documentos inéditos_, vol.
XI, p. 333), of whom Luis de Leon formed a good opinion as appears
from his request of December 20, 1572 (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X,
p. 248): 'Yo entiendo que con la mudanza de los priores estará
trastornada toda mi celda, y en poco tiempo faltará lo mas della,
porque conozco en esto la condicion de mi gente; y podrá ser tener yo
necesidad para mi negocio de algunas cosas della; y tambien hay cosas
agenas y que estan á mi cargo dar cuenta dellas si Dios fuere servido
darme libertad algun dia. Suplico á V. md. por amor de Dios sea
servido de enviar á mandar al maestro Francisco Sancho, ó á Francisco
de Almansa, el familiar que vino conmigo, que la cierre y tome todas
las llaves y las guarde. Y este Almansa lo hará muy bien, porque es
hombre de mucha verdad y recaudo. Y suplico á V. md. no lo ponga en
olvido.' Perhaps this recommendation was thought suspiciously warm; at
any rate, the task was entrusted to Pedro de Almansa, Familiar of the
Inquisition at Salamanca.

When taken into custody, Luis de Leon seems to have been in the
company of Fray Alonso Siluente (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p.
188).]

[Footnote 56: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 176. Naturally enough
Luis de Leon lost exact account of time during his imprisonment, and
was not very sure as to when the order for his arrest was issued: 'Y
despues á veinte tres, ó veinte cuatro del dicho mes [de marzo
pasado], el dicho Señor Inquisidor [Diego Gonzalez] me mandó
prender,...' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 185).]

[Footnote 57: Opinions differ as to whether Luis de Leon was
imprisoned in the original Inquisitionary cells on the site of which
18 and 20 calle del Obispo now stand. Blanco García thought that this
was not the case (_op. cit._, p. 129 _n_). The recurrence of such
phrases as _mandó subir de su cárcel_ (_Documentos inéditos_, vol.
XI, pp. 22, 36, 129, 196) perhaps indicates that Luis de Leon's cell
was underground.]

[Footnote 58: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 179. 'Y suplico á sus
mercedes sean servidos dar licencia para que se le diga al dicho padre
prior [Fray Gabriel Pinelo] que avise á Ana de Espinosa, monja en el
monasterio de Madrigal, que envíe una caja de unos polvos que ella
solia hacer y enviarme para mis melancolías y pasiones de corazon, que
ella sola los sabe hacer, y nunca tuve dellos mas necesidad que agora;
y sobre todo que me encomiende á Dios sin cansarse.']

[Footnote 59: The tone of his request shows that he anticipated a
refusal on the ground that he might wilfully injure himself with a
knife: 'Tambien si sus mercedes fuesen servidos, torno á suplicar se
me dé un cuchillo para cortar lo que como; que por la misericordia de
Dios, seguramente se me puede dar; que jamás deseé la vida y las
fuerzas tanto como agora, para pasar hasta el fin con esta merced que
Dios me ha hecho por la cual yo le alabo y bendigo' (_Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 179-180).]

[Footnote 60: The concession of the Inquisitors reads thus: 'Que se le
dé esto que pide; y atento que es hombre enfermo y delicado, dijeron
que mandaban y mandaron que el alcaide le dé un cuchillo sin punta. Lo
cual se mandó al alcaide luego en su presencia' (_Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, p. 180).]

[Footnote 61: It figures as the sixth charge in the speech of the
prosecuting counsel, Diego de Haedo (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p.
208). Even at this early stage, Haedo is found suggesting that the
prisoner should be tortured till he tells the whole truth: 'pido sea
puesto á quistion de tormento hasta que enteramente diga verdad etc.'
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 209).]

[Footnote 62: The date of the translation is stated on the authority
of Luis de Leon himself (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 98).]

[Footnote 63: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 271; see also
_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 214-215.]

[Footnote 64: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 98-101.]

[Footnote 65: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 6.]

[Footnote 66: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 98-99.]

[Footnote 67: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 489.]

[Footnote 68: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 353, 355.]

[Footnote 69: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 505-509.]

[Footnote 70: The exordium, the translation of the first chapter of
the _Song of Solomon_ and the commentary on this first chapter are
printed in _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 449-467.]

[Footnote 71: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 99: '...pero no
obstante esto á algunos amigos mios, y á otros, les ha parecido tener
inconveniente por andar en lengua vulgar; y á mí, por la misma razon,
me ha pesado que ande, y si lo pudiera estorbar, lo hubiera estorbado.
Y para remedio dello, el año pasado comencé á ponello en latin, para
siendo examinado y aprobado, imprimillo, dando por cosa agena y no mia
todo lo que anduviese en vulgar y escrito de mano. Y por la falta de
salud que he tenido como es notorio, no lo he podido acabar. Y así
digo que estoy presto á hacer esta ó otra cualquier diligencia que por
V.m. me fuere mandada, y que me pesa de cualquier culpa que haya
cometido, ó en componer en vulgar el dicho libro, ó en haber dado
ocasion directa ó indirectamente á que se divulgase. Y estoy aparejado
á hacer en ello la enmienda que por V.m. me fuere impuesta: y digo que
subjecto humilde y verdaderamente á V.m. y á este Sancto Oficio y
tribunal, ansí este dicho libro, como cualquier otra obra y doctrina
que ó por escrito ó por palabra, leyendo ó disputando, ó en otra
cualquier manera haya afirmado ó enseñado, para en todo ser enmendado
y corregido.]

[Footnote 72: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 252-254. The
following occurs in a document handed in by Luis de Leon on January
26, 1573: '...digo que en fin del mes de hebrero que viene, deste
presente año de setenta y tres, ó por principio de marzo, se cumple el
cuadrienio por el cual me está proveida la cátreda de Durando que
tengo en la universidad de Salamanca, el cual cumplido como es notorio
se vacará, y no oponiéndome yo á ella otra vez, se proveerá en el que
se opusiere y los estudiantes eligieren. Y aunque es verdad que yo no
tengo deseo ni intento de tratar mas de escuelas, habiendo trabajado
en ellas tan bien como mis concurrentes, y habiendo sacado por ocasion
dellas y de sus competencias el trabajo en que estoy; pero entendiendo
que si en esta coyuntura se vacase la dicha cátreda y se proveyese en
otra persona, mucho número de gentes que en el reino y fuera dél
tienen noticia de mi prision, y presumen por ella mal de mí, sabiendo
la dicha vacatura de cátreda y provision en otra persona, no
entendiendo como no entienden, ni saben la ley y estilo de la dicha
universidad, me tendrian del todo por culpado y condenado, y quedaria
siempre en pie esta mala opinion contra mí, aunque Vs. Mds. conociendo
en la prosecucion deste pleito mi inocencia, me den por libre y me
restituyan en mi honra como espero en Dios que sucederá; porque las
sobredichas personas que no saben el estilo de la dicha universidad,
viéndome fuera destas cárceles, y fuera de las escuelas, siempre
entenderian que fué órden de Vs. Mds. y pena de mi culpa, siendo como
son los hombres fáciles á creer lo peor, en lo cual mi órden y mis
deudos, y lo que es principal, la opinion de mi fé y doctrina
recibiria notable agravio y detrimento; por tanto en la mejor manera y
conforme á derecho haya lugar, pido y suplico á Vs. Mds. sean servidos
de ó mandar á la dicha universidad que no innove cosa alguna acerca de
la dicha cátreda, ni de otra cosa que me toque hasta que Vs. Mds.
habiendo conocido los méritos deste pleito juzguen y manden lo que
fueren servidos conforme á justicia, ó me den licencia para... dar
poder á dos ó las demas personas que me pareciere en Salamanca, porque
por mí y en mi nombre, al tiempo que se vacare la dicha cátreda, se
puedan oponer y opongan á ella, y hagan por mí las demas diligencias
que conforme á las leyes y estatutos de aquella universidad fueren
necesarias.']

[Footnote 73: This is recorded in a letter from Francisco Sancho to
the Valladolid Inquisitors (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 135):
'Tres cartas tengo á que responder á Vs. Mds. La una es sobre la
cátedra del maestro Barrientos, en la cual mandan Vs. Mds. que diga al
rector de esta universidad, como está detenido en ese Santo Oficio, y
que en tanto que estuviere ansí detenido, no se provea su cátedra, ni
se haga mudanza en ello. Y luego que recebí la dicha carta, que fué
estando con el mesmo rector, se la mostré y dijo que ansí lo haria y
cumpliria de buena voluntad.']

[Footnote 74: Gonzalez de Tejada, _op. cit._, pp. 44-46. No time was
wasted in filling the chair. It was declared vacant on March 30, 1573;
Medina was elected to it on April 4; he received 95 votes, and the
Augustinian Pedro de Uceda received 54. Uceda (_Documentos inéditos_,
vol. X, pp. 85-90) testified in favour of Fray Luis de Leon; his
evidence gives the impression that he was a timid man, overawed by the
court.]

[Footnote 75: The Inquisitioners' phrase (_Documentos inéditos_, vol.
X, p. 180) has been already quoted: 'atento que es hombre
enfermo....']

[Footnote 76: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 188: 'E antes de ser
llevado á su cárcel, dijo quél está muy enfermo de calenturas como á
sus mercedes les consta, y no tiene quien le cure en su cárcel sino un
mochachico que está allí preso, que es simple; y para habelle de
despertar padece trabajo con él, y ha venido dia de quedarse desmayado
de hambre por no tener quien le dé la comida; y que suplica á sus
mercedes le den un fraile de su órden que le sirva, pues en esto no
hay enconveniente, si ya no quieren permitir de que muera entre cuatro
paredes solo: que por reverencia de nuestro Señor se duelan dél y le
den un fraile que esté en su compañía siquiera para que si se muere le
ayude á bien morir; y que podrá ser que fray Alonso Siluente, que á la
sazon que á este prendieron estaba en su compañía, holgaria de venir á
tenérsela si está en Salamanca, ó sino que sea quien sus mercedes
mandaren. Con tanto fué llevado á su cárcel.']

[Footnote 77: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 197. In a letter
which reached Madrid on November 21, 1575, Luis de Leon wrote as
follows to the Inquisitor-General: 'Por lo cual y atento... a lo
mucho que ha que estoy preso, y á mis pasiones y flaquezas, en caso
que pareciere ser conveniente que la sentencia deste pleito se dilate;
suplico á V.S. Illma. por Jesucristo sea servido, dando yo fianzas
suficientes, mandarme poner en un monasterio de los que hay en esta
villa, aunque sea en S. Pablo, en la forma que V.S. Illma. fuese
servido ordenar, hasta la sentencia deste negocio, para que si en este
tiempo el Señor me llamare, lo cual debo temer por el mucho trabajo
que paso y por mis pocas fuerzas, muera como cristiano entre personas
religiosas, ayudado de sus oraciones, y recebiendo los sacramentos, y
no como infiel solo en una cárcel y con un moro á la cabecera.']

[Footnote 78: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 194: 'Tambien se
consultó á su Señoría Reverendísima lo que escribís cerca de la
indispusicion del maestro fray Luis de Leon y la necesidad que tiene
de servicio, el cual pide que en el monesterio de Sant Augustin de
Salamanca ó en el de esta villa se pida un fraile que esté con él, y
ha parescido que así se haga; pero adviérteseos que el fraile que se
le hubiere de dar no ha de salir de la compañía del dicho fray Luis
hasta que se acabe su causa, y ansí será bien se le avise al que
hubiere de ser antes que entre en las cárceles.']

[Footnote 79: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 50-51: '...ha tres
años que estoy preso, y todo este tiempo he estado sin el uso de los
sacramentos con detrimento de mi ánima, y sin causa que conforme á
derecho obligase á Vs. Mds. á privarme dellos,... Por lo cual pido y
suplico á Vs. Mds., y si menester es les encargo las conciencias, pues
que no son servidos de pronunciar lo que en este mi negocio tienen
difinido, y lo dilatan por concluir primero otros procesos que no me
tocan, ó por los respectos que á Vs. Mds. parece y me tienen preso;
alomenos no me priven de este bien, sino que me den licencia para
confesarme con quien Vs. Mds. señalaren, y para decir misa en esta
sala siquiera de quince en quince días, en lo cual Vs. Mds. harán gran
servicio á Dios, y á mí darán grandísimo consuelo.' This is from a
document which was handed in by Luis de Leon at Valladolid on March
12, 1575. An order was made that this document should be forwarded to
the Supreme Inquisition. I have failed to trace any further reference
to it.]

[Footnote 80: They may have thought that, owing to his
unacquaintance with legal procedure, Luis de Leon was wasting the time
of the court; at any rate, as early as May 6, 1572, Dr. Ortiz de Funes
was appointed counsel to the prisoner (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X,
p. 217). No saving of time was wrought by this change.]

[Footnote 81: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 220: '...yo tengo
flaca memoria, y despues que estoy en la cárcel he perdido gran parte
della,...']

[Footnote 82: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 193: 'Es imposible
acordarse memoria de hombre de todo lo que en las dichas juntas se ha
dicho, mayormente que con la cólera de la disputa, algunas veces salen
de todos los términos de razon y modestia los hombres, y se ciegan de
manera que dende á poco ellos mismos no saben lo que han dicho.']

[Footnote 83: Luis de Leon's memory betrayed him as regards the
signatures attached to the Vatable Bible. He was under the impression
that he had signed a copy which was handed over to Francisco Sancho.
In this he proved to be mistaken. On thinking the point over, Luis de
Leon suggested that he must have signed a copy in the possession of
the Salamancan bookseller, Gaspar de Portonariis; this impression was
likewise mistaken. (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 520-527.)

An amazing lapse of memory led Luis de Leon astray with respect to
Bartolomé de Medina; as Medina did not take his degree till 1570
(_Documentos inéditos_, vols. X, p. 323, and XI, p. 340), Luis de Leon
felt justified in stating that his opponent did not take part in the
revision of Vatable's Bible, which (such was the prisoner's
impression) was finished in 1569. The discovery of Medina's signature
in the Sancho copy of Vatable (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 522)
rendered this position untenable. The fact appears to be that the Old
Testament was revised in 1569; owing to the absence of Sancho and Luis
de Leon, the revision of the New Testament was suspended; it was not
finished till 1571, and thus Medina was enabled to sign the Vatable
Bible. It seems clear that Luis de Leon had no head for dates. He was,
as we have seen (p. 94), doubtful as to when he was arrested, and he
was capable of imagining that a sitting of the Valladolid court had
been held a week before, when no such sitting had taken place.
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 18.)]

[Footnote 84: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 23, 24: '...antes
de agora yo tengo pedido que se me declaren los nombres y personas de
los Señores del Consejo de la santa y general Inquisicion, ante quien
los auctos y sentencias interlocutorias y difinitivas deste negocio
pueden ir á parar, para que sabiendo quien son yo pueda deliberar lo
que conviene á mi justicia, y si tengo justa causa para recusar á
alguno dellos; y por no se me haber declarado yo tengo apelado. Y
porque por estar preso en cárceles secretas no puedo por mí ni por
otro informarme... pido y suplico á Vs. Mds., é si necesario es, con
debido acatamiento y reverencia requiero, no se envíe cosa alguna de
lo tocante á este mi proceso á los dichos Señores del Consejo, y
protesto la nulidad de lo que en contrario se hiciere. Y si tácita ó
expresamente me fuere denegado otra vez, apelo para ante quien y con
derecho debo, y pido los apóstolos desta mi apelacion con las
instancias é ahincamientos necesarios, y pídolo por testimonio.' It
will be seen that the account given in the text is an under-statement.
Luis de Leon not only appealed over the heads of the Valladolid judges
to the General Inquisition; he was prepared also to challenge, if
necessary, individual members of the General Inquisition itself.]

[Footnote 85: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 81-83. Diego de Gaona
states that he knew Luis de Leon in 1567 or 1568. Gaona esteemed Luis
de Leon to be 'hombre muy hábil en su facultad de teología, aunque le
tenia por hombre algo atrevido en su manera de leer, y á esta causa
este testigo... le oia muy pocas veces por ver su desenvoltura en las
liciones que leia... entraba muy pocas veces á oir al dicho fray Luis
de Leon, é que á esta causa no se le acuerda quienes estaban
presentes, mas de que estaba el general lleno de gente...']

[Footnote 86: Luis de Leon frequently makes this point. The following
passage (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 482) is sufficiently
categorical to render further quotations superfluous: 'Demás desto
digo que el dia pasado aquí en la audiencia entendí que algunos de mis
papeles, los cuales se veen por mandado de Vs. Mds. se han dado á ver
y examinar á fray Juan Gutierrez fraile dominico, y ansí entiendo que
se habrán dado á otros de la misma órden: y siendo notorio como es que
todos los frailes de la dicha órden son sospechosos contra mí por las
competencias que mi órden, y yo señaladamente he tenido con ellos, y
por la cátreda que les hemos quitado, y por las demas causas que yo en
este proceso tengo alegadas y probadas, por las cuales los tengo
tachados por enemigos...']

[Footnote 87: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 559-560: 'Que por
cuanto para hacer el juicio difinitivo acerca de la cualidad de mi
doctrina, Vs. Mds. han de consultar á teólogos doctos y
desapasionados; y porque yo tengo tachados por apasionados y
sospechosos á todos los frailes de la órden de Santo Domingo y de Sant
Hierónimo, y agora de nuevo tacho por lo mismo á los teólogos de la
universidad de Alcalá, porque como es notorio estan encontrados con
los teólogos de Salamanca por muchas causas antiguas y recientes, y
señaladamente porque el Consejo general de la Inquisicion cosas
notadas y censuradas por ellos las ha remitido á los de Salamanca, los
cuales corrigieren las censuras de los dichos, y el Consejo siguió el
parecer de los de Salamanca...' According to Juan de Guevara
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 277): 'hizo el dicho fray Luis
públicamente cuanto pudo contra Hector Pinto, fraile gerónimo, en la
sostitucion de Biblia, por el maestro Grajal; y los dichos frailes
gerónimos se quejaron dél en el monasterio de Sant Augustin'.]

[Footnote 88: See the first part of the previous note.]

[Footnote 89: Luis de Leon's first application on this point is dated
October 20, 1573 (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 483-488): in this
he mentions his brothers (who were both lawyers) as well as his uncle.
The subsequent proceedings illustrate the leisurely methods of the
Inquisition. Nothing seems to have been done in the matter up to May
12, 1574, when Luis de Leon made another application to the Inquisitor
General; this was entrusted to the Valladolid judges to forward.
Though the Supreme Inquisition directed that an inquiry be held, no
reply had reached Luis de Leon on July 14, 1574, on which date he
renewed his application. He presented a fourth petition on the subject
on August 7: in this he substitutes his father for his brothers (who
were not included in his second and third applications). His request
was refused by the authorities in Madrid on August 13, 1574
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 5-7, 17, 24-25).]

[Footnote 90: _Documentos inéditos_, vols. X, XI, _passim_.]

[Footnote 91: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 353.]

[Footnote 92: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 318: 'Y para este
efecto [fray Bartolomé de Medina y el maestro Leon de Castro] hicieron
junta de estudiantes, y el dicho Medina llamó á su celda á muchos
dellos, y inquirió dellos si habian oido ó sabian algo, poniéndolos en
escándalo, y tomándoles firmas y juramentándolos para que no le
descubriesen. Y con el dicho maestro Leon, y ciertos frailes
hierónimos y otras personas enemigas, se concertó lo que habian de
hacer, y repartieron entre si como en caso de guerra las partes por
donde habian de acometer cada uno y lo que habia de decir, como
vuestras mercedes podrán ser informados de fulano de Alarcon, colegial
de Sanct Millan en Salamanca, que fué uno de los llamados, y él dirá
de otros; y fray Gaspar de Uceda fraile y lector en Sanct Francisco de
Salamanca sabe tambien mucho desto.' Luis de Leon repeats the
accusation of conspiracy in _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 353,
with some comments on Castro's motives.]

[Footnote 93: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 318, 321, 324, 433.]

[Footnote 94: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 348, 439.]

[Footnote 95: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 32.]

[Footnote 96: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 369: 'Habrá cuatro
años ó poco mas que por insistir yo en ello, en un capítulo provincial
de mi órden se votó secreto en la eleccion conforme al concilio, y se
atajaron los pasos á la ambicion de muchos, y resultó que este que se
tenia ya por provincial por la violencia de un su amigo, que si se
votara público como solia, era muy poderoso, quedó en vacío. Y estas
son todas sus lágrimas y mis desobediencias.']

[Footnote 97: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 32: 'Item dijo que
este declarante ha oido decir, no se acuerda á qué personas, que el
padre de dicho fray Luis de Leon le dejó muy encargado que fuese muy
obediente á sus prelados, y que siguiese la opinion comun en las
letras...']

[Footnote 98: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 366, 368: '...entre
nosotros es este conocido por hombre que sino es por descuido, jamás
dice verdad.']

[Footnote 99: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 32.]

[Footnote 100: This we know from Luis de Leon himself: 'fué mi
discípulo' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 370).]

[Footnote 101: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 35-40.]

[Footnote 102: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 371: 'Y porque mas
claramente conozcan Vs. Mds. la mala intencion deste que depone,...
me dijo que tenia los papeles de aquella lectura de la Vulgata, y que
era la mejor cosa del mundo,... con otras palabras tan encarecidas
que no me estan á mí bien decillas.']

[Footnote 103: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 38.]

[Footnote 104: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 33, 42.]

[Footnote 105: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 345. Rojas is
brutally frank. After mentioning that Arboleda was annoyed at Luis de
Leon's preference for Fray Diego de Caravajal, he continues: 'y que
tiene para sí que por esta razon habrá algun resentimiento de parte
del dicho fray Francisco de Arboleda contra el dicho fray Luis
de Leon, por ser el dicho Arboleda cabezudo y no de mucho
entendimiento'.]

[Footnote 106: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 396. The word
'perjuro' is again used by Luis de Leon of this witness in _Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, p. 375.]

[Footnote 107: F. Picatoste y Rodríguez, _Apuntes para una biblioteca
científica española del siglo XVI_ (Madrid, 1891), pp. 340-344.]

[Footnote 108: Galileo Galilei, _Opere_ (Milano, 1811), vol. XIII, p.
49.]

[Footnote 109: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 373: '...es un
fraile de mi órden que se llama fray Diego de Zúñiga, ó por otro
nombre Rodriguez, el cual me quiere mal por las causas que articularé
en su tiempo y lugar; y en esta deposicion lo muestra no obscuramente,
porque demás de no referir verdad en muchas cosas, ninguna cosa dice
en ella forzado por la consciencia, sino movido por su libre y mala
voluntad.' Other instances will be found in Luis de Leon's _Quinto
interrogatorio_ (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI): 'Item si saben etc.
que... fray Diego Rodriguez, ó de Zúñiga por otro nombre, se
desmandó..., y que allí se ordenó que castigasen al dicho fray Diego
Rodriguez ó Zúñiga' (p. 335). 'Item si saben etc. que en un acto,...
el dicho fray Diego Rodriguez ó Zúñiga,...' (p. 336). 'Item si saben
etc. que el dicho Rodriguez ó Zúñiga, de algunos años á esta parte, ha
mostrado en sus palabras y pláticas tener enemistad y mala voluntad al
dicho maestro fray Luis, hablando mal dél y de sus cosas, y diciendo
que el dicho maestro no habia consentido que el dicho Rodriguez
viviese en S. Augustin de Salamanca, porque sabia mas que el dicho
maestro, y otras cosas ansí' (p. 336).]

[Footnote 110: Pedro de Rojas refers to the fact 'quel dicho fray
Diego Rodriguez ó Zúñiga pasó algunas palabras descorteses con el
padre Cueto,...' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 345).]

[Footnote 111: C. Muiños Sáenz, _Fr. Luis de Leon y Fr. Diego de
Zúñiga_ (El Escorial, [1915]), pp. 47, 245.]

[Footnote 112: C. Muiños Sáenz, _op. cit._, p. 58.]

[Footnote 113: C. Muiños Sáenz, _op. cit._, pp. 57, 64.]

[Footnote 114: It is inferred that Zúñiga was professed when he
entered Luis de Leon's cell thirteen years before 1572 (_Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 67-68). There is, however, some difficulty in
adjusting the date of this profession with the statement that Zúñiga
was thirty-six when he gave evidence.]

[Footnote 115: C. Muiños Sáenz, _op. cit._, p. 48.]

[Footnote 116: C. Muiños Sáenz, _op. cit._, pp. 224-240.]

[Footnote 117: He became professor of Scripture at Osuna in 1575. See
F. Rodríguez Marín, _Cervantes y la Universidad de Osuna_ in _Homenaje
á Menéndez y Pelayo_ (Madrid, 1899), vol. II.]

[Footnote 118: It needed uncommon courage to pronounce in favour of
Copernicus at the end of the sixteenth century. The assertion that
'the advancement of Spaniards is evidenced by the facility with which
the theory of Copernicus... was accepted in Spain, when it was
rejected elsewhere' is in the nature of an over-statement. According
to Muiños Sáenz (_op. cit._, pp. 19-20), who refers to his
brother-Augustinian, M. Gutiérrez, 'la doctrina copernicana pugnaba
con la opinión generalizada en las escuelas, y tuvo en España
impugnadores que, como Pineda, y con referencia personal á Zúñiga, la
calificaron de _falsa_, no sin añadir que, á juicio de otros autores,
merecía las calificaciones de _temeraria, peligrosa y opuesta al
sentir de la Sagrada Escritura_.' It seems likely that Zúñiga was dead
before this sweeping condemnation appeared, but the fact that he
thought it prudent to modify the expression of his unqualified
acceptance of the Copernican theory favours the assumption that he may
have had to endure some volume of hostile private criticism. Whatever
may have been Zúñiga's reasons for qualifying his early adhesion to
the Copernican theory, it seems safe to think that timidity was not
one of them. His nerve was unshaken. Towards the end of his life he
was engaged on a task after Luis de Leon's own heart: the bringing to
book of an unreasonable Provincial.]

[Footnote 119: Luis de Leon describes (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X,
p. 374) the circumstances as follows: 'Díjome un dia ansí por estas
palabras que el Papa tenia gran noticia de su persona y le estimaba en
mucho; y trás desto refirióme un largo cuento de un mercader y de un
cardenal por cuyos medios florecia su nombre en la corte romana, lleno
todo de su vanidad; y añadió que habia enviado al Papa un tratadillo
que habia compuesto, porque Su Santidad tenia deseo como él decia, de
ver alguna cosa suya; y mostrómele para que yo le viese... Visto,
porque me pidió mi parecer y yo soy claro, díjele que quisiera que una
cosa que enviaba á lugar tan señalado por muestra de su ingenio, fuera
de mas substancia, ó que á lo menos aquel argumento lo tratara mas
copiosamente, porque traia pocos lugares, y esos ordinarios, aunque
como le dije yo creia que aquellos lugares que alegaba los habia él
sacado de su estudio y no de los libros ordinarios. Respondióme que
era gran verdad que él con su trabajo los habia notado en la Biblia
sin ayudarse de otro libro; y créolo porque no se precia de leer ni
aun á los sanctos, y promete que de improviso dirá una hora y mas
sobre cualquier paso de la Biblia que le abrieren; y si le dicen que
lea los sanctos dice que no los lee porque no le sirven de nada.
Díjele mas que no debiera, porque para su condicion fué palabra
dura.']

[Footnote 120: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 335-336. Luis de
Leon suggests that five Augustinians whom he mentions by name be asked
if they knew 'que en un capítulo provincial... que habrá diez ó once
años que se hizo en la villa de Dueñas, fray Diego Rodriguez, ó de
Zúñiga por otro nombre, se desmandó en palabras con fray Francisco
Cueto, el cual era en aquel capítulo definidor mayor, y que el dicho
Cueto se quejó del dicho fray Diego en definitorio al provincial fray
Diego Lopez y á los definidores presentes, de los cuales era uno el
dicho maestro fray Luis, y que allí se ordenó que castigasen al dicho
fray Diego Rodriguez ó Zúñiga, y que otro dia en ejecucion dello el
dicho provincial le dió en el refitorio delante de toda la provincia
una disciplina, que es cosa que se tiene por grande afrenta; y que por
esta causa el dicho Zúñiga tiene enemistad con el dicho provincial
fray Diego Lopez y con el dicho maestro que era definidor entonces, y
es amigo del dicho provincial.' As not all the five Augustinians were
called, it may be assumed that the Court considered the point
proved.]

[Footnote 121: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 345. Rojas states:
'Y que sabe este testigo de cierto que por esta causa el dicho fray
Diego tuviese enemistad con el dicho fray Luis, que no lo puede saber
por ser negocio interior; pero que á lo que puede imaginar de la
condicion del dicho fray Diego [Rodriguez ó Zúñiga] no dejaria de
creer que es ansí, porque es recio de condicion y algo vengativo, y
trás esto siempre le ha visto enemigo declarado contra fray Diego
Lopez, y tambien ha visto que despues acá nunca vió amistad entre los
dichos fray Diego y fray Luis.']

[Footnote 122: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 67 and 71. Zúñiga is
careful to state that he is 'predicador y religioso, morador en el
monasterio de Sanct Agustin de la dicha ciudad de Toledo, de edad de
treinta y seis años', and again, 'predicador, profeso de la órden de
Sanct Agustin... de la dicha ciudad de Toledo, é dijo ser de edad de
treinta y seis años'. It appears that in the sixteenth century a very
straight line was drawn by the Augustinians between official
'preachers' and 'professors': it was thought that the qualities
needed by the one were not likely to be found in the other. There
were distinguished exceptions, no doubt. But as a general rule a
'predicador' was rarely considered eligible for a university chair.
(Muiños Sáenz, _op. cit._, pp. 64-67.)]

[Footnote 123: See the previous note.]

[Footnote 124: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 305: '...era mancebo
y melancólico, y le paresció á este que habia ido muy adelante en
imaginar mal del dicho Benito Arias;...']

[Footnote 125: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 68-69. The following
is Zúñiga's account of what occurred: 'Item dijo que habrá trece años
estando en Salamanca por huesped, le dijo Fr. Luis de Leon en su
celda, que habia venido á sus manos un libro estrañamente curioso, el
cual le habia dado Arias Montano... y que en el principio del libro
contaba una revelacion que habia tenido el que lo compuso, estando de
noche orando, que vió en la oscuridad una luz, y que della oyó que
salia una voz que dijo: _Quomodò obscuratum est aurum, mutatus est
color optimus!_ y que temiéndose este declarante no fuese algun mal
libro, le habia mucha instancia que le dijese si habia en él alguna
herejía, y que el dicho Fr. Luis de Leon le respondió que en lo de
confesion le parescia que decia una herejía, y que entonces este
declarante le dijo que quitase allá tal libro y tal revelacion como
decia; y que con esto no le dijo mas el dicho fray Luis de Leon; y que
despues formó este declarante escrúpulo si estaba obligado á denunciar
de aquello que le habia dicho, y que lo preguntó á dos personas de
ciencia y consciencia, religiosos de su órden, y le dijeron que
sí;... Y este declarante determinado de denunciar, preguntó al dicho
Fray Luis de Leon á solas por el dicho Arias Montano que le habia dado
el dicho libro, que si era buen cristiano; que el dicho Fr. Luis de
Leon se alteró con esta pregunta, y le dijo muy encarescidamente que
era muy buen cristiano, y en prueba dello mostró á este declarante una
carta que le habia escripto el dicho Arias Montano en que le daba muy
buenos consejos:...']

[Footnote 126: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 369. In relation to
Montoya, Luis de Leon says: 'Y cuanto toca al capítulo tercero, si yo
no temiera aquella sentencia _Malédici regnum Dei non possidebunt_, y
aquella _Invicem mordentes, invicem consumemini_, yo pudiera relatar
mas de dos cosas, algo mas pesadas que es dar un _agnus Dei_ un fraile
á otro sin pedir al perlado licencia, de las cuales este hombre
religioso no hace escrúpulo. Y esta fuera su merecida respuesta; pero
aunque él hable lo que ni sabe ni debe, yo miraré lo que debo á mi
hábito y á mi persona.']

[Footnote 127: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 217-218.]

[Footnote 128: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 13-14.]

[Footnote 129: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 14.]

[Footnote 130: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 14-15.]

[Footnote 131: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 15.]

[Footnote 132: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 15-16.]

[Footnote 133: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 12-13.]

[Footnote 134: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 21.]

[Footnote 135: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 22.]

[Footnote 136: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 316-318, 325.]

[Footnote 137: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 317.]

[Footnote 138: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 29-30.]

[Footnote 139: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 30-35.]

[Footnote 140: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 35. Luis de Leon had
applied for a special hearing: '...para suplicar á sus mercedes que
ninguno de sus papeles se dé al maestro Mancio para que los lleve á su
casa por el peligro que hay de poderlos ver frailes suyos, á los
cuales tiene tachados...']

[Footnote 141: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 35-36.]

[Footnote 142: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 36.]

[Footnote 143: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 37. The instructions
of the Supreme Inquisition to the Valladolid judges were as follows:
'En lo que escrebís quel maestro fray Luis de Leon ha recusado al
maestro Mancio, que le habia nombrado por patrono, y pedido traslado
de lo que dejó escripto en su negocio; consultado con el Reverendísimo
Señor Inquisidor general, ha parecido aviseis, Señores, al dicho
maestro Mancio que no vuelva ahí hasta que otra cosa se le ordene, y
proseguiréis en la causa del dicho fray Luis de Leon sin embargo de la
dicha recusacion, y sin darle copia de lo quel dicho maestro Mancio
dejó anotado en él; y ponerse ha la dicha nota en el proceso signado y
autorizado de uno de los notarios del Secreto, para que dello conste.
Guarde nuestro Señor vuestras muy Reverendas personas.' This letter
was signed in Madrid on November 4, 1574.]

[Footnote 144: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 41-42: 'Digo que yo
nombré por mi patron al maestro Mancio catredático de prima de
teulugía en Salamanca, el cual habiendo comenzado á ver mi negocio se
ha ausentado á leer su cátreda, y porque pudiendo fácilmente dar su
parecer se ha hecho vehementísimamente sospechoso que es partícipe y
compañero en la maldad que contra mí ha intentado fray Bartolomé de
Medina, fraile de su órden y casa, porque conforme á derecho no carece
de sociedad oculta el que deja de obrar á tan manifiesta malicia; y
siendo obligado á defenderme por el juramento que se le tomó y por
haber empezado el negocio, en desampararme cometió grandísimo pecado,
porque conforme á derecho tambien es falso testigo el que deja de
decir verdad cuando es obligado á la decir, como el que dice falso
testimonio. Y la causa de ir á leer su cátreda no le escusa, porque mi
defensa se habia de hacer en muy pocos dias, y estando él impedido por
Vs. Mds. ni habia de perder la cátreda ni multarle en ella, ni los
estudiantes recibian detrimento considerable, porque en las cátredas
de propriedad se asignan lecturas que no las acaban, y el sostituto
podia leer de lo del cabo de la asignatura si él queria leer del
principio como lo hacen los catredáticos de propiedad que al principio
de Sant Lucas están impedidos.']

[Footnote 145: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 44.]

[Footnote 146: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 45-46.]

[Footnote 147: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 46: '...suplico á
Vs. Mds. le manden que con brevedad se resuelva y dé su parecer, y
ansí mismo suplico, y con el acatamiento que debo requiero á Vs. Mds.
manden que ansí el parecer que diere en lo que vea agora, como el que
ha dado en la Vulgata el dicho maestro Mancio, los comunique conmigo
antes que se vaya; porque el fin de su oficio le obliga á ello, y yo
le nombré por patron debajo desta condicion, y no en otra manera,...']

[Footnote 148: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 47-48: '...como
otras veces he dicho ha mas de dos meses que persevero pidiendo
audiencia con el maestro Mancio, y no me se ha dado... Y aunque yo
tengo por cierto que el dicho maestro ha aprobado las proposiciones
[que se dicen resultar deste proceso] porque son así ciertas y llanas
las que yo he afirmado, que decir lo contrario es ó temeridad ó error;
y porque cuando las comuniqué con él, me dijo claramente delante de
Vs. Mds. que eran cosas llanas; pero si por caso hubiese otra cosa,
digo que no me dañan porque no se me ha dado en ello el lugar de
defensa que de derecho se me debe: lo uno porque no me han querido Vs.
Mds. dar audiencia para informar enteramente al dicho maestro mi
patron; lo otro porque si ha dado parecer sin haberse comunicado
conmigo no he tenido patron;...

Demás desto digo que el mismo negocio me da á entender que este
proceso está visto por Vs. Mds. dias ha y decretada la sentencia
definitiva dél; y que no se pronuncia por una de dos cosas, ó porque
el fiscal ha apelado del dicho decreto para el Consejo general de la
Inquisicion, ó porque los Señores dél han mandado que se suspenda la
pronunciacion della hasta que se averiguen los pleitos de los demas
maestros que fueron presos cuando yo lo fuí.']

[Footnote 149: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 52.]

[Footnote 150: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 52-53.]

[Footnote 151: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 53-55.]

[Footnote 152: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 315: '...suplico á
Vs. Mds. sean servidos que se me dé entera noticia de todo lo que hay
contra mí, por que despues de tantos meses parece justo que yo sepa
por qué fuí preso, lo cual no alcanzo hasta agora por las deposiciones
que he visto; y que pueda responder por mí y defenderme enteramente,
lo cual no puedo hacer no se haciendo publicacion entera!' It would be
easy, but superfluous, to quote other examples of Luis de Leon's
complaints on this point; his evidence is honeycombed with them.]

[Footnote 153: As early as January 21, 1573, Luis de Leon complained
in writing (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 250): 'que en todo el
tiempo que ha que estoy preso, que son ya poco menos de diez meses, no
se habia hecho en este mi pleito publicacion de testigos, ni se me
habia dado lugar de entera defensa, no pareciendo haber para la tal
dilacion causa ninguna jurídica ni necesaria,... y yo, dilatándose la
publicacion y el tiempo de mi defensa, corria riesgo de no poder
probar mi inocencia por los casos ordinarios de muerte y ausencia que
podrian suceder á mis testigos;...' See also _Documentos inéditos_,
vol. X, pp. 474 and 563.]

[Footnote 154: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 183: 'Fuéle dicho que
en este Santo Oficio naide se prende sin causa de culpa que tenga en
cosas que sean contra nuestra santa fe católica; por tanto que se le
amonesta por reverencia de nuestro Señor Jesucristo y su bendita
madre, que diga enteramente la verdad; y haciéndolo ansí de lo que
sabe de su persona y de otros, se usará con él de mucha misericordia:
donde no, que se hará justicia.']

[Footnote 155: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 184.]

[Footnote 156: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 151-186.]

[Footnote 157: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 77: 'Preguntado qué
es lo que quiere: dijo quél ha entendido quel P. maestro fray Luis de
Leon, catredático de Salamanca de la órden de Señor San Agustin, está
preso en la Inquisicion de Valladolid; y que habia un mes que estando
este en el convento de la dicha ciudad de la dicha órden, hablando con
fray Martin de Guevara, natural de Lorca, residente en el dicho
monasterio de San Agustin desta ciudad, le dijo el dicho fray Martin
quél habia ayudado muchas veces á decir misa al dicho fray Luis de
Leon en su celda en Salamanca, y que siempre se la oyó decir de
_Requiem_, aunque fuese fiesta, y que nunca le entendia lo que decia
porque hablaba tu tu tu, de manera que no lo entendia, y acababa muy
presto. Y cuando se lo dijo, estaban los dos solos paseándose en el
monasterio desta ciudad. Y en lo que dice que ha un mes que se lo
dijo, no está bien cierto, sino que de tres meses á esta parte se lo
oyó decir, y esta es la verdad, y que no hubo ocasion mas que estar
hablando de su prision.'

It is right to add that Ciguelo, who appears to have been silly and
malignant, was not summoned by the Inquisition. He appeared as a
volunteer witness who came forward of his own accord to give evidence.
At the same date, he insinuated that Luis de Leon did not believe in
the coming of Christ. On being pressed to give the names of those who
had heard Luis de Leon say anything of the sort, Ciguelo declared that
he had not been told them.]

[Footnote 158: The interrogatories rejected will be found in
_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 268-272, 273-275, 286-290,
293-294.]

[Footnote 159: The Licentiate Diego Gonzalez, Doctor Guijano de
Mercado, and the Licentiate Andrés de Álava gave the following ruling
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 273): 'Dijeron que el segundo,
tercero y cuarto interrogatorios presentados por el dicho fray Luis
de Leon, en esta causa dados, y otras preguntas añadidas en otras
dellos dadas, que van señalados, les paresce son impertinentes, y que
no se debe hacer diligencias por ellos.']

[Footnote 160: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 200.]

[Footnote 161: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 272: 'Item si saben
que el dicho maestro fray Luis no es mofador ni murmurador, ni de los
sanctos ni de los no sanctos, sino que es de condicion modesta y
humilde.']

[Footnote 162: A good specimen of Luis de Leon's sarcasm is given on
pp. 320-321 of _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X: 'Los dominicos se
sintieron desto mucho; y porque yo soy particular servidor del dicho
D. Juan [de Almeida], entendieron que era cosa comunicada, y acusaron
al dicho Medina, el cual movido con el sanctísimo celo que le pudo
poner esta nueva, paresció delante de Vs. Mds. en tantos de hebrero
del dicho año [1571] á hacer esta segunda declaración, donde comenzó á
descubrir mas la piedad de su buen ánimo; y ansí como no tenía de
nuevo cosa particular que decir de mí,... dice confusamente que me
sintió inclinado á novedades agenas de la antigüedad de nuestra fe y
religion, en lo cual si este testigo tuviese conciencia..., habia de
señalar en particular algunas novedades que hubiese visto en mi
doctrina, ó oido en mis disputas;... Demás desto si es verdad que
sintió de mí lo que dice ¿por qué en la deposicion primera que hizo
por el diciembre no lo declaró? Pues ninguna cosa de las que entonces
declaró es tan pesada como es esto si fuera verdad. Y por la misma
causa no es creible que lo dejó por olvido habiéndose acordado de
cosas muy menores, y siendo verdad como he dicho, que anduvo muchos
dias tratando y ordenando esta buena obra.' Of Luis de Leon's banter a
specimen will be found a few pages further on (_Documentos inéditos_,
vol. X, p. 347): 'Y hecha la censura, y leyéndola yo á los sobredichos
maestros que me estaban esperando, me acuerdo que llegando á aquellas
palabras añadidas dije: "Estas puse mas de lo que Vs. Mds. ordenaron
por contentar al Señor maestro Leon"; y volvíme á él riyendo, y
díjele: "alomenos hoy no podrá decir sino que le tengo bien contento";
y ansí con risa y muy en paz y amistad nos levantamos todos, y quedó
ordenada y firmada la dicha censura.']

[Footnote 163: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 303: 'A la décima
pregunta dijo que lo que sabe de la pregunta es haber oido decir quel
dicho maestro fray Luis de Leon era tan buen letrado que á cualquiera
con quien se pusiese, pudiera llevar cualquier cátreda, y mas la
d'Escriptura.']

[Footnote 164: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 321-322:
'Ultimamente véanse mis leturas: y si en ellas se hallare rastro de
novedades, sino antes inclinacion á todo lo antiguo y lo sancto, yo
seré mentiroso, si no es que este testigo llama novedad todo lo que no
halla en sus papeles.']

[Footnote 165: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 210: '...este
declarante... jamás leyó ningun rabino,...' _Documentos inéditos_,
vol. X, p. 295: 'Al capítulo octavo dijo que este nunca defendió
interpretaciones de judíos por ser de judíos, ni en su vida ha leido
comentario de judíos...']

[Footnote 166: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 267.]

[Footnote 167: This inference is based on the fact that Luis de Leon
refers to Cano more often than to any of the others, that he sometimes
mentions Cano separately, and that his allusions to Cano are always
couched in the most respectful terms: '...oyendo al maestro Cano que
fué mi maestro,...' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 239).]

[Footnote 168: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 388.]

[Footnote 169: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 510.]

[Footnote 170: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 147.]

[Footnote 171: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 305: 'Al segundo
capítulo dijo que como tiene declarado en sus confesiones, ha once ó
doce años que desde Salamanca vino este confesante no á otra cosa,
sino á dar cuenta á los Señores Inquisidores de aquel libro en vida de
los Señores Inquisidores Guigelmo y Riego, y lo dió por escripto,
porque á este le paresció que aunque tenia el dicho libro muchas cosas
católicas, tenia otras que le parescian á este peligrosas que no las
entendia este bien, porque era en lengua toscana, la cual este no
sabia entonces. Y este no lo leia sino que se lo leian á él, como lo
declaró por el dicho escripto al cual se remite.']

[Footnote 172: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 303-304.]

[Footnote 173: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 200-202: 'Tambien
estando escribiendo esto se me ha ofrecido á la memoria que habrá como
año y medio que en Salamanca un estudiante licenciado en cánones, que
se llamaba el licenciado Poza, que me leia principios de astrología,
me dijo un dia que él tenia un cartapacio de cosas curiosas, y que
tenia algun escrúpulo si le podia tener; que me rogaba le viese y le
dijese si le podia tener, porque si podia se holgaria mucho. Era un
cartapacio como de cien hojas, de ochavo de pliego, de letra menuda.
Víle á ratos, y habia en él cosas curiosas, y otras que tocaban á
sigillos astrológicos, y otras que claramente eran de cercos y
invocaciones, aunque á la verdad todo ello me parecia que aun en
aquella arte era burlería. Y acusome que leyendo este libro, para ver
la vanidad dél, probé un sigillo astrológico, y en un poco de plomo
que me dió el mismo licenciado, con un cuchillo pinté no me acuerdo
qué rayas, y dije unas palabras que eran sanctas, y protesté que las
decia al sentido que en ellas pretendió el Espíritu Sancto,
acordándome que Cayetano en la Suma cuenta de sí haber probado una
cosa semejante con la misma protestacion, para ver y mostrar la
vanidad della; y así todo aquello pareció vano. Y tambien me acuso que
otro dia de aquellos en que iba mirando lo que habia en aquel libro,
tuve casi deliberada voluntad, estando solo, de probar otra cosa que
parecia fácil, aunque de hecho no la probé, porque mudé la voluntad.
Yo quise quemar este libro en presencia de su dueño, y esperándole un
dia que me habia de venir á ver, supe que dos dias antes se habia ido
á Avila, huyendo de la enfermedad de pintas que andaba entonces en
Salamanca; y así le quemé aquella noche en mi celda en una chimenea
que hay en ella. Y á todo lo que agora me puedo acordar, me parece que
estaba conmigo entonces el padre fray Bartolomé de Carranza, y que me
preguntó por qué quemaba aquello, y se lo dije. Este estudiante me
escribió pocos dias despues preguntándome por el libro: yo no le
respondí, porque no hubo con quien, ni despues acá he sabido ni oido
mas dél, porque no volvió mas á Salamanca, ni yo me he acordado dél
hasta este punto. No me acuerdo bien si me dijo un dia que quien le
habia dado aquel libro habia experimentado lo de los conjuros. No me
dijo quien era ni yo se lo pregunté ni lo sé.']

[Footnote 174: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 439: 'Este testigo no
me perjudica por ser el maestro Leon á quien tengo tachado por mi
enemigo, y es singular, y es testigo falso, y como contra tal se debe
proceder contra él por ser falso en cosa tan substancial como esta, y
las demas que ha dicho contra mí, fuera de lo que yo tengo
confesado.']

[Footnote 175: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 193: 'Por todo lo
cual digo que es notorio y manifiesto que en mí no hay conforme á
razon y derecho, alguna color ni parte de sospecha; ni por esta causa
puedo ni debo ser detenido por vuestras mercedes ni un solo dia, y que
en ello recibo claro agravio y que debe ser por vuestras mercedes
enmendado.']

[Footnote 176: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 19, 142, 149.]

[Footnote 177: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 385: 'Item ello en sí
no tiene ninguna verosimilitud ni apariencia de verdad porque ¿en qué
seso cabe que un hombre que no es hablador ni le tienen por tonto,
habia de decir un desatino semejante, y en un lugar tan público como
es un convite? Porque si lo echan á donaire, demás de ser muy necio
donaire, y muy sin órden, no era donaire que ningun hombre de juicio
lo habia de decir en los oidos de tan diferentes gentes como son las
que se juntan en un banquete donde unos son necios, y otros
escrupulosos, y otros enemigos y naturalmente malsines, y amigos de
echallo todo á la peor parte. Y si quieren decir que se dijo de veras,
lleva mucho menos camino que yo lo dijese, porque cosa cierta es que
los que tratan de semejantes males, no los dicen á voces, ni en
público, sino muy en particular y muy en secreto, y muy despues de
haber conocido y tratado á los que los dicen, y fiándose mucho dellos,
y á fin de persuadir y no de reir. Y cuando en esto hubiera
testimonios contra mí mas claros y mas ciertos que el sol, antes de
creello habian Vs. Mds. informarse de si aquel dia habia yo perdido el
seso ó si estaba borracho, porque si no era así no era creible cosa
semejante.']

[Footnote 178: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 151-171, 173-179,
179-183, 183-186, 199-214, 220-253.]

[Footnote 179: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 228-230: '...no me
parece que hay cosa contra la fe, ni doctrina errónea, temeraria ó
escandalosa. Mas no puede el autor excusarse de gran culpa en haber
tratado materia y cuestion semejante en estos tiempos, y leídola á
multitud de estudiantes, entre los cuales los rudos, los idiotas, los
libres y los desasosegados ingenios, y los mal intencionados y los
simples y flacos no podrian sacar aprovechamiento ni edificacion, sino
atrevida osadía y poca reverencia á la edicion Vulgata que la iglesia
católica nos da por auténtica. Y aunque las palabras y razones y
autoridades de doctores con que el autor procede, no sean en sí
malas; pero piden auditorio muy pio, muy docto y muy atento para no
tomar de aquí ocasion á tener en poco nuestra Biblia latina, y
errar.... Mas no todas las verdades se han de sacar á plaza, ni todos
los oyentes son capaces dellas; y por doctrina suelen sacar errores y
escándalo, y tal es esto: porque el oficio del teólogo en públicas
lecciones no era desnudar sino vestir cuanto pudiese la edicion que el
concilio aprueba, y no dejarla tan en los huesos como la deja, que es
todo lo posible sin ser hereje, ni tener nota de error, temeridad ó
sospecha en la fe, ni ser proposiciones escandalosas.

De la proposicion 4ª digo que es falsa,... Pero no hay cosa en todo
ello para retratar.'

This _calificacion_ appears to be in the handwriting of Fray Hernando
de Castillo, who signed it. It is also signed by the Dominican Antonio
de Arce and by Dr. Cáncer. Cáncer appears to have been ready to put
his name to anything. Earlier in the same year, as it seems--for no
date is attached in _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 122-127--Cáncer
wrote, concerning one of Luis de Leon's tenets: 'Haec propositio est
irrisoria, injuriosa, temeraria et... haeretica in 2º gradu...']

[Footnote 180: This mellowing of judgement is particularly the case
with the Franciscan Fray Nicolás Ramos. Cp. _Documentos inéditos_,
vol. XI, p. 231, and pp. 234-237.]

[Footnote 181: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 295: 'Y hacersehá
todo luego porque importa la brevedad, y vendrá esta por cabeza de
todo.']

[Footnote 182: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 195: '...y hecho
esto pasaréis adelante con el negocio como os está ordenado, con toda
brevedad, pues veis lo que importa'. This occurs in a letter dated
'Madrid, 8 de otubre de 1575'. There seems to be a mistake in the
heading of this letter: according to this heading, the letter from the
Supreme Inquisition reached Valladolid on October 8, 1575. I cannot
say whether this is a slip of Pedro Bolivar, notary to the Holy Office
at Valladolid, or a slip in transcription made by Miguel Salvá and
Sainz de Baranda. It can scarcely be a mere misprint.]

[Footnote 183: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 351-353: 'Al margén
se halla la siguiente nota. "_Cuando este proceso se comenzó á ver y
hasta la mitad dél, se hallaron á la vista los Señores licenciados
Juan de Ibarra y Don Hernando Niño, y no lo votaron por no poderlo
acabar de ver por estar enfermos._" En la villa de Valladolid á veinte
é ocho dias del mes de setiembre de mill y quinientos y setenta y
seis años, habiendo visto los Señores licenciado D. Francisco de
Menchaca del Consejo de S.M., é dotor Guijano de Mercado, é licenciado
Andrés de Álava Inquisidores, juntamente con los Señores licenciado
Luis Tello Maldonado, D. Pedro de Castro, Francisco de Albornoz,
oidores desta Real audiencia é chancillería, asistiendo á ello por
ordinario del obispado de Salamanca el Señor doctor Frechilla
catredático en esta universidad, por virtud del poder que para ello
tiene del Señor obispo de Salamanca, que está en el secreto deste
Sancto Oficio, el proceso criminal de fray Luis de Leon, de la órden
de Sancto Agustin; los dichos Señores le votaron en la forma
siguiente.

Los dichos Señores licenciados Menchaca, Álava, Luis Tello y Albornoz,
dijeron que son de voto y parecer que el dicho fray Luis de Leon sea
puesto á qüistion de tormento sobre la intencion y lo indiciado y
testificado, y sobre las proposiciones que estan cualificadas por
heréticas, no embargante que los teólogos digan últimamente que
satisface, entendiéndolo como él, respondiendo á ellas, dice que lo
entendió; y que el tormento se le dé moderado, atento que el reo es
delicado: y con lo que dél resultare, se torne á veer y determinar.

Los dichos Señores Inquisidores doctor Guijano, é Frechilla,
ordinario, dijeron que atento lo que los calificadores que últimamente
vieron las proposiciones cargadas al reo, y lo que él y su patron
responden á ellas, califican; que su voto y parecer es que este reo
sea reprendido en la sala deste Sancto Oficio por la culpa que tuvo en
tratar desta materia en estos tiempos, por los inconvenientes que
dello resultan, y por el peligro y escándalo que podia causar, como lo
dicen los calificadores en la censura general que hicieron de todo el
cuaderno de donde se sacaron las diez y siete proposiciones de latin;
y que en el general grande de las escuelas mayores, estando juntos los
estudiantes y personas de la universidad, y algunos doctores del
claustro della, este reo declare las proposiciones sospechosas é
ambigüas, y que pudieron dar escándalo, que se le darán en escripto en
un memorial ordenado por los teólogos calificantes con la declaracion
que ellos ordenaren; y que extrajudicialmente se diga á su perlado que
sin privacion ni otra declaracion, mande á este reo emplear sus
estudios en otras cosas de su facultad en que aproveche á la
república, y se abstenga de leer públicamente en escuelas ni en otra
partes, y que el libro de los Cánticos, traducido en romance, se
prohiba y recoja, siendo dello servido el Illmo. Señor Inquisidor
General y Señores del Consejo. Y que los libros y papeles
pertenecientes á los cargos deste proceso se retengan en este Sancto
Oficio.

El dicho Señor licenciado D. Pedro de Castro dijo que dará su voto por
escripto.']

[Footnote 184: The peremptory letter of the Supreme Inquisition to the
Valladolid tribunal is printed in _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p.
354: 'Aquí se ha visto el proceso contra fray Luis de Leon, de la
órden de Sant Agustin, preso en esas cárceles, y va determinado como
veréis por lo que al fin dél va asentado. Aquello se ejecutará. Y
advertiréis á este reo que guarde mucho secreto de todo lo que con él
ha pasado y toca á su proceso; y que no tenga pasion ni disensiones
con persona alguna, sospechando que haya testificado contra él en esta
su causa; porque de todo lo que á esto tocare se tratará en el Sancto
Oficio, y no se podrá dejar de proveer en ello justicia con rigor.
Hacerloéis, Señores, así. Guarde nuestro Señor vuestras muy
Reverendas personas. En Madrid siete de diciembre 1576.'

The decision of the Supreme Inquisition is reproduced in _Documentos
inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 353:

'En la villa de Madrid á siete dias del mes de diciembre de mill y
quinientos y setenta y seis años, habiendo visto los Señores del
Consejo de S.M. de la Sancta general Inquisicion, el proceso de pleito
criminal contra fray Luis de Leon, de la órden de Sant Agustin, preso
en las cárceles secretas del Santo Oficio de la Inquisicion de
Valladolid; mandaron que el dicho fray Luis de Leon sea absuelto de la
instancia deste juicio, y en la sala de la audiencia sea reprendido y
advertido que de aquí adelante mire como y adonde trata cosas y
materias de la cualidad y peligro que las que deste proceso resultan,
y tenga en ellas mucha moderacion y prudencia como conviene para que
cese todo escándalo y ocasion de errores; y que se recoja el cuaderno
de los Cantares traducido en romance y ordenado por el dicho fray Luis
de Leon.']

[Footnote 185: It is unnecessary to reproduce the exact terms of the
judgement (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 354-357), for this
closely follows the terms employed by the Supreme Inquisition.]

[Footnote 186: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 356.]

[Footnote 187: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 357-358: 'El
maestro fray Luis de Leon suplico á vuestras mercedes sean servidos
mandar que me sea dado un testimonio en manera que haga fe, por donde
conste al claustro de la universidad de Salamanca que yo por vuestras
mercedes fuí absuelto de la instancia[A] que contra mí hizo el fiscal
deste Santo Oficio delante de vuestras mercedes, y dado por libre, en
manera que pueda ejercer cualquiera de las cosas que tocan á mis
órdenes y oficio, y sin penitencia ni nota alguna.

Item suplico á vuestras mercedes manden se me dé un mandamiento para
el pagador de las escuelas de Salamanca[B] para que pague lo corrido
de mi cátreda desde el dia de mi prision hasta el dia que vacó por el
cuadrienio. Y en todo imploro el oficio etc.--]

[Footnote A: Al márgen se lee: "Que se le de la fee".]

[Footnote B: Al márgen: "Que se le de mandamiento. En 15 de diciembre
de 1576".']

[Footnote 188: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 358: 'En 13 de
agosto de 1577 años, por mandado de los señores Inquisidores saqué
esta sentencia de fray Luis, signada, é la entregué al Señor
Inquisidor doctor Guijano. Sacóse para el maestrescuela de Salamanca.'
This sentence is probably written by the secretary, Celedon Gustin.]




IV


When did Luis de Leon return to Salamanca, and how was he received
there? According to an anonymous contemporary, whom Gallardo
conjectured to be a Jesuit, Luis de Leon made a sort of triumphal
entry into Salamanca, accompanied by a procession which marched along
to the sound of timbrels and trumpets.[189] This procession is alleged
to have taken place in the afternoon of December 30, 1576; but, as the
statement is made by one who has no divine idea of a date,[190] it
would be imprudent to rely on his unsupported authority in this
particular. The date of the procession may be doubtful. There is no
reason to doubt the general accuracy of the assertion that there was
some public manifestation of joy at Luis de Leon's release.[191]
Though he was not popular, his fellow-citizens were proud of him, and
there is a natural tendency to show sympathy with a man who has been
hardly used. But life is not made up of triumphal processions. On
December 31[192] Luis de Leon met the _Claustro_ of the University,
which had been duly informed of his acquittal. After congratulatory
phrases from the Rector, the released man was invited to speak.
According to the decree of the Inquisition, Luis de Leon was entitled
to claim restitution to his University chair. There were practical
difficulties in the way. Luis de Leon's tenure had lapsed while he was
in prison at Valladolid; his immediate successor had been Bartolomé de
Medina, a dangerous enemy, and the chair was subsequently occupied by
the Benedictine Fray Garcia del Castillo, another declared opponent
who had intervened at an early stage of the case. Luis de Leon
renounced all claim, present or future, to his former chair--_que la
daba por bien empleada_--so long as it was held by Castillo. He
besought the _Claustro_ to bear in mind his past services, pointed
out that his acquittal implied a general approval of his teaching,
and then left the meeting.[193] Finally the _Claustro_ of Salamanca
agreed to create a new chair for Luis de Leon, with a salary of two
hundred ducats a year, his duty being to lecture on theology.[194]

We now come to the best-known trait in Luis de Leon's career. He would
seem to have begun lecturing in his new chair on January 29,
1577.[195] The gathering was large, and now and here--if at any time
and in any place--he must have begun his lecture with the famous
phrase: 'As we were saying yesterday' (_Dicebamus hesterna die_).
Almost everybody who hears the story for the first time takes it for
granted that the remark was made to what was left of Luis de Leon's
old class--the class which he had been instructing just previous to
his arrest: otherwise, the anecdote loses great part of its point. It
behoves us therefore to examine the circumstances in which the story
was first made public. The earliest mention of the incident occurs
apparently in the _Monasticon Augustinianum_ by the once well-known
Nicolaas Cruesen, whose work appeared at Munich in 1623.[196] The
picturesque narrative soon struck the popular imagination, and it has
been repeated times innumerable.[197] One is always reluctant to part
with a good tale, but there is no denying the fact that the evidence
in favour of the current version is slighter than one could wish it to
be. The silence of all contemporary Spaniards with respect to this
episode is not a little strange. It is singular that the anecdote
should reach Spain from abroad, and that it should not be printed till
forty-six years after it is supposed to have occurred; that is to say,
till Luis de Leon had been thirty-two years in his grave. It does not
necessarily follow that the story is untrue. Nobody imagines that
Cruesen deliberately invented it. So far as appears, Cruesen was an
absolutely upright man who recorded with fidelity such information as
he could obtain. He was not ill-placed for obtaining information.
Himself an Augustinian, he was something of a cosmopolitan. Though
Flemish by blood, Cruesen was technically a Spanish subject; he was in
full sympathy with the politico-religious aims of Spain in the Low
Countries, and during the Spanish occupation he must have had
opportunities of meeting and questioning men who were Spanish by race.
Moreover, it seems to be established that, though the story concerning
Luis de Leon's remark did not appear in print till 1623, the chapter
containing it was written previous to 1612.[198] If this be so, the
account given by Cruesen must be dated thirty-five years after the
alleged occurrence and twenty-one years after Luis de Leon's death.
Further, Cruesen, who knew Spanish, travelled in Spain. There he seems
to have made the acquaintance of Fray Basilio Ponce de Leon, Luis de
Leon's able and admiring nephew. It is by no means impossible that
Fray Basilio was Cruesen's informant,[199] and, if this were proved,
the case for the story would be greatly strengthened, since it is
inconceivable that the nephew should repeat the anecdote, for the
purposes of publication, unless he had had it direct from his famous
uncle. These, however, are conjectures, more or less probable. The
story may derive from Fray Basilio Ponce de Leon or it may not. It is
the kind of story that any unscrupulous person might easily invent and
repeat to a too credulous visitor. As it stands, the evidence in its
support is, on the face of it, unsatisfactory. The case for the story
is perhaps not quite so weak as has been supposed;[200] ingenuity has
shown that the case against it may, to some extent, be frittered
away.[201] Still, there is no getting over the fact that this charming
anecdote is first reported outside of Spain by a foreigner who related
it in print long after Luis de Leon's death. No first-hand testimony
in its favour has hitherto been produced. Those who choose to believe
in the authenticity of the current version may not unreasonably do so;
it is obvious, however, that, in the absence of direct evidence, they
will have great difficulty in persuading others to share their belief.

To return to prosaic details. The _Claustro_ had promptly created a
chair for Luis de Leon after his release from prison; there was more
ado about granting his request--made on the ground of health--that he
should be allowed to lecture from ten till eleven o'clock. Unluckily,
this time had been already allotted to the Dean of the Theological
Faculty, Diego Rodriguez, a Dominican, who objected to the proposal.
Bartolomé de Medina not unnaturally stood by his brother-Dominican,
opposed the demand of the newly elected professor on the ground that
it could not be granted without showing disrespect to the Dean, and
suggested that Luis de Leon should be instructed to lecture from four
to five o'clock. On a vote being taken, the _Claustro_ gave Luis de
Leon a majority; but, as the Rector of the University claimed to be
the deciding authority on such questions, the matter was not finally
decided at this meeting.[202] It might seem that, in practice, Luis de
Leon carried his point for, as the clock struck ten on January 29,
1577, he began his first lecture in his new post; but this was mainly
a formal taking possession of the post, and the professor in his
fragmentary lecture took occasion to protest against not having a
lecture hour assigned to him.[203] Luis de Leon continued to occupy
the chair that had been created for him. The death of Francisco
Sancho, bishop of Segorbe, in June 1578 caused a vacancy in the
university chair of Moral Philosophy. Luis de Leon determined to
present himself as a candidate. A rival candidate came forward in the
person of Fray Francisco Zumel, Rector of the Mercenarian College. The
struggle was vehement. Zumel did not stick at trifles; he charged his
opponent with exercising undue pressure on the electors by means of
cajolery, threats, lavish hospitality (which was dispensed with the
aid of brother-Augustinians), bribery, and attempted personal
violence.[204] Luis de Leon was not behindhand: he sought to have
Zumel disqualified on technical grounds, and further accused his
opponent of breaking the law governing elections. In the heat of
conflict, the very best of men seem able to persuade themselves that
the most extravagant assertions are true. No one but the candidates
can have taken these amenities seriously. When the battle was ended on
August 14, 1578, Luis de Leon, who received 301 votes, was in a
majority of seventy-nine.[205] This check appears to have rankled in
Zumel's mind. Luis de Leon celebrated his success by taking the degree
of Master of Arts on October 11. Why? It is hard to say. He cannot
well have thought that the possession of a Master's degree would
strengthen his position as one of the members representing the
University of Salamanca on the Committee appointed to report on the
projected reform of the calendar.[206] Normally this Committee, of
which Medina and Domingo Bañez were also members, would have absorbed
much of Luis de Leon's attention. His energies were to be otherwise
exercised in the immediate future. The death of Gregorio Gallo, Bishop
of Segovia, on September 25, 1579, caused a vacancy in the Biblical
chair at Salamanca. The late bishop had viewed with no very friendly
eyes some of Luis de Leon's proceedings before the Valladolid
trial,[207] and it might have troubled him to think that Luis de Leon
was destined to follow him at Salamanca. That, however, was what
happened. The position was not carried without a stiff fight. At
Valladolid, Salinas had said it was commonly thought by some of
Luis de Leon's admirers that he could carry any University
chair--especially a chair of Scripture--against all comers.[208] It
was now to be seen whether this opinion was, or was not, well founded.
A formidable competitor appeared in the person of Fray Domingo de
Guzman, the third son of Garcilasso de la Vega. Though Guzman had not
inherited his father's poetic gift, he had a turn for versifying, and
his burlesque _glosa_ of Luis de Leon's celebrated _quintillas_--

    Aqui la envidia y mentira
    me tuvieron encerrado--

is not wholly forgotten, since four lines of it find a resounding echo
in Cervantes' preliminary verses at the beginning of _Don Quixote_ to
Urganda la Desconocida.[209] But the relative merits of the two
candidates for the vacant chair were not the point at issue. More
relevant was the fact that Guzman was a Dominican with all the
strength of the massed Dominican vote at his back. Whatever may have
been the case at other times and places, at this period there was no
love lost between Dominicans and Augustinians in Salamanca. Medina
represented with distinction the more rigid teaching of the Dominican
school; with at least equal distinction Luis de Leon represented the
freer tendencies of the Augustinians. He was almost imprudently loyal
to his own order. He publicly championed Augustinian candidates
whenever a suitable chair became vacant at the University of
Salamanca, and, despite the secrecy enjoined by the Inquisition, it
had probably leaked out that, at his recent trial in Valladolid, he
had repeatedly objected to all Dominicans as being so many enemies. In
the nature of things he could not be popular with the Dominicans and
their sympathizers. In this particular contest, however, his great
personal qualities were somewhat overclouded. He and Domingo de Guzman
were but standard-bearers. The conflict in which they were engaged
resolved itself into a struggle for supremacy between two potent
religious orders. Apart from the personal merits of the respective
candidates, the forces marshalled on each side were about equal.
Passions ran high. Poetasters on both sides did their part.[210] It
speedily became evident that the margin of the successful candidate
would be narrow. This prevision proved to be correct. When the poll
was declared on December 6, 1579, Luis de Leon's total of votes
amounted to 285, giving him a majority of thirty-six over his
opponent.[211] Since he stood against Grajal, and was defeated, at the
very outset of his professorial career, he had hardly ever been so
pressed in any academic struggle. Unfortunately, in the contest
against Guzman there was some irregularity in the voting; each side
accused the other of malpractices; an appeal was lodged on behalf of
Domingo de Guzman; for some unknown reason the case was not decided
till over twenty-two months later. Finally, on October 13, 1581,
judgement was delivered in favour of Luis de Leon at Valladolid.[212]
The equity of this decision has been questioned;[213] but there is no
reason to doubt the substantial justice of the verdict given by a
court with all the facts before it, and with the opportunity of
cross-examining the witnesses who appeared to give evidence. It
should be said, however, that the Dominicans never accepted the
official decision, and put about a rumour that the irregularity had
been committed by a supporter of Luis de Leon's--a supporter who (so
it was alleged) some twenty years later avowed his transgression and
sought to make amends for it by paying a sum of 8,000 _reales_ into
the Dominican chest.[214] Meanwhile Luis de Leon (who, like Domingo de
Guzman, was perfectly innocent of any share in these clandestine
manoeuvres) had taken possession of the Biblical Chair at Salamanca by
reading himself in on December 7, 1579. Hitherto his reputation, great
as it was, had been more or less local: that is to say, it depended
mainly on his University lectures, which were exploited by certain
unscrupulous persons. It was not till 1580 that, at the express
command of his superior, Fray Pedro Suarez,[215] he issued his first
book: a Latin commentary on the _Song of Songs_. On the title-page
stood a characteristic motto from his favourite Horace: _ab ipso
ferro_. Possibly at this moment Luis de Leon looked forward to a
period of learned leisure:

    O ya seguro puerto
    de mi tan luengo error! o deseado
    para reparo cierto
    del grave mal pasado,
    reposo dulce, alegre, reposado!

If the author of this opening stanza of _Al apartamiento_ were
optimistic enough to assume that these verses might be applied to his
own case, he was destined to be speedily disillusioned.

The Valladolid Inquisitors had not treated him in such fashion as to
make him desirous of meeting them again. This experience was, however,
awaiting him.[216] On January 20 or 21, 1582,[217] his former
opponent, the Mercenarian Fray Francisco Zumel, took the chair at a
theological meeting in Salamanca. At this meeting a Jesuit named
Prudencio de Montemayor put forward a thesis which opened up the
difficulties connected with the reconciliation of the theological
doctrines of predestination and free-will. Owing to some disturbance
in the assembly, Montemayor's voice did not reach all who were present
and, in the interest of the audience, Luis de Leon repeated
Montemayor's arguments without lending them any support; his action
was misunderstood, and many supposed that he was expressing his
personal opinions. In the ensuing discussion his vanquished opponent,
Domingo de Guzman, intervened, and with unnecessary acerbity declared
that Montemayor's views were heretical. Nothing would have been easier
than for Luis de Leon to keep out of the fray, especially as he
himself held, and had always taught, opinions opposed to those
advanced by Montemayor. If, as Pacheco reports, Luis de Leon was the
most taciturn of men, he was chivalrous to the point of quixotism. In
the circumstances silence was impossible for him. He was for as much
liberty of thought as was compatible with orthodoxy; he was persuaded
that much of the opposition of the Dominicans to Montemayor was due
to the fact that the latter was a Jesuit;[218] and no doubt he was
quite human enough to be annoyed at the intrusion of Domingo de Guzman
as the champion of doctrinal intolerance.... Be this as it may, Luis
de Leon took up the cudgels for Montemayor's views which, as he
maintained, were perfectly tenable. At a later meeting in Salamanca,
Fray Juan de Castañeda, a Benedictine,[219] advanced views very
similar to those of Montemayor; Domingo Bañez, whose relations with
Luis de Leon were never cordial, was even more emphatic than his
brother-Dominican, Domingo de Guzman, and denounced Castañeda's views
as savouring of Pelagianism. A sharp passage of arms followed between
Bañez and Luis de Leon,[220] and, after some exchange of argument,
Bañez professed to be satisfied with Castañeda's thesis, and therefore
with Luis de Leon's explanations.[221] Others were less easily
contented; even some of the Augustinian professors at Salamanca were
uneasy;[222] and finally the case came before the Inquisition of
Valladolid, though the sittings of the court were held in Salamanca.
The delator would appear to have been a Jeromite, Fray Joan de Santa
Cruz, who took objection to some sixteen propositions which, as he
alleged, were put forward by Luis de Leon.[223] Some exaggeration on
the part of Santa Cruz is conceivable. As a Jeromite, he bore a grudge
against Luis de Leon for his overt opposition to the candidature of
Hector Pinto at Salamanca University and, as Francisco de Palacios
deposed at Valladolid on February 5, 1573, Santa Cruz had been
somewhat excited by the news of Grajal's arrest and was anxious to
know if Luis de Leon had been apprehended at the same time.[224] This
incident implies no great impartiality on the part of Santa Cruz.
Still, a report made officially has to be met. On March 8, 1582, Luis
de Leon, adopting the same procedure which he had followed at
Valladolid, voluntarily presented himself before the Inquisitionary
tribunal at Salamanca, and read his account of what had occurred.[225]
In several particulars he was enabled to correct the version of Santa
Cruz, which was admittedly second-hand in part.[226] He must have
thought of 'old, unhappy, far-off things' as he entered the Court and
recognized the Inquisitionary secretary with the singular name of
Celedon Gustin; these remembrances probably led him to take additional
precautions. On March 31 he appeared a second time before the
Inquisitionary Court at Salamanca, and volunteered the statement that,
though he still believed Montemayor's thesis to be free from heretical
taint, reflection caused him to think that it was temerarious
(inasmuch as it differed from the usual scholastic teaching on the
subject); that its promulgation in a public assembly was regrettable;
and that he was ready to make amends if he had in any way exceeded in
his defence of Montemayor.[227] A little later three Augustinians, one
of them a man of some prominence in the order, appeared with a view
to disassociate themselves from Luis de Leon's action;[228] and a
fourth witness came forward in the person of Fray Francisco Zumel, who
produced fragments of a lecture on predestination delivered by Luis de
Leon at Salamanca as far back as 1571.[229] One hardly knows whether
to say that Luis de Leon was fortunate or unfortunate in his
opponents. Zumel, as we have seen, was a defeated competitor for the
chair of Moral Philosophy at the University of Salamanca in 1578.
Similarly, Domingo de Guzman was a defeated competitor for the
Biblical Chair at the University of Salamanca in 1579. So, too, at the
dawn of his professorial career, Luis de Leon had easily carried a
_substitucion de vísperas_ against Domingo Bañez.[230] These men were
the soul of the opposition to Luis de Leon in his second encounter
with the Inquisitionary tribunal; inasmuch as they had all three been
beaten in open contest by Luis de Leon, their motives were not
altogether free from some suspicion of personal animus; but their
united hostility was undoubtedly formidable. Luis de Leon's foes were
not, however, limited to the Dominicans and the Jeromite whom he had
defeated for University Chairs. Some members of his own order had been
rendered unhappy by his latest outbreak. Fray Pedro de Aragon, Fray
Martin de Coscojales, and Fray Andrés de Solana were not alone.[231]
This is obvious from a highly disagreeable letter written in Madrid on
February 15, 1582, by the well-known Augustinian Fray Lorenzo de
Villavicencio. In this letter, which was laid before the Inquisition
by Luis de Leon, Villavicencio thought it his duty to tell his
correspondent to mind his own business, to cease denouncing tyranny,
and to understand that his action, while it did good to nobody, was a
source of annoyance to many.[232] Manifestly Luis de Leon's passion
for fair play was altogether incomprehensible to his opponents, and it
may be that he made no great effort to win their support. If,
however, his experience of the Inquisition had made him more cautious
in his dealings with it, the Inquisition had learned a lesson from its
previous experience with Luis de Leon. He was not arrested, but was
allowed to go about his business as usual; no prosecuting counsel was
appointed, and when the Supreme Inquisition at Madrid called upon the
Valladolid judge to make a report,[233] Juan de Arresse confined
himself to suggesting that Luis de Leon should be severely
reprimanded, and should be called upon to express publicly from his
University chair his regret for having described as heretical opinions
which were not his.[234] This must have been signed shortly after
August 7, 1582, the date on which the request of the Supreme
Inquisition reached Valladolid. Mitigated as it was, the suggestion of
the Valladolid judge seemed too severe to the Supreme Inquisition. For
reasons which are unknown the case was not ended till February 3,
1584. On this date Luis de Leon was summoned to Toledo and was there
privately reprimanded by the Grand Inquisitor, Cardinal Gaspar de
Quiroga, to whom in 1580 he had dedicated his _In Psalmum vigesimum
sextum Explanatio_, a work written during the tenth month of his
imprisonment at Valladolid. Luis de Leon appears to have thought that
he had a friend in Quiroga, but for whose intervention his
imprisonment at Valladolid would have been still further prolonged. As
Quiroga became Grand Inquisitor on April 20, 1573, and as the prisoner
in the Valladolid cells was not released till the month of December
1576, Luis de Leon's gratitude has been thought excessive.[235]
However, he knew the facts better than anybody else, and Quiroga's
attitude at Toledo was benignant. Instead of giving the severe
reprimand which was suggested by the Valladolid Inquisitors, Quiroga
'charitably and kindly' rebuked the Augustinian in private and
dismissed him with a solemn warning not to uphold such views as he
was alleged to have defended.[236] It has been held that the
Inquisition proceeded against Luis de Leon a third time.[237] No
evidence to support this view has been hitherto produced.

Meanwhile in 1583 appeared _Los nombres de Cristo_ and _La perfecta
casada_. The theologian, philosopher, and poet was also a man of
affairs. That he was so esteemed by his colleagues is proved by the
fact that he was nominated by them to take in hand, and settle, a
long-standing suit between the University of Salamanca and the
_Colegios Mayores_ which had secured from Rome two concessions that
were held to be injurious to the interests of the University. This
suit, begun in 1549, was taken charge of by Luis de Leon in January
1585; in February Dr. Antonio de Solís, a learned lawyer, was
dispatched to Madrid to give advice on legal points; Solís fell ill
and was replaced by Doctor Diego de Sahagun. The business involved an
interview with Philip II and, as the king was absent from the
capital, Luis de Leon wrote to the University authorities explaining
the situation, and suggesting that, in the interests of economy, the
mission should be recalled. The University evidently acted upon this
suggestion, for on August 1 Luis de Leon was back in Salamanca.[238]
He was re-appointed to take up the same work again on November 22,
1586, and on January 17, 1588, he was able to report that the
everlasting lawsuit was at an end, and that the contention of the
University of Salamanca had been accepted.[239] The _Claustro_ was so
overjoyed that it authorized the fulfilment of its promise to pay Luis
de Leon his salary and expenses. This elation and fit of generosity
proved to be premature. On March 5, 1588, Luis de Leon was obliged to
ask for the return of the original _cédula_ and to state that no use
could meanwhile be made of it.[240] The disappointment at Salamanca
was great, and the _Claustro_ showed its irritation by ordering the
return of Luis de Leon and by voting that the payment of his salary
be suspended after October 18, if he had not returned by that date.
Owing to Luis de Leon's illness a prolongation of his absence was
agreed to, later on; but this concession implied no change of mind on
the part of the _Claustro_. A certain University Professor, Dr.
Bernal, who had acted for several years as _Regidor_ of Salamanca, and
had been from the first hostile to Luis de Leon in this matter, moved
that the absentee be ordered back to Salamanca at once with a view to
avoiding the unnecessary expense of paying the salary of a substitute
to deliver lectures. This was carried by an overwhelming majority on
January 20, 1589,[241] and three days later it was resolved that Luis
de Leon be instructed to return to his chair within a month. As Luis
de Leon was plunged in important business which could not be broken
off lightly, Philip II caused a letter to be written on March 7 in
which he requested the _Claustro_ to authorize Luis de Leon's absence
from his chair till the end of August.[242] The royal request was
refused and, as if to mark a want of confidence in Luis de Leon,
another member was nominated to conduct the negotiations at Madrid.
Luis de Leon's mission was really ended, for his delegated powers had
expired; nevertheless, he acted as though they were still in force and
with such effect that on August 23 he appeared before the _Claustro_
with the royal warrant.[243] He was warmly complimented on his
success, but the _Claustro_ was less profuse of deeds than of words.
On August 26 Luis de Leon made three requests:[244] (_a_) that his
arrears of salary be paid for the time that he had represented the
University in Madrid; (_b_) that some compensation be paid to his
monastery for the time he had been engaged on University business
after his mandate had expired; and (_c_) that he be given two years'
leave of absence from his chair. As to the first point, Doctor Diego
Henriquez was commissioned to examine vouchers and pay the petitioner
what was due; as to the second point, the decision was referred to a
group of professors who held their chairs by a life-tenure; it was
agreed to grant the third request, if the King's approval was secured.
This sounds like satisfactory treatment. In practice the concessions
were not made. On December 20, 1589, the arrears of salary still
remained unpaid; on October 20, 1589, it appeared that the _Claustro_
had no power to grant leave of absence.[245] It had apparently the
power to fine Luis de Leon for not lecturing, and it did so with such
insistency that the Prior of the Augustinian monastery in Salamanca
felt compelled to lodge a protest against this action, which, it was
contended, was unconstitutional. This protest was set aside on March
9, 1590, and two professors--one of whom was the Jeromite Zumel--were
appointed to defend the position taken up by the University of
Salamanca.[246] It is impossible to deny that the behaviour of the
University of Salamanca to Luis de Leon was most unhandsome, not to
say shabby.

As his life drew to a close, and as his fame increased, constant
demands were made upon him. Apparently he refused the invitation of
Sixtus V and Philip II to join a committee appointed to revise the
Vulgate; it is not clear that he altogether approved of the project,
nor of the plan on which the revision was to be carried out.[247] Not
only was his scholarship held in honour; his rigorous, valiant
righteousness was universally recognized. On April 13, 1588, the papal
nuncio signed a brief naming Luis de Leon one of two commissaries who
were entrusted with the delicate task of inquiring into the
administration of certain funds by the Provincial of the Augustinians
in Castile. The result of this inquiry seems not to be recorded, but a
passage in an extant autograph letter of Luis de Leon's suggests that
his conclusions were unfavourable to his official superior.[248] Luis
de Leon's zeal led him to champion (perhaps inopportunely) a change in
the constitution of his order.[249] In 1588 appeared his edition of
Saint Theresa; and as the letter dedicatory to Madre Ana de Jesús is
dated September 15, 1587, it may perhaps be inferred that the editor
before this date was personally acquainted with the great saint's
successor. If not a judge of scholarship, Ana de Jesús was an
excellent judge of character. She had shown uncommon insight in
choosing Luis de Leon as editor of her great friend's writings; she
esteemed him for his eminent sanctity; he proved worthy of her
confidence, and upheld her plans for reform against Nicolás de Jesús
Maria Doria, the Provincial of the Barefooted Carmelites in Spain.
Doria was supported by Philip II and, to some extent, by Sixtus V. The
proceedings of the Carmelite nuns were conducted from this point
onwards with supreme ability. Doctor Bernabé del Mármol was sent to
Rome on a secret mission. His object was to obtain the papal sanction
for reforms which had been advocated by Saint Theresa herself. Mármol
succeeded to admiration. His antagonists had no suspicion of his
errand. A papal brief, dated June 5, 1590, granted the desired
sanction; and a second brief, dated June 27, appointed Teutonio de
Braganza, Archbishop of Evora, and Luis de Leon to carry the first
brief into effect. Braganza was too busy to do the necessary work, and
authorized Luis de Leon to act for him. Luis de Leon begged the
University of Salamanca to grant him some days' leave to attend to the
business. This petition was rejected. But the indomitable man went on.
Taken aback and irritated, Doria hastened to the Prado and easily
induced Philip II[250] (who was, in fact, already won over to approval
of Doria's scheme) to obtain from the papal nuncio an order suspending
the delegate's instructions. After a reasonable time had elapsed Luis
de Leon returned to the charge, and called a meeting of those
immediately concerned; the papal nuncio made no sign, as the King had
not spoken to him again on the subject. Meanwhile Doria, who was
better informed as to what was afoot in Madrid than as to what was
afoot in Rome, once more interviewed Philip II and urged him to stop
Luis de Leon's proceedings. Philip took action. As Luis de Leon's
supporters were filing into the room where they were to discuss the
situation, they were approached by a member of the royal household who
informed them that he had it in command from the King to bid them
suspend the execution of the brief till fresh orders came from Rome.
Annoyed at this piece of fussiness, Luis de Leon is stated to have
left the room, remarking: 'No order of His Holiness can be carried out
in Spain'[251]. This report, which comes down to us on the dubious
authority of the Carmelite chronicler, Fray Francisco de Santa Maria,
may, or may not, be correct. The impetuous Luis de Leon was no doubt
extremely capable of showing that he resented Philip II's interference
in church matters. On the other hand, Santa Maria cannot have written
with any personal knowledge of the facts, as he belonged to a much
later generation. Even had he been an exact contemporary,[252] Santa
Maria's statements would call for careful examination, for he does not
appear to have had a critical intelligence, since he commits himself
to two assertions, one of which is certainly false and the
other--intrinsically unlikely--is without a shred of corroboration.
Santa Maria avers that Philip II showed his displeasure by forbidding
the Augustinians of Castile to elect Luis de Leon as their Provincial.
It is on record, however, that Luis de Leon was elected Provincial of
the Augustinians of Castile on the earliest opportunity (August 14,
1591) that presented itself. Santa Maria further states that Luis de
Leon took the King's annoyance so much to heart that his death was
hastened in consequence. No evidence is produced to support a story
so innately improbable. This legend evidently throve in credulous
opposition circles, for something of the same sort had been set about
earlier by Fray José de Jesús y Maria, a Carmelite historian who,
unaware that Luis de Leon had declined an archbishopric, added a
calumnious insinuation that the editor of Saint Theresa's works was a
disappointed aspirant to episcopal honours.[253] Santa Maria, not
knowing that Philip II highly esteemed Luis de Leon, seems to have
been content to report such gossip as filtered down to him.

The correspondence connected with the papal brief dragged on till
January or February 1591.[254] To all who saw Luis de Leon at this
time it must have occurred that his career was drawing to a close. He
had never been robust; his sedentary habits, his ascetic practices,
and his prolonged imprisonment combined to wear him down. His last
years were packed with troubles. The Inquisition watched him with
suspicious eyes; he had always regarded the Dominicans and Jeromites
as his enemies; he had contrived to increase the forces hostile to him
by alienating the Carmelites. Doria was not without the power to make
his resentment felt; a few well-meaning Augustinians did Luis de Leon
more harm than good by suggesting that he had extorted from the
Inquisition the admission that his doctrinal teachings were
correct;[255] he was deeply affected by the enmity of other
Augustinians whom he (perhaps too hastily) denounced by name to the
Inquisitors.[256] Many of his colleagues at Salamanca stood aloof from
him; some were openly opposed to him; one or two carried their spite
so far as to suggest that he should be deprived of his University
chair. His constant absence from Salamanca gave his foes a handle; it
is conceivable that they might have succeeded in ousting him from his
chair had his life been prolonged. Apart from public business,
connected with his own order and with the proposed reform of the
Carmelite nuns, Luis de Leon was retained in Madrid by his failing
health. On January 11, 1591, he was examined by Doctor Estrada, who
reported that his patient was suffering from a cystic tumour of the
kidney.[257] This is a malady which might last many years. No doubt
Luis de Leon had had the tumour for a long while; it is extremely
likely that at the end the growth became malignant and that he died
from it. It has been alleged that Luis de Leon's end came
suddenly.[258] This is not so. His death was lingering. For all but
himself this was fortunate, and, even for himself the pause before the
end was convenient, for it enabled him to discharge certain duties. As
editor, he was naturally in possession of many of Saint Theresa's
papers; these he had time to make over to Doctor Sobrino, Professor of
Theology in the University of Valladolid, and to Fray Agustin
Antolinez, a future bishop, with instructions to return them to Madre
Ana de Jesús. Nevertheless the saint's papers were not destined to
reach Madre Ana de Jesús, for Philip II asked both the trustees to
give him the holograph copies to be deposited in the Library at the
Escorial. The trustees complied, and the papers are now stored in the
_Camarín de Santa Teresa_.[259] Assiduous to the last in the discharge
of his duties, Luis de Leon dragged himself to Madrigal, where a
Chapter of the Augustinian Order was to be held in August 1591. The
effort was too much for him. He had to take to his bed, and was still
there on August 14 when he was elected Provincial[260]. He did not
enjoy the honour long, for he died on August 23.

Though most people who are interested in Luis de Leon at all are
familiar with Pacheco's portrait of him, Pacheco's character-sketch is
so apt to be overlooked that it may be briefly summarized here.[261]
Pacheco reports Luis de Leon as having a special gift of silence, as
being the most taciturn of men though one of the wittiest; as being a
man most trustworthy, truthful and upright, precise in speech and in
the keeping of promises, reserved, not given to smiling; in the
gravity of his countenance his nobility of soul and, still more, his
deep humility were obvious; most cleanly, chaste, and reflective, he
was a great monk and a close observer of laws; so marked was his
devotion to the Blessed Virgin that he fasted on the eve of feasts,
dined at three, and ate no supper; in her honour he wrote the lovely
hymn _Virgen que el Sol mas pura_, very spiritually-minded and greatly
given to prayer, at the time of his severest trials God hearkened to
him. Though by nature hasty, he was very long-suffering and gentle to
those with whom he had to deal; he was most abstemious in matters of
food, drink, and sleep; indeed with regard to sleep (as was stated to
Pacheco by Fray Luis Moreno de Bohorquez, who had lived in the same
monastery as Luis de Leon for four years) he carried mortification so
far that he seldom lay down, and the monk who had to make his bed
would often find that it had not been slept in. So great were his
intellectual gifts that he seemed more meet to teach every one than to
learn things from anybody. On matters concerning government his
judgement was sound; he was highly esteemed by prominent men both in
Spain and out of it; Philip II was wont to consult him in difficult
cases, and would send messengers from Madrid to Salamanca; when he
visited Madrid on University business he was admitted to private
audience and received signal marks of royal favour; with respect to
offers of bishoprics and the Archbishopric of Mexico he displayed his
courage and magnanimous spirits not only by stripping himself of rank
(a thing seldom done) but of all he had in the world; a man of truly
evangelical temper. In those holy exercises, and in fitting sequel to
his life, he piously ended his course as Provincial of Castile,
leaving all in great affliction, but with a still greater certainty of
his glory.

This estimate was printed in 1599, eight years after Luis de Leon's
death and one year after Philip II's death. Making some allowance for
the partiality of an admirer, Pacheco's description may stand. A dry
contemporary chronicler, like Luis Cabrera de Córdoba,[262] after
paying tribute to Luis de Leon's intellectual gifts and heroic courage
in adversity, speaks of his death as a national loss. Even in his
lifetime Luis de Leon was recognized by men of exceptional genius as
one of themselves. His poems, which were not published till forty
years after his death, must have been handed about in manuscript long
before. In 1585 Cervantes in his _Galatea_ introduced Luis de Leon
into the _Canto de Caliope_. It cannot well be maintained that
Cervantes had been impressed by Luis de Leon's Latin treatises, by _De
los nombres de Cristo_, and by _La perfecta casada_. The _Canto de
Caliope_ records the names of those only whom Cervantes considered to
be eminent poets--masters _en la alegre sciencia dela poesia_--and
hence it is to the poet that he refers when he writes in his 84th
stanza:

    Quisiera rematar mi dulce canto
    en tal sazon pastores, con loaros
    un ingenio que al mundo pone espanto
    y que pudiera en estasis robaros.
    En el cifro y recojo todo quanto
    he mostrado hasta aqui, y he de mostraros
    Fray Luys de Leon el que digo
    a quien yo reverencio, adoro, y sigo.




IV


[Footnote 189: Bartolomé José Gallardo, _Ensayo de una biblioteca
española de libros raros y curiosos_ (Madrid, 1863-66-88-89), vol. IV,
col. 1328: 'En unos apuntes cronológicos que hacia en Salamanca un
curioso (jesuita?) á fines del siglo XVI, fol. 23 de un tomo de
_Papeles varios_, en folio, se lee:

'Año de 76, Mártes 23 de diciembre dia de San Dámaso, dieron por libre
a _fr. Luis_ sin pena. Y donde a 30 de diciembre entró en Salamanca a
las tres de la tarde con atabales, trompetas y gran acompañamiento de
Caballeros, Doctores, Maestros, &c.']

[Footnote 190: He is clearly wrong in stating that Luis de Leon was
set free on December 23. We have already seen that Luis de Leon
presented two applications in writing on December 15. From the nature
of these applications, it is a fair inference that he was free when he
made them.]

[Footnote 191: Especially as the fact is confirmed by a contemporary
Augustinian, Fray Juan Quijano: see Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 206,
_n._ 1.]

[Footnote 192: This date is given on the authority of the anonymous
writer quoted by Gallardo, _op. cit._, col. 1328: 'Y lunes _adelante_
le presentó el Comisorio al Claustro, para que se le diese su proprio
lugar, honra y cátedra de _Durando_. Él no la quiso y la Universidad
cedió 200 ducados de partido.' The date in this case is corroborated
by a summons from the Rector of the University: see P. Fr. Luis G.
Alonso Getino, O.P., _Vida y procesos del maestro Fr. Luis de León_
(Salamanca, 1907), p. 244.]

[Footnote 193: According to Blanco García (_op. cit._, p. 207), Luis
de Leon did not vote, but assigned his proxy to Bartolomé de Medina.
This incident occurred, but it happened at a meeting of the _Claustro_
held two days later: see Alonso Getino (_op. cit._, pp. 252-254).
Medina seems to have thought that Luis de Leon's chair had not been
legally vacated, and that it was not in Luis de Leon's power to say
that he would assign it to Castillo.]

[Footnote 194: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, p. 258.]

[Footnote 195: Gallardo, _op. cit._, vol. IV, col. 1328: '...y martes
a 29 [de enero de 1577] empezó a leer. Hubo gran concurso, &c.']

[Footnote 196: _Monasticon Augustinianum_ (Munich, 1623), p. 208:
'Primam vero lectionem post tenebras ut auspicabatur, pleno concessu
ad novitatem evocato, inquit: _Dicebamus hesterna die_.' Blanco
García, who quotes this passage (_op. cit._, p. 209, _n._ 1), refers
also to p. 119 of a reprint issued at Valladolid in 1890: this reprint
I have not seen.]

[Footnote 197: Early instances, dating from 1636, are given by Blanco
García, _op. cit._, p. 209, _n._ 2. The story first appeared in print
in Spain in 1771, when it was given in the fifth volume of Juan Josef
Lopez de Sedano, _Parnaso Español_ (Madrid, 1768-1778).]

[Footnote 198: C. Muiños Sáenz, _Sobre el 'Decíamos ayer'... y otros
excesos_ in _La Ciudad de Dios_ (1909), vol. LXXIX, p. 22.]

[Footnote 199: C. Muiños Sáenz, _La Ciudad de Dios_ (1909), vol.
LXXIX, p. 29.]

[Footnote 200: Luis G. Alonso Getino, _Vida y procesos del Maestro Fr.
Luis de León_ (Salamanca, 1907), pp. 242-243, 262-263.]

[Footnote 201: C. Muiños Sáenz, _El 'Decíamos ayer' de Fray Luis de
León_ (Madrid, 1905) and _Sobre el 'Decíamos ayer'... y otros
excesos_ in _La Ciudad de Dios_ (1909), vol. LXXVIII, pp. 479-495,
544-560; (1909), vol. LXXIX, pp. 18-34, 107-124, 191-212, 353-374,
529-552; (1909), vol. LXXX, pp. 99-125, and 177-197.]

[Footnote 202: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 260-261.]

[Footnote 203: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 262-263: 'É despues de
lo sobredicho en la dicha ciudad de Salamanca martes á la hora que dió
las diez de la mañana el relox de la iglesia mayor, al fin de la
lecion del padre mº. Pedro de Uceda, que se contaron veinti nueve dias
del mes de Enero... Antonio de Almaraz bedel puso en la posesion del
dicho salario al dicho padre mº. fray Luis de Leon en la catedra
questá en el general mayor de theologia de escuelas mayores, el qual
la tomó é apprehendió sin contradicion ninguna, y _en lugar de
posesion leyó un poco_. É dijo y protestó... que estaba y está presto
de leer el dicho salario é partido, é que si no leyere no se le pare
por ello perjuicio ni se le descuente de su salario y partido ni por
ello sea multado en cosa alguna, pues no es su culpa, hasta tanto que
le den hora en que lea, conforme á lo proveido por la junta de los
señores theologos... y le señalen lectura, é asi lo pidió é protestó,
siendo presentes por todo el Padre mº. Pedro de Uceda... é Antonio de
Almaraz bedel, é otros muchos estudiantes y personas de la universidad
é yo Bartme. Sanchez notario é vicesecretario.']

[Footnote 204: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 266-268.]

[Footnote 205: Blanco García, _op. cit._, pp. 212-213.]

[Footnote 206: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 214, _n._ 1; Alonso
Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 282-301.]

[Footnote 207: The bishop seems to have resented Luis de Leon's
opposition to the candidature of the bishop's brother, Juan Gallo, for
the _cátedra de vísperas de teología_. In this contest Juan Gallo, a
Dominican, was defeated by the Augustinian Fray Juan de Guevara
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 275-277). Guevara was present
when the bishop told Luis de Leon that 'he knew Luis de Leon's
hostility to his (the bishop's) brother had done him more harm than
all the rest' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 261). Later on, Juan
Gallo appears to have been appointed to another chair at Salamanca
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 318).]

[Footnote 208: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 303. Salinas, it
should be noted, denied having heard that this applied specially to
opponents of the Dominican order.]

[Footnote 209: The verses ascribed to Domingo de Guzman are reproduced
in part by Adolfo de Castro, _Biblioteca de Autores Españoles desde la
formacion del lenguaje hasta nuestros dias_ (Madrid, 1847-1880), vol.
XXXV, p. x; they are given in full by Cayetano Alberto de la Barrera
in the _Revista de Ciencias, Literatura y Artes_ (Sevilla, 1856), vol.
II, pp. 731-741; (Sevilla, 1857), vol. III, pp. 5-22, 69-80, 209-220.
La Barrera, following Gallardo, was careful to point out that lines
37-40 of the verses to Urganda la Desconocida are practically
identical with four lines in Domingo de Guzman's _glosa_. Sr.
Rodríguez Marín, in his edition of _Don Quixote_, published at Madrid
in 1916-1917, prints the four lines (vol. I, pp. 49-50) in inverted
commas. Cervantes, if he meant to quote, must have trusted to his
memory.

    GUZMAN                      CERVANTES

    que don Albaro de Luna,     Que don Aluaro de Lu
    que Anibal Cartajines,      Que Anibal el de Carta
    que Francisco Rey frances,  Que Rey Francisco de Espa
    se queja de la fortuna.     Se quexa de la fortu.

In Guzman's case I reproduce La Barrera's transcription. In the case
of Cervantes I follow the spelling adopted in the _princeps_ of the
First Part of _Don Quixote_.

For some readers, it may be convenient to refer to the revised but
abridged reprint in C.A. de la Barrera, _El Cachetero del Buscapié_
(Santander, 1916), pp. 133-136.]

[Footnote 210: The first _quintilla_ of some verses by a poetaster on
Luis de Leon's side is quoted by Fray Antolin Merino in the preface to
his edition of the _Poesías_ of Luis de Leon contained in the _Obras
del Il. Fr. Luis de Leon_ (Madrid, 1804-1805-1806-1816), vol. XI, p.
xxv:

    Luis y Mingo pretenden
    casarse con Ana bella,
    cada cual pretende habella,
    mas segun todos entienden
    muérese por Luis ella.

[Footnote 211: Gallardo, _op. cit._, vol. IV, col. 1328: '...En este
año (79) domingo 6 de diciembre se proveyó la (cátedra) de Biblia a
Fr. Luis de Leon, y el dia siguiente tomó la posesión: tuvo 281 votos,
y el maestro fr. Domingo de Guzman tuvo 245: llevóla con 36 votos.']

[Footnote 212: Gallardo, _op. cit._, vol. IV, col. 1328-1329:
'Reguláronse los cursos, y vino en llevarla por solo tres Cursos, y
esto fué quitando un voto señalado, que tenia cinco cursos, el cual se
sospechó era Dominico. No pudiendo conformarse con él, hubo concierto
entre los frailes, que votasen de Santo Domingo 100 y de San Agustin
50. Anduvo pleito hasta viernes 13 de Octubre de 81, que sentenciaron
en Valladolid en favor de fr. Luis de Leon.']

[Footnote 213: For example, by Alonso Getino, op. cit., pp. 268-274.]

[Footnote 214: This is stated by Alonso Fernandez, who wrote more than
twenty years after the election. A relevant passage is given in Alonso
Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 272-273.]

[Footnote 215: The terms of Suarez's order are reproduced by Blanco
García, _op. cit._, p. 218, _n._ 3.]

[Footnote 216: Nothing was known of this second suit by the Valladolid
Inquisitors till 1882, when a considerable part of the report of the
proceedings was published by Sr. D. Álvarez Guijarro in the _Revista
Hispano-Americana_.

It was given later more fully in _La Ciudad de Dios_ (Madrid, 1896),
vol. XLI, pp. 15-31, by P. Francisco Blanco García. The subsequent
references are to the _tirage à part_ entitled: _Segundo Proceso
instruído por la Inquisición de Valladolid contra Fray Luis de León
con prólogo y notas del P. Francisco Blanco García_ (Madrid, 1896).]

[Footnote 217: Zumel gives the date (Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_,
p. 40) as January 21; the delator, Santa Cruz, fixes the date a day
earlier (Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 20).]

[Footnote 218: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 31: '...mouime lo
uno por parecerme que los padres dominicos le querian oprimir por ser
de la compañia contra la qual se muestran siempre apasionados y lo
otro y principal porque me pareció gran sin razon condenar por eregía
una cosa que la presuponen por cierta muchos sanctos y otros muchos
catholicos sanctos y no sanctos la afirman y defienden...']

[Footnote 219: Luis de Leon merely says (Blanco García, _Segundo
proceso_, p. 31) 'un fraile benito': Castañeda's full name is given in
the report of the Valladolid Inquisitors (Blanco García, _Segundo
proceso_, p. 52).]

[Footnote 220: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 32: '...porque se
dezia en la escuela que el maestro yuañez dezia que era error
pelagiano yo dixe que no tenia razon de ponelle aquella nota,...']

[Footnote 221: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 33: '...y despues
del acto me dixo el maestro Vañez que el quedaba bien satisfecho de la
manera como el sustentante auia declarado su opinion'.]

[Footnote 222: Juan de Guevara and Pedro de Aragon, for example. This
emerges from the evidence of the Augustinian Fray Martín de Coscojales
(Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 37). Pedro de Aragon was Duns
Scotus Professor of Theology at Salamanca, a former pupil of Luis de
Leon's and a great admirer of his. He appeared as a witness against
Luis de Leon (Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, pp. 36-37).]

[Footnote 223: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, pp. 20-27.]

[Footnote 224: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 328.]

[Footnote 225: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, pp. 28-34.]

[Footnote 226: Even in his official _calificacion_ Joan de la Cruz
(Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 24) speaks of 'las [cosas] que
yo ví y las que oy y se por Relacion....']

[Footnote 227: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 35.]

[Footnote 228: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, pp. 36-40.]

[Footnote 229: Blanco García, _Fr. Luis de León: estudio biográfico_,
p. 225; Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, pp. 40-45.]

[Footnote 230: This seems to follow from a question which Luis de Leon
proposed to put to six witnesses: the Augustinians Juan de Guevara,
Pedro de Rojas, and Hernando de Peralto, and three laymen, Loarte,
Ruiz, and Madrigal: 'Item si saben etc. que el maestro fray Domingo
Ibañez, antes y al tiempo que juró y depuso en esta causa, era y es
enemigo capital del dicho fray Luis de Leon, ansí por ser fraile
dominico como porque se opuso contra él á una substitucion de
vísperas, y se la llevó fray Luis de Leon con mucho exceso, de lo cual
él y sus frailes se sintieron mucho' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI,
pp. 261-263). Luis de Leon was mistaken in supposing that Bañez had
deposed against him at Valladolid. Alonso Getino endeavours to show
(_op. cit._, pp. 384-386) that Luis de Leon never competed against
Bañez, and that his memory played him a trick on this point.]

[Footnote 231: See note 222.]

[Footnote 232: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, pp. 46-47: 'V.P. dexe
las cosas de la orden aunque esten en peor estado del que hahora
tienen, trate de su cathreda, y dexe de tomar á su cargo el remedio de
las tiranias. No llame tyrano a nadie, y sepa V.P. que publicamente
dicen muchos religiosos que V.P. no hiço bien a nadie y disgustos sí a
muchos, recibiendo buenas obras de aquellos a quien hahora maltrata,
cosa que no puede tener buen suçeso ni puede parecer bien a nadie.']

[Footnote 233: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 52.]

[Footnote 234: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, pp. 52-53: '...sea
gravemente Reprehendido, y... que en su cathedra publicamente declare
la calidad de las proposiciones que se le dieren diçiendo que en
dezir que lo contrario de lo que el sustentaba era heregía, dixo mal,
y que esto era su parezer'. The official report of the proceedings
must be incomplete, for Arresse's _parecer_ mentions that Domingo de
Guzman had spoken of receiving an apology from Luis de Leon. No
evidence by Domingo de Guzman is disclosed in the record.]

[Footnote 235: Fr. Heinrich Reusch, _Luis de Leon und die spanische
Inquisition_ (Bonn, 1873), p. 111.]

[Footnote 236: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 53: 'En Toledo...
parescío siendo llamado, el Maestro fray Luis de Leon..., al qual su
señoría Illma reprehendío y declaro la culpa que contra el resulta
por los auctos y meritos deste processo, y le amoneste benigna y
caritativamente, que de aquí adelante se abstenga de dezir, ni
deffender publica ni secretamente, las proposiciones que paresce haver
dicho y defendido,... y el ha confesado que la sentencia dellas no
caresce de alguna temeridad, ni otras semejantes, con apercibimiento
que no lo cumpliendo se procedera contra el por todo rigor de derecho,
y el dicho fray luis de leon promettío de lo cumplir y que lo haria
assí.]

[Footnote 237: By Sr. D. Carlos Álvarez Guijarro. Blanco García
(_Segundo proceso_, p. 54, _n._ 1) dissents from this view.]

[Footnote 238: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 305-308.]

[Footnote 239: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 308-315.]

[Footnote 240: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, p. 316.]

[Footnote 241: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 309, 317-318.]

[Footnote 242: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 319-320.]

[Footnote 243: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, p. 321.]

[Footnote 244: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 327-329.]

[Footnote 245: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 329-331.]

[Footnote 246: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 329-335.]

[Footnote 247: Blanco García, _Fr. Luis de León: estudio biográfico,
&c._, pp. 236-239.]

[Footnote 248: Blanco García, _Fr. Luis de León: estudio biográfico_,
pp. 239-240. The pressmark of this autograph letter in the British
Museum is Add. MSS. 28, 698.]

[Footnote 249: Blanco García, _Fr. Luis de León: estudio biográfico_,
pp. 242-244.]

[Footnote 250: The whole episode is clearly set forth by Blanco
García, _Fr. Luis de León: estudio biográfico_, pp. 246-250.]

[Footnote 251: Blanco García, _Fr. Luis de León: estudio biográfico_,
pp. 248-249; Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 349-351.]

[Footnote 252: A passage in Alonso Getino (_op. cit._, p. 349)
describes Santa Maria as 'contemporáneo de los sucesos'. This, though
literally true, is somewhat misleading. Santa Maria was twenty-four
the year that Luis de Leon died. See Gallardo, _op. cit._, vol. IV,
col. 489.]

[Footnote 253: '...al principal de ellos [los que habían procurado el
Breve] y pretensor de mitra, le costó la vida el sentimiento que tuvo
de ver tan indignado al Rey Católico'. I have not been able to consult
Jesús y Maria's work. My quotation, like Alonso Getino's (_op. cit._,
p. 354), is taken at second-hand from Vicente de la Fuente's edition
of Saint Theresa's works.]

[Footnote 254: January 26, 1591, is the latest date attached to the
_Documentos_ published by Cristóbal Pérez Pastor, _Bibliografía
madrileña_ (Madrid, 1907), Parte III, pp. 404-409. On January 25,
1591, Luis de Leon signed a document undertaking to accept 1,000
_reales_ in lieu of 2,800 due to him by the estate of Cornelio Bonard,
formerly a bookseller at Salamanca; see Cristóbal Pérez Pastor,
_Bibliografía madrileña_ (Madrid, 1906), Parte II, pp. 454-455.]

[Footnote 255: F. Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 53. The
Salamancan Inquisitors reported to the Supreme Inquisition:
'...havemos entendido que los de su orden se xatan y alaban de que en
este sto offiº se a declarado ser verdad lo que el dho frai luis
sustentó...']

[Footnote 256: F. Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 49.]

[Footnote 257: C. Muiños Sáenz, _Sobre el 'Decíamos ayer'... y otros
excesos_ in _La Ciudad de Dios_ (1909), vol. LXXIX, p. 540.]

[Footnote 258: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, p. 355.]

[Footnote 259: C. Muiños Sáenz, _Sobre el 'Decíamos ayer'... y otros
excesos_ in _La Ciudad de Dios_ (1909), vol. LXXIX, p. 540, _n._ 1.]

[Footnote 260: Alonso Getino writes (_op. cit._, p. 355): 'al ser
elegido Provincial, nueve dias antes de morir, no puede suponerse que
estuviera enfermo de consideración'. This is a guess very wide of the
mark. F. de Méndez, in the _Revista Agustiniana_ (1881), quoted (p.
351) Juan Quijano, a contemporary whose chronicle is now lost, as
saying that when Luis de Leon was elected Provincial he was already
confined to his bed with the illness of which he died.]

[Footnote 261: The portrait and character-sketch will be found in the
photo-chromotype reproduction of Francisco Pacheco, _Libro de
descripcion de verdaderos retratos de illustres y memorables
varones_. The original is dated Sevilla, 1599. The reproduction, due
to José María Asensio y Toledo, was photo-chromotyped between 1881 and
1884. Owing to the rarity of the reproduction, it has been thought
desirable to reprint in an appendix the passage in which Pacheco deals
with Luis de Leon.]

[Footnote 262: The reference is given by C. Muiños Sáenz, _Sobre el
'Decíamos ayer'... y otros excesos_ in _La Ciudad de Dios_ (1909),
vol. LXXX, p. 119.]




V


By his contemporaries Luis de Leon was perhaps more esteemed as a
theologian or a scholar than as a man of letters. This judgement has
been reversed by posterity mainly on the strength of the Spanish poems
which were little known during the author's lifetime beyond a small
circle of his personal friends.[263] Experts tell us that as a
theologian he ranks below his master Melchor Cano; and in the annals
of scholarship Luis de Leon is less conspicuous than Benito Arias
Montano and than Francisco Sanchez (_el Brocense_). Few now read for
pleasure the treatises which Luis de Leon composed in a dead language:
in any case these treatises can add nothing to his reputation as a
writer of Spanish, and it is solely as a Spanish author that he
concerns us here and now. He was by no means the earliest of devout
writers to use Spanish as a literary medium. There is a long and
illustrious bead-roll of authors from Bernardino de Laredo to Saint
Theresa to prove the contrary. Much less was Luis de Leon the first
post-Renaissance scholar to recognize that Spanish had a great future
before it. Yet, if we take leave to assume that Luis de Granada was an
ascetic rather than an extatic, we may account Luis de Leon as perhaps
the first professional scholar to perceive that Spanish was adequate
to convey the subtleties of theology and the ravishments of mysticism.
His chief prose works in Castilian include the _Exposicion del libro
de Job_, a commentary dedicated to Madre Ana de Jesús, but not
published till near the end of the eighteenth century (1779). The
_provenance_ of this work calls for no explanation. Apart from the
quotation of a passage in Jorge Manrique's _Coplas_, the _Exposicion
del libro de Job_ offers few indications of Spanish origin and fewer
personal touches. Equally Biblical in origin are a rendering of the
_Song of Songs_ and a corresponding commentary; the existence of both
has a personal interest inasmuch as they prove that Luis de Leon was
enabled to carry out a long cherished design by means of which he
hoped, as he declared at Valladolid, to counterbalance the indiscreet
prying of Fray Diego de Leon. _La Perfecta Casada_ (1583) and _De los
nombres de Cristo_ (1583-1585) likewise have their roots in Scripture.
_La Perfecta Casada_ is avowedly based on the thirty-first chapter of
_Proverbs_, and _De los nombres de Cristo_, the first part of which
appeared simultaneously with _La Perfecta Casada_,[264] discusses the
various symbolic names applied to the Saviour in the Bible.

_La Perfecta Casada_ is dedicated to Maria Varela Osorio, a recently
wedded bride, who may have been a distant kinswoman of the
author's.[265] Nowhere more clearly than in this treatise does Luis de
Leon justify the statement that he had a Hebrew soul. He takes for
granted the Oriental point of view, and illustrates his imperious
thesis with ample quotations from writers of all types--pagans,
Christians, saints, and laymen. There are references to Simonides, to
Sophocles, to Euripides, to Plutarch, to Saint Clement of Alexandria,
to Saint Cyprian, to Saint Ambrose, to Garcilasso de la Vega. It seems
likely that _La Perfecta Casada_ was written after _De los nombres de
Cristo_, which was almost certainly begun in prison. But there is
perhaps nothing in the internal evidence of the style which would
point to that conclusion. The style of _La Perfecta Casada_ is
vigorous and clear; but it is marred by gusts of rhetoric and by an
excess of copulative conjunctions. These peculiarities produce the
effect of relative inexperience, and might easily mislead a too
confident critic.

_De los nombres de Cristo_ is cast in the Platonic form of dialogue,
and, in the section entitled _Pastor_, Plato is quoted by name. But
the Hellenic influence, though present, is not dominant. Already
Alonso de Orozco had anticipated Luis de Leon with _De los nueve
nombres de Cristo_,[266] and there are points of contact in the
handling as is inevitable from the similarity of the subject. But it
cannot be denied that Luis de Leon's work is suffused with a warmer,
more human interest than Orozco's brief sketch. These more intimate
personal elements are present on almost every page of _De los nombres
de Cristo_. Nobody can read far without perceiving that Marcello,
hindered by his _poca salud y muchas occupaciones_, is manifestly a
double of Luis de Leon; there are passages which gloss themes
developed metrically elsewhere; there are retrospicient glances at the
Valladolid trial; the scene of the dialogue is laid within view of La
Flecha, and the details of the landscape are reproduced with exact
fidelity; Luis de Leon has a freer hand in _De los nombres de Cristo_
than in his other prose works, but here again in his paraphrases of
the Biblical passages relating to Christ his interpretation is at one
with the interpretation of the prophets. And this identity of
sentiment has in it nothing dramatic. Those who have alleged that Luis
de Leon came of Jewish stock may have been--apparently were--mistaken;
but their mistake is comprehensible, for more than any contemporary
Spanish poet--more even than Herrera in his odes--is he saturated with
the Jewish spirit. In all his work Luis de Leon adheres closely to the
Bible. In the _De los nombres de Cristo_ he is also a Platonist within
limits: not so much as regards the manner (which tends to an
oratorical pomp more reminiscent of Cicero) as in his conciliatory
method. With the Jewish and Hellenic blend of influence we must rate
the Latin influence--that of Horace and of Virgil. The influence of
Horace on Luis de Leon has been often noted. It exists no doubt, but
has perhaps been exaggerated: why should we suppose that his love of
moderation was learnt from Horace and was not partly, at least,
temperamental? May not the references to Horace be a characteristic of
humanism? An opinion backed by the weight of classical authority must
reach us with irresistible force, must it not? However this may be,
the predominant influence in _De los nombres de Cristo_, as in all
Luis de Leon's prose, is Scriptural and Christian. In maturity of
development, in intellectual force, in beauty of expression, and in
general adequateness, _De los nombres de Cristo_ exhibits Luis de
Leon's prose at its culmination. The book is dedicated to Pedro
Portocarrero,[267] Bishop of Calahorra, who had previously twice been
rector of Salamanca University. It seems probable that Luis de Leon's
friendship with him dates back to 1566-1567, when Portocarrero held
the office of rector for the second time. Besides _De los nombres de
Cristo_ Luis de Leon dedicated to Portocarrero _In Abdiam prophetam
Explanatio_ (1589) and the manuscript collection of his poems. For
some reason not very obvious this collection of verses was not
published till 1631 when it was issued by Quevedo, who hoped that it
would help to stem the current of Gongorism in Spain. The poems,
printed forty years after the author's death, appeared too late to
affect the public taste. Góngora himself had died in 1627, but his
influence was undiminished. Quevedo, who had obtained his copies of
Luis de Leon's verses from Manuel Sarmiento de Mendoza, a canon of
Seville cathedral, did his share as editor by writing two prefaces,
one addressed to Sarmiento de Mendoza, and the other to Olivares who
was manifestly expected to pronounce against Gongorism. Olivares,
however, had no reason to love Quevedo, and was resolved to take no
active part in what he doubtless regarded as a scribblers' quarrel.
Gongorism pursued its way unchecked. Quevedo's edition, though
incomplete and disfigured by certain errors, was reprinted at Milan
during the same year (1631), and then all interest in Luis de Leon
flickered out for a while.

In the prefatory note of the 1631 Madrid edition--entitled _Obras
propias, y traduciones latinas, griegas y italianas_--Luis de Leon
speaks of his poems slightingly as mere playthings of his youth, now
brought together at the request of an anonymous friend--perhaps Benito
Arias Montano--to whom they had been ascribed. Luis de Leon arranges
the material in three books, containing respectively his original
compositions, his translations from authors profane, and his versions
of certain psalms, a hymn, and chapters from the Book of Job. But,
beyond the general statement as to the early date of composition, Luis
de Leon gives no precise information as to when individual poems were
written. The assertion that the poems date back almost to the author's
childhood is contradicted by concrete facts. Take, for instance, the
celebrated _Noche serena_ dedicated to Oloarte. If, as I conjecture,
the dedicatee of the _Noche serena_ is identical with the Diego de
Loarte, archdeacon of Ledesma, who gave evidence at Salamanca on
January 27, 1573, and who on that date had known Luis de Leon for
fourteen years, the _Noche serena_ cannot have been composed earlier
than 1559 when Luis de Leon was thirty-one--youthful, indeed, but long
past his _niñez_. On January 17, 1573, Francisco Salinas testified at
Salamanca to having known Luis de Leon for six years: whence it
follows that _El aire se serena_ cannot have been written before 1567,
when Luis de Leon was bordering on his fortieth year. As Don Carlos
died on July 24, 1568, the _Cancion a la muerte de don Carlos_ and the
_Epitafio al túmulo del príncipe don Carlos_ must necessarily have
been composed after that date; that is, when Luis de Leon was just
forty and had left his _niñez_ far behind him. Besides a general
dedication to Portocarrero, the collection includes three individual
poems which are dedicated to that personage: (1) _Virtud, hija del
Cielo_; (2) _No siempre es poderosa_; (3) _La cana y alta cumbre_. In
_La cana y alta cumbre_ there is a reference to

        la cruda guerra
    que agora el Marte airado
    despierta en la alta sierra.

These verses can scarcely allude to anything but the Alpujarras rising
of 1568-1571, and the conjecture hardens into certainty in view of the
mention of Alonso and Poqueira: this is clearly the Alonso
Portocarrero who, as Hurtado de Mendoza records, perished at Poqueira,
'trabado del veneno usado dende los tiempos antiguos entre cazadores'.
This poem must have been written when Luis de Leon was at least
forty-one. _Virtud, hija del cielo_, in mentioning the _Miño_, refers
to Portocarrero's appointment in Galicia; and as Portocarrero's term
of office appears to have lasted from 1571 to 1580, the poem cannot be
dated earlier than 1571 when Luis de Leon was over forty-three. If the
mention of _la morisca armada_ in the lines _A Santiago_ glances at
the battle of Lepanto which was fought on October 7, 1571, then the
poem must have been written after that date, when the author was close
on forty-four. The verses dedicated to Juan de Grial, with their
closing reference to the writer's trials:

      Que yo, de un torbellino
    traidor acometido, y derrocado
    del medio del camino
    al hondo, el plectro amado
    y del vuelo las alas he quebrado;

the fervent entreaty _A todos los santos_ and its unreserved lament:

    No niego, dulce amparo
    del alma, que mis males son mayores
    que aqueste desamparo;
    mas cuanto son peores,
    tanto resonaran mas tus loores;

the very beautiful and justly renowned _Virgen que el sol mas pura_,
with its heart-rending supplication:

    los ojos vuelve al suelo
    y mira un miserable en cárcel dura
    cercado de tinieblas y tristeza:

possibly[268] the song _Del conocimiento de si mismo_, with its
significant simile:

    el gusanillo de la gente hollado
    un rey era, conmigo comparado;

and assuredly the famous _quintillas_ beginning _Aqui la envidia y
mentira_: these compositions were probably composed during, or after,
the writer's imprisonment at Valladolid, that is to say between the
spring of 1572 and the winter of 1576, when Luis de Leon was from
forty-four or forty-five to forty-eight or forty-nine. _Del mundo y su
vanidad_ glances at

      la grave desventura
    del lusitano, por su mal valiente,
      la soberbia bravura
      de su animosa gente
      desbaratada miserablemente.

This passage obviously recalls the disastrous defeat of Sebastian I,
King of Portugal, at Al-Kaor al-Kebir in August 1578, when Luis de
Leon was more than fifty years of age. If these inferences are valid,
it would follow that many of his original poems were not composed till
he was nearly forty or more. It is difficult to reconcile these
conclusions with the author's categorical assertion that the poems
were produced during his early years. As Luis de Leon was the least
vain, as well as the most truthful of men, an explanation must be
found, and it is perhaps permissible to suggest that Luis de Leon
wrote a prefatory note to Portocarrero intending it to be placed at
the beginning of the Second Book which contains his poems translated
from Roman and other authors. By some mischance the poet's intention
was frustrated; perhaps a leaf was out of place in Sarmiento de
Mendoza's copy; perhaps Quevedo is directly responsible for what
occurred. At any rate, the letter dedicatory was bisected, the greater
part of it being transferred to the beginning of the First Book, while
a mere morsel came to be printed at the beginning of the Third Book.
This surmise may serve till a better explanation is forthcoming.

It is not to be inferred from the foregoing summary that all Luis de
Leon's original and graver compositions were written during his
maturity, but there is some reason to think that his earlier efforts
in verse took the form of translations. Though it is undoubtedly true
that his poems as a whole were not published till 1631, four isolated
pieces of his strayed into print as early as 1574 when they were
included by Francisco Sanchez, _el Brocense_, in the notes to his
edition of the _Obras del excelente poeta Garci-Lasso de la
Vega_.[269] At that date Luis de Leon was in the secret prison-cells
of the Inquisition at Valladolid. Sanchez had been a colleague of his
at Salamanca for some six years, was on friendly terms with him, knew
the exact turn things were taking, felt that no good, and possibly
some harm, might be done by mentioning the prisoner's name, and
accordingly gave a version of an Horatian ode with the comment: 'vn
docto destos reynos la traduxo bi[~e]'[270]. This needs
interpretation. There can be no doubt that Luis de Leon was a very
competent Latin scholar; neither is there any doubt that he had a
profound admiration for Horace. At his best, his Horatian versions,
if somewhat lacking in polish, are remarkably faithful and vigorous.
But when we find him in his translation of the eighteenth ode of the
Second Book rendering _salis avarus_ by _de sal avariento_--the second
person singular of the present indicative of the verb _salire_ being
mistaken for the genitive of the substantive _sal_[271]--we may
perhaps conclude that a boyish exercise has somehow escaped
destruction.

It is sometimes alleged against Luis de Leon that he is restricted in
his choice of themes, and it is impossible to deny that his sacred
profession acted as something of a limitation to him. Still, when the
mood was on him, he rent his chains asunder as readily as Samson broke
the seven green withs at Gaza: 'as a thread of tow is broken when it
toucheth the fire.' Perhaps nobody would guess off-hand that the
_Profecia del Tajo_ was the handiwork of a sixteenth-century monk, a
dweller in the rarefied atmosphere of mysticism. It only remained for
a friar in the opposition camp to discover nearly three hundred years
later a tendency in Luis de Leon to treat sensual themes in a sensual
fashion.[272] To deal seriously with a belated judgement based on
malignant ignorance would be a waste of time. It is the very irony of
fate that the poem which has been the subject of severe censure should
prove to be a translation from Cardinal Bembo.[273] The standard of
the twentieth century is not the standard of the sixteenth, and it is
certain that Luis de Leon has not the unfettered liberty of a godless
layman. He is restrained by his austere temperament, by his monk's
habit, by Christian doctrine. Nevertheless he moves with easy grace
and dignity on planes so far apart as those of patriotism, of
devotion, of human sympathy, of introspection. His patriotism finds
powerful expression, as already noted, in the _Profecia del Tajo_,
besprinkled with sonorous place-names, these growing fewer as the
movement is accelerated, and Father Tagus describes with a mixture of
picturesque mediaeval sentiment and martial music the onset of the
Arabs and the clangour of arms as they meet the doomed Gothic host. In
the sphere of devotional poetry Luis de Leon nowhere displays more
unction, more ecstatic piety than in the verses on the Ascension
beginning with the line:

    Y dexas, Pastor santo.

It will be observed that the conjunction _y_, so superabundant in _La
Perfecta Casada_, is the first word of this poem, of which Churton has
supplied a well-known rendering:

    And dost Thou, holy Shepherd, leave
      Thy flock in this dark vale alone,
    In cheerless solitude to grieve,
      Whilst Thou to endless rest art gone?

    The sheep, in Thy protection blest,
      Untended wilt Thou leave to mourn?
    The lambs, once cherished at Thy breast,
      Forlorn,--oh! whither shall they turn?

    Where shall those eyes now find repose,
      That pine Thy gracious glance to see?
    What can they hear but sounds of woes,
      Sad exiles from discourse with Thee?

    And who shall curb this troubled deep,
      When Thou no more amidst the gloom
    Shalt chide the wrathful winds to sleep,
      And guide the labouring vessel home?

    For Thou art gone! that cloud so bright
      That bears Thee from our gaze away,
    Springs upward into dazzling light,
      And leaves us here to weep and pray.

Four additional stanzas, accepted as authentic by perhaps the most
painstaking of Luis de Leon's editors, are thus Englished by Churton:

    Our life has lost its richest store,
      The balm for sorrow's inward thorn,
    The hope, that, gladd'ning more and more,
      Out-brighten'd all the springs of morn.

    Ah me! my soul, what hateful chain
      Holds back thy freeborn spirit's flight?
    Oh break it, disenthrall'd from pain,
      And mount those azure depths of light.

    Why should'st thou fear? What earth-born spell
      Is on thee, with thy choice at strife
    The soul no dying pang can quell,
      But loss of Christ is death in life.

    Dear Lord, and Friend, more dear to me
      Than all the names Earth's love hath found,
    Through darkest gloom I'll follow Thee,
      Or cheer'd with beaming glory round.

Now there is no question of mere executive skill and simple
craftsmanship in Luis de Leon's poems. He is, indeed, always sound and
competent in these respects; but artistry is not his supreme virtue as
a poet. He is ever prone to be a little rugged in his manner, and this
ruggedness has proved something of a trap to the unwary. Luis de Leon
has no real mannerisms, and is no more to be parodied than is
Shakespeare. Yet it is sometimes difficult to distinguish him at his
worst from his imitators at their best. Though withheld so long from
the public, Luis de Leon's poems, while still in manuscript, were
repeatedly imitated--especially by Augustinians. To my way of
thinking, he is most nearly approached by his friend Arias Montano.
But it should be said that this is not the general verdict. That goes
decisively in favour of Miguel Sanchez, _el Divino_. Miguel Sanchez is
the author of a beautiful _Cancion de Cristo Crucificado_, a poem
which, though not published till 1605 with the real writer's name
attached to it, has constantly been ascribed to Luis de Leon.[274] The
_Cancion_ is no doubt a composition of great charm and mystic unction;
but it lacks the concentrated force of Luis de Leon. Luis de Leon has
a lofty dignity of his own; he outstrips all rivalry by virtue of his
nobility, by virtue of his intellectual vigour, by virtue of sheer
excellence rather than by curious refinements of technique. These
positive qualities defy reproduction by even the most accomplished of
imitators. It has been said that Luis de Leon's verse, as well as his
prose, has noticeable roughnesses; but let us not derive a wrong
impression from this assertion. Luis de Leon is not 'finicking'.
Withal he is a master of his art. Retrograde as we may perhaps think
him in some matters, he was on the side of the reformers in the
matter of metrics. He was a partisan of Boscan's innovating methods:
so much might be expected from a man of his period. It is to be noted
that, in his best poems, he shows a decided preference for _liras_, a
form apparently invented by Bernardo Tasso before it was transplanted
to Spain by Garcilasso de la Vega. Luis de Leon was of opinion that
those who violate poetry, using it for purposes of a meretricious
kind, deserved punishment as public corrupters of two most sacred
things: poetry and morals. It is one of the curious ironies of art
that the measure which the seductive Garcilasso used for amatory
purposes should have appealed to Luis de Leon as the vehicle most
suited to enraptured chants and hymns of philosophic meditation.

It is obvious that Luis de Leon took a keen interest in all the real
essentials of his art. It is no less obvious that he saw matters in
their actual perspective, that he attached no undue importance to
technique, as such, and that he gave no less weight to the choice of
matter than to the choice of form. Luis de Leon was not incapable of
metrical audacities: as when he divides into two separate words
adverbs in _-mente_ occurring at the end of a line. This practice was
audacious, but it was not an innovation. Juan de Almeida defended it
by citing a host of precedents from other literatures and, had Almeida
been a prophet, he might have foretold that this device was destined
to be repeated hundreds of years later by that innovating genius Rubén
Darío. But Almeida was not a prophet. His titles to remembrance are
that he was learned, and that he may rank with Miguel Sanchez, with
Alonso de Espinosa, and with Benito Arias Montano as among the least
unsuccessful of Luis de Leon's followers. They often follow his lead
with undeniable adroitness. Yet they never attain his incomparable
concentration, his majestic vision of nature and his characteristic
note of ecstatic aloofness. Nowhere is he more himself than in the
immortal stanzas dedicated to Oloarte under the title of _Noche
serena_ of which Churton has bequeathed us an English version which I
will quote, though it gives but a far-off echo of the original's magic
melody:

        When nightly through the sky
    I view the stars their files unnumber'd leading,
        Then see the dark earth lie
        In deathlike trance, unheeding
    How Life and Time with those bright orbs are speeding:

        Strong love and equal pain
    Wake in my heart a fire with anguish burning;
        The tear-drops fall like rain,
        Mine eyes to fountains turning,
    And my sad voice pours forth its tones of mourning:

        O mansion of high state,
    Bright temple of bright saints in beauty dwelling,
        The soul, once born to mate
        With these, what force repelling
    Hath bound to earth, its light in darkness quelling?

        What mortal disaccord
    Hath exiled so from Truth the mind unstable?
        Why of its blest reward
        Forgetful, lost, unable,
    Seeks it each shadowy fraud and guileful fable?

        Man lies in slumber dead,
    Like one that of his danger hath no feeling,
        The while with silent tread
        Those restless orbs are wheeling,
    And, as they fly, his hours of life are stealing.

        O mortals, wake and rise;
    Think of the loss that on your lives is pressing;
        The soul, that never dies,
        Ordain'd for endless blessing,
    How shall it live, false shows for truth caressing?

        Ah, raise your fainting eyes
    To that firm sphere which still new glory weareth,
        And scorn the low disguise
        The flattering world prepareth,
    And all the world's poor thrall hopeth or feareth.

        O what is all earth's round,
    Brief scene of man's proud strife and vain endeavour,
        Weigh'd with that deep profound,
        That tideless Ocean-river,
    That onward bears Time's fleeting forms for ever?

        Once meditate, and see
    That fix'd accord in wondrous variance given,
        The mighty harmony
        Of courses all uneven,
    Wherein each star keeps time and place in heaven.

        Who can behold that store
    Of light unspent, and not, with very sighing,
        Burst earth's frail bonds, and soar,
        With soul unbodied flying,
    From this sad place of exile and of dying?

        There dwelleth sweet Content;
    There is the reign of Peace; there, throned in splendour,
        As one pre-eminent,
        With dove-like eyes so tender,
    Sits holy Love,--honour and joy attend her.

        There is reveal'd whate'er
    Of Beauty thought can reach; the source internal
        Of purest Light, that ne'er
        To darkness yields; eternal
    Bloom the bright flowers in clime for ever vernal.

        There would my spirit be,
    Those quiet fields and pleasant meads exploring,
        Where Truth immortally,
        Her priceless wealth outpouring,
    Feeds through the blissful vales the souls of saints adoring.

The fact that the original is cast in the _lira_ form would compel one
to assign this composition to a date not earlier than 1542, when
Garcilasso's poems were first published. Nothing, however, could be
more remote from Garcilasso's nebulous half-pagan melancholy; we are
no less distant from the pseudonymous nymphs of Cetina and Francisco
de la Torre: the elegant Amaryllis of the one, the elusive Filis of
the other, though destined to be re-incarnated by a tribe of later
poets, find no place in these stately numbers. Luis de Leon does not
emulate Alcázar's epigrammatic wit, nor Herrera's Petrarchan
sweetness, nor Ercilla's tumultuous rhetoric. He has an individuality
all his own, the moral purpose of the man is wedded to the poet's art
in such wise that he strikes a note individual and completely new in
Spanish literature--a note rarely heard in any literature till we
catch its strain in the verses of him who tells us that

    The Youth, who daily farther from the east
      Must travel, still is Nature's Priest,
      And by the vision splendid
      Is on his way attended;
    At length the Man perceives it die away,
    And fade into the light of common day.

In Luis de Leon, as in Wordsworth, art is raised to a hieratic
dignity: both have a splendid simplicity, a most lofty expression of
sublime meditation--qualities rare everywhere in every age, and rarest
of all in the flamboyant, if gloomy, Spain of the sixteenth century.

Luis de Leon has his weak points. He does not attain to the angelic
melody of St. John of the Cross. He is apt to be indifferent to sheer
beauty of form; though he often reaches it, this success seems with
him to be a happy accident. Lucidity is not his main object; though he
uses simple terms, his immense range of knowledge tempts him at whiles
to indulge in allusions which it might tax all the ingenuity of
commentators to explain. Commentators of Luis de Leon have a
sufficiently heavy task before them in reconstructing the text of his
poems--the heavier because the originals no longer exist. Sr. de Onís
has given us some idea of the problems to be solved.[275] Whatever
flaws are revealed in Luis de Leon's manner, he is nearly always
vital, nearly always has something elevating, illuminating and
beautiful to say. As a human being, too, he is not above criticism.
There is an unpleasant savour in the story that he asked Antonio Perez
to let him have the Chrysostom manuscript which he proposed to
translate in Paris, the profits to be divided. We need not believe
this perhaps calumnious little tale. Antonio Perez is open to
suspicion of being an assassin and a traitor; he may also have been
untruthful. Luis de Leon is not a candidate for canonization. He was
no icicle of perfection. He was something vastly more interesting than
a chill intellectual: a man ardent, austere, conscious of resplendent
intellectual faculties, perhaps a little arrogant when off his guard,
incautious but wary, individualistic but self-sacrificing, emotional,
sensitive, reticent: a mass of conflicting qualities blended, unified
and held in subjection by sheer strength of will, fortified by a
professional discipline, deliberately embraced and rigorously
followed. Add to this that he had in a supreme degree the creative
impulse, an irrepressible instinct for self-expression. It is not
strange that the self-expression of a personality so fine, so complex,
so rich, so rare, should produce the series of compositions which
entitle Luis de Leon to rank among the very greatest of Spanish
poets, and beside the most glorious figures in the history of any
literature. He stands a little apart from the rest of Spanish poets in
a splendid solitude which befits him; he must perforce be solitary,
dwelling as he most often does at altitudes inaccessible to ordinary
mortals.

    Those solemn heights but to the stars are known,
    But to the stars, and the cold lunar beams:
    Alone the sun arises, and alone
              Spring the great streams.




V


[Footnote 263: They must have been known to the dedicatee of the
_Noche serena_, whom I am inclined to identify with Diego de Olarte
who appeared before the Valladolid tribunal (_Documentos inéditos_,
vol. XI, pp. 301-302). But the only positive evidence on this head is
given by Francisco de Salinas who testified 'que era amigo del dicho
fray Luis de Leon, el cual venia muchas veces á casa deste testigo, y
oyó deste testigo la especulativa, y comunicaba con este testigo cosas
de poesía y otras cosas del arte' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp.
302-303).]

[Footnote 264: In the early editions--those of 1583, 1585, 1587, 1595,
and 1603--_De los nombres de Cristo_ and _La Perfecta Casada_ are
bound up together. Each treatise has a separate pagination in all five
cases.]

[Footnote 265: Luis de Leon's mother was 'Inés de Valera, hija de Juan
de Valera, vecino que fué de la villa de Belmente, escudero, que vivia
de su hacienda' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 170-171). The
substitution of Varela for Valera, or vice versa, is easy in Spanish.
An example of such a substitution in the case of Luis de Leon's mother
is given by Blanco García, _Fr. Luis de León_, p. 24, _n._ 1. Blanco
García mentions a tombstone in the monastery of San Jerónimo at
Granada with the following inscription:

'_En esta capilla está enterrado el noble hidalgo el Lic. Lope de Leon
del Cº del Rey nuestro Señor, Oidor que fué de Granada, y Asistente de
Sevilla: falleció á 24 de Julio de 1562 años: y Doña Inés Barela_
(sic), _y Alarcon, su mujer, dotó esta capilla para entierro suyo y de
sus descendientes._'

The name of Luis de Leon's maternal grandmother was Mencía Alvarez
Osorio. From these circumstances, it appears possible that some
relationship existed between the dedicatee of _La Perfecta Casada_ and
the author of that treatise. Luis de Leon had four maternal uncles,
three of whom were laymen--Francisco de Valera, Bernardino de Valera,
and Cristóbal de Alarcon, 'capitan que fué en Italia'. All three had
died before April 15, 1572 (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 181).

It is also possible that Isabel Osorio (_Documentos inéditos_, vol.
XI, p. 271), to whom the manuscript of the vernacular version of the
_Song of Songs_ was lent, may likewise have been related to Luis de
Leon.]

[Footnote 266: Orozco's treatise was printed in _La Ciudad de Dios_
(1888), vol. XXI, pp. 393-401, and vol. XXII, pp. 543-550. It is
reproduced by Sr. D. Federico de Onís in his edition of _De los
nombres de Cristo_ in the series of _Clásicos Castellanos_ (1914),
vol. XXVIII, pp. 261-281, and (1917), vol. XXXIII, pp. 257-271.]

[Footnote 267: Nowhere have I found an indication of Portocarrero's
birth-date. He became Bishop of Calahorra in 1587, and was translated
to Córdoba in 1594; he died on September 20, 1600.]

[Footnote 268: Alonso Getino (_op. cit._, p. 48) writes, however: 'la
_Canción del conocimiento de sí mismo_, que es la primera cuya fecha
se puede averiguar, la escribió diez años después de entrar en
religión'. This is an inference from the closing lines of the poem:

    aunque sané del mal y su accidente
    diez años há que soy convaleciente.

In a note to the passage quoted above, Alonso Getino refers to the
_Canción al nacimiento de la hija del Marqués de Alcañices_, written,
as he thinks, 'en un tono impropio de un imberbe'. He appears to have
no doubt as to the authenticity of this composition: the correctness
of the ascription of this poem to Luis de Leon is at least
questionable.]

[Footnote 269: The pieces printed by Sanchez are translations of Ode
X, Book II; Ode XXII, Book I; Ode XIII, Book IV; and Epode II.]

[Footnote 270: _Obras del excelente poeta Garcilasso de la Vega_,
Salamanca, 1577. This (second) edition is the earliest to which I have
access. On pp. 91-92 Sanchez writes: 'Trato este elegantemente
Horacio, Oda 10. lib. I. Y porque un docto destos reynos la traduxo
bi[~e], y ay pocos casos destos en nuestra lengua, le pondre aqui
todo: y ansi enti[~e]do hazer en el discurso destas sentencias quando
se ofreciere'. On p. 94, Sanchez writes: 'Por traer el lugar de
Horacio, donde todo esto se toma, aure de poner toda la Oda, sacada
por el mismo que traduxo la otra'. On pp. 97-98 Sanchez writes: 'Al
reves desto se burla Horacio de una dama, motejandola de vieja: y [~q]
ya se le passo la flor, aunque ella no lo piensa. Y por estar
traduzida por el mismo [~q] las pasadas, põgo aqui la Oda, que es
del libro 4 l. 13.']

[Footnote 271: This slip has been pointed out by Menéndez y Pelayo in
both editions (Madrid, 1878[?] and 1885) of his _Horacio en España.
Solaceas bibliográficas_.]

[Footnote 272: Alonso Getino (_op. cit._, p. 50) and in _El Correo
Español_ (1908). A reply to these views has been made in the form of
an open letter to Sr. Berrueta, Director of _El Lábaro_, by P. Conrado
Muiños Sáenz. The reply of Muiños Sáenz will be found in _La Ciudad de
Dios_ (1909), vol. LXXVIII, pp. 479-495, 544-560, vol. LXXIX, pp.
18-34, 107-124, 191-212, 353-374, 529-552; vol. LXXX, pp. 99-125,
177-197.]

[Footnote 273: M. Menéndez y Pelayo, _Antología de poetas líricos
castellanos_ (1908), vol. XIII, p. 332.]

[Footnote 274: It is printed among Luis de Leon's poems in the
_Biblioteca de Autores Españoles desde la formacion del lenguaje hasta
nuestros dias_, vol. XXXVII, pp. 12-13. As this is perhaps the
best-known edition of Luis de Leon's poems, most of my quotations are
taken from it.]

[Footnote 275: _Sobre la transmisión de la obra literaria de Fr. Luis
de León_ in _Revista de Filología española_ (1915), vol. II, pp.
217-257.]




APPENDIX

EL MAESTRO FRAI LVIS DE LEON


Silas obras acertadas de algun Artifice le estan (como dize el Sabio)
alabando siempre, con cuanta mayor razon las de Dios nos dan motivo
para engrandecer su infinita Sabiduria. i mas cuando vemos que nacen
algunos ombres, acõpañados de tantas gracias que parece que fueron
hechos, sin otro medio, por sus divinas manos, sien alguno se puede
esto verificar, es en el gran Maestro (como veremos) sus Progenitores
fueron de Belmonte, de clarissimo linage, en el cual resplandecieron
muchos varones insignes en letras i Santidad. El Licenciado Lope de
Leon su Padre, siendo uno de los mayores letrados de su tiempo, vino
por Oidor a Sevilla, donde hizo oficio de Asistente, i en ella tuvo
(para onra de nuestra Patria) este ilustre hijo, que siendo promovido
luego ala chancilleria de Granada, nacio en ella, elaño 1528 para
engrandecer l' Andaluzia la Nacion Española, i el mundo. En lo
natural, fue pequeño de cuerpo, en devida proporcion, la cabeça
grande, bien formada, poblada de cabello algo crespo, i el cerquillo
cerrado, la frente espaciosa, el rostro mas redondo que aguileño,
(como lo muestra el Retrato) trigueño el color, los ojos verdes i
vivos. En lo moral, con especial don de Silencio, el ombre mas callado
que sea conocido, si bien de singular agudeza en sus dichos, con
estremo abstinente i templado, en la comida bevida, i sueño. de mucho
secreto, verdad, i fidelidad: puntual en palabra i promessas;
compuesto, poco onada risueño. Leiasse en la gravedad de su rostro, el
peso de la nobleza de su alma, resplandecia enmedio desto por
eccelencia una umildad profunda. fue limpissimo, mui onesto i
recogido, gran Religioso, i observante de las Leyes. Amava ala
santissima Virgen ternissimamente, ayunava las visperas de sus
fiestas, comiendo alas tres de la tar de, ino haziendo colacion. de
aqui nacio aqella regalada Cancion que comienca; _Virgen q'el Solmas
pura_. fue mui espiritual, i de mucha Oracion, i en ella en tiempo de
sus mayores trabajos, favorecido de Dios particularissimamente. con
ser de natural colerico fue mui sufrido i piadoso para los que le
tratavan. tan penitente i austero consigo, que las mas noches no se
acostava en cama, i el que la avia hecho la hallava ala mañana de la
misma manera certificalo el Padre Maestro frai Luis Moreno de
Bohorquez (onra de su Religion, que estuvo 4 años en su compañia) a
quien devemos la verdad deste discurso, Professo en el Monesterio de
San Agustin de Salamanca, en 29 de Enero de 1544, siendo de edad de 16
años. en lo adquisito, fue gran Dialetico i Filosofo, Maestro graduado
en Artes, i Dotor en Teologia, por aquella insigne Universidad; donde
fue Catedratico mas de 36 años, en la Catedra de Santo Tomas de
Durando, de Filosofia moral, i de Prima de Sagrada Escritura, que tuvo
con crecido premio, por que leyesse una leccion, supo Escolastico tan
aventajadamente, como sino tratava de Escritura, i de Escritura, como
sino tratava de Escolastico. fue la mayor capacidad de ingenio que sea
conocida en su tiempo, para todas Ciencias i Artes; escrevia no menos
que nuestro Francisco Lucas, siendo famosso Matematico, Aritmetico, i
Geometra; i gran Astrologo, i Judiciario, (aunque lo uso con
templança) fue eminente en el uno i otro derecho, Medico superior, que
entrava en el General con los desta Facultad, i arguía en sus actos.
fue gran Poeta Latino i Castellano, como lo muestran sus versos.
estudio sin Maestro la Pintura, i la exercitò tan diestramente que
entre otras cosas hizo (cosa dificil) su mesmo Retrato. tuvo otras
infinitas abilidades, que callo por cosas mayores. La lengua Latina,
Griega, i Hebrea, la Caldea i Siria, supo como los Maestros della.
pues la muestra con cuanta grandeza? siendo el primero que escrivio
en ella con numero i elegãcia; digalo el Libro de los Nombres de
Cristo i perfeta casada, encarecido i admirado de los doctos, que no
sabe acabar de loarlo Antonio Possevino en su Biblioteca. escrivio en
Latin Comentarios sobre los Cantares, i fue el primero que allanò las
dificultades de la letra: i sobre el Psalmo 26 i el Profeta Abdias, i
la Epistola ad Galatas, i un tratado de utriusq agni: expuso otros
libros de la Escritura que no estan impressos. ai muchas obras suyas
de mano en verso, divididas en tres partes, la primera de las cosas
proprias, la segunda lo que traduxo de autores Profanos, la tercera de
los Psalmos, Cantares i Capitulos de Job. lo cual asido siempre
estimadissimo, con la carta a don Pedro Puertocarrero, a quien lo
dirige, escrivio otra en san Felipe de Madrid año 1587 alas Carmelitas
descalças, en favor del espiritu i escritos de Santa Teresa de Jesus,
que anda con su libro, digna de la eccelencia de su ingenio. Al passo
destas grandezas, fue la invidia que le persiguio, pero descubrio
altamente sus quilates, saliendo en todo superior, i con el mayor
triumfo i onra que en estos Reinos sea visto. fue varon de tanta
autoridad, que parecia mas a proposito para mostrar alos otros, que
para aprender de ninguno. grande su juizio i prudencia en materias de
govierno, alcançò mucha estimacion en España i fuera della con los
mayores ombres; consultavalo el Rei Filipo Segundo en todos los casos
graves de conciencia enviandole correos estraordinarios a Salamanca; i
despues yendo por orden de la Universidad, con particular comision, a
su Magestad, lo tratò i comunicò, haziendole especial favor imerced. i
en los acometimientos onrosos de Obispados, i del Arçobispado de
Mexico, descubrio su valor i animo grande, no solo para desnudarse de
la dignidad (cosa intentada de pocos) mas aun de todo cuanto tenia en
la tierra: varon de veras Evangelico. en estos santos exercicios i con
esta continuacion de vida, siendo Provincial de la Provincia de
Castilla, acabò su curso santamente (dexando en todos harto
desconsuelo, aun que mayor certeza de su gloria) en la villa de
Madrigal en 24 de Agosto del año 1595. de 63 años de edad. traxeronle
con la devida onra a san Agustin de Salamanca donde avia tomado el
abito, i yaze sepultado en el claustro de aquel ilustre Convento. I
para cumplimiento de su Elogio i de mi desseo no me contentè con menos
(en onra de tan insigne varon) de que los versos Latinos fuessen del
Licenciado Rodrigo Caro, i los Castellanos de Lope de Vega, en su
Laurel de Apolo, con que se encarecen bastãtem[~e]te.




EPIGRAMMA


    Hispalis, Iliberis, Salmantica, Monta, Toletum
    Municipem iactant te, Ludovice, suum.
    Contigit id magno quondam certamen Homero:
    Contigit Hesperio sicq3 Melesigeni.

    Agustino León, Frai Luis divino
    o dulce Analogia de Agustino!
    conque verdad nos diste
    al Rei Profeta en verso Castellano,
    que con tanta elegancia tra duziste;
    ô cuanto le deviste
    (como en tus mismas obras encareces)
    ala invidia cruel, porquien mereces
    Laureles inmortales;
    tu prosa, i verso iguales
    conservaran la gloria de tu nombre;
    i los Nombres de Cristo Soberano
    tele daran eterno, porque asombre
    la dulce pluma de tu heroica mano
    de tu persecusion la causa injusta,
    tu fuiste gloria de Agustino Augusta,
    tu el onor de la lengua Castellana,
    que desseaste introduzir escrita,
    viendo que ala Romana tanto imita
    que puede competir con la Romana.
    Si en esta edad vivieras
    fuerte Leon en su defensa fueras.




INDEX


A

Abarca de Sotomayor (Ana), 93 _n._

_Agustiniana, Revista_, _passim_

Alarcon (Cristóbal de), 234 _n._

Alarcon (fulano de), 110 _n._

Alarcon (Inés de), 27 _n._, 234 _n._

Alarcon (María de), 28 _n._

Álava (Andrés de), 90, 128 _n._, 139 _n._

Albornoz (Francisco de), 90, 139 _n._

Alcañices (Marqués de), 235 _n._

Alcázar (Baltasar de), 229

Almansa (Francisco de), 39, 40, 93 _n._, 94 _n._

Almansa (Pedro de), 94 _n._

Almaraz (Antonio de), 189 _n._

Almeida (Juan de), 33 _n._, 129 _n._, 224

Alvarez (Luis), 44

Alvarez Guijarro (Carlos), 193 _n._, 198 _n._

Alvarez Osorio (Mencía), 234 _n._

Ambrose (Saint), 205

Ana de Jesús (La Madre) 12, 30 _n._, 174, 180, 181, 203

Antolinez (Agustin), 180

Aragon (Pedro de), 165, 194 _n._

Arboleda (Francisco de), 56, 57, 112 _n._

Arce (Antonio de), 137 _n._

Arias Montano (Benito), 62, 63, 83, 119 _n._, 120 _n._, 202, 210, 221,
  224

Arias (Diego), 59, 114 _n._

Aristotle, 82

Arresse (Juan de), 166, 197 _n._

Asensio y Toledo (José Maria), 201 _n._


B

Bañez (Domingo), 10, 154, 161, 164, 194 _n._, 195 _n._, 196 _n._

Barrera (Cayetano Alberto de la), 190 _n._, 191 _n._

Barrientos, 48, 100 _n._

Béjar (Séptimo duque de), 58

Bembo (Pietro), 83, 84, 218

Bernal, Dr., 170

Berrueta, 237 _n._

Blanco García (Francisco), _passim_

Bolivar (Pedro), 138 _n._

Bonard (Cornelio), 199 _n._

Boscan Almogaver (Juan), 223

Braganza (Teutonio de), 175

Bravo, 33 _n._


C

Cabrera de Córdoba (Luis), 184

Calderon de la Barca Henao de la Barreda y Riaño (Pedro), 3

Cáncer, Dr., 66, 68, 77, 137 _n._

Cano (Melchor), 81, 131 _n._, 202

Caravajal (Diego de), 112 _n._

Carlos (el maestro Don), 33 _n._

Carlos (el príncipe Don), 211

Caro (Rodrigo), 244

Carranza (Bartolomé de), 21, 35 _n._, 85, 134 _n._

Castañeda (Juan de), 161, 194 _n._

Castillo (Garcia del), 33 _n._

Castillo (Hernando del), 66, 67, 89, 137 _n._

Castro (Adolfo de), 190 _n._

Castro (Leon de) 13, 14,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24 _n._, 31 _n._,
  32 _n._, 33 _n._, 34 _n._, 35 _n._, 54, 62, 77, 80, 86, 110 _n._

Castro (Pedro de) 91, 139 _n._, 141 _n._

Cayetano (_see_ Vio).

Cervantes Saavedra (Miguel de) 3, 58, 155, 184, 191 _n._

Cetina (Gutierre de) 228

Churton (Edward) 219, 220, 225

Cicero 207

Ciguelo (Juan) 77, 78, 128 _n._

Cipriano (el maestro) 81

Clement of Alexandria (Saint) 205

Copernicus (Nicolaus) 61, 114 _n._, 115 _n._

Coscojales (Martin de) 165, 194 _n._

Cruesen (Nicolaas) 148, 149

Cruz (Joan de la) (_see_ Santa Cruz)

Cueto (Francisco) 71, 114 _n._, 117 _n._

Cyprian (Saint) 205


D

Darío (Rubén) 224

Doria (Nicolás de Jesus Maria) 174, 175, 176, 179


E

Ercilla y Zúñiga (Alonso) 229

Espinosa (Alonso de) 224

Espinosa (Ana de) 41, 95 _n._

Estrada (Doctor) 180

Euripides 205


F

Fernandez (Alonso) 193 _n._

Frechilla (Doctor) 77, 91, 139 _n._, 140


G

Galileo 57, 112 _n._

Galvan (Juan), 84

Gallardo (Bartolome Jose), 145, 185 _n._, 187 _n._, 191 _n._,
  192 _n._, 199 _n._

Gallego (Juan), 36 _n._

Gallo (Juan), 33 _n._, 34 _n._, 190 _n._

Gallo (Gregorio), 9, 154

Gaona (Diego de), 107 _n._

Garcia del Castillo, 146

Garcilasso, _see_ Lasso de la Vega (Garci).

Getino (Luis G. Alonso), _passim_

Gomez de Quevedo y Villegas (Francisco), 209, 215

Góngora (Luis de), 209

Gonzalez (Diego), 21, 39, 94 _n._, 128 _n._

Gonzalez de Tejada (J.), 28 _n._, 29 _n._, 100 _n._

Grajal (Gaspar de), 10, 13, 20, 21, 22, 29 _n._, 33 _n._, 36 _n._,
  37 _n._, 42, 108 _n._, 157, 162

Granada (Luis de), 203

Grial (Juan de), 213

Guevara (Juan de), 11, 33 _n._, 35 _n._, 81, 108 _n._, 190 _n._,
  194 _n._, 195 _n._

Guevara (Martin de), 127 _n._

Guigelmo, 132 _n._

Guijano de Mercado (Doctor), 91, 92, 128 _n._, 139 _n._, 140 _n._,
  144 _n._

Gustin (Celedon), 46, 144 _n._, 163

Gutiérrez (Juan), 107 _n._

Gutiérrez (Marcelino), 115 _n._

Guzman (Domingo de), 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 164, 190 _n._,
  191 _n._, 192 _n._, 197 _n._


H

Haedo (Diego de), 24 _n._, 96 _n._

Henriquez (Dr. Diego), 171

Henry VIII, 1

Herrera (Fernando de) 207, 229

Homer 83

Horace 83, 159, 207, 208, 217, 236 _n._


I

Ibañez, _see_ Bañez.

Ibarra (Juan de) 138 _n._

Isaiah 13, 15, 34 _n._


J

Jerónimo (San) 32 _n._, 33 _n._, 108 _n._, 234 _n._

Jesús y Maria (José de) 178, 199 _n._

John Chrysostom (Saint) 33 _n._

John of the Cross (Saint) 230

Junta (Lucas) 28 _n._

Justin (Saint) 82, 83


L

Laredo (Bernardino de) 203

Lasso de la Vega (Garci) 155, 205, 216 _n._, 223, 228, 236 _n._

Leo (Saint) 83

Leon (Antonio de) 28 _n._

Leon (Cristobal de) 8

Leon (Diego de) 43, 44, 204

Leon (Francisco de) 7

Leon (Gomez de) 6, 23 _n._, 25 _n._

Leon (Lope de) 6, 23 _n._, 25 _n._, 27 _n._, 234 _n._, 238

León (Luis de), his full name, 5;

  his Jewish descent, 5-6;

  his birthplace, 6;

  his date of birth, 7;

  he goes to Madrid, then to the University of Salamanca, 7;

  he enters a religious order, 7;

  renounces his share of the paternal estate, 8;

  professes in the Augustinian order, 8;

  his name appears on the list of theological students at Salamanca,
    8;

  he lectures at Soria, 9;

  matriculates at Alcalá de Henares, 9;

  graduates at Toledo, 9;

  graduates as licentiate of theology at Salamanca, 9;

  fails to obtain the chair of Biblical exegesis at Salamanca, 10;

  thwarts the designs of Domingo Bañez, 10;

  is elected Professor of Theology at Salamanca, 10;

  is transferred to the chair of Scholastic Theology and Biblical
    Criticism, 10, 11;

  is chosen to be the first editor of St. Theresa's works, 12;

  incurs the enmity of Leon de Castro, 13, 14;

  lectures on the Vulgate, 14;

  is elected on the committee appointed to revise François Vatable's
    version of the Bible, 15;

  threatens to burn Castro's _Commentaria in Essaiam Prophetam_,
    16;

  out-argues Bartolomé de Medina, 18;

  goes to Belmonte, 19;

  falls ill, 19;
  is mentioned as an offender before the Inquisitionary Committee, 20;

  hands in a written statement to the local Inquisition, 21;

  his arrest is recommended by that body, 22;

  he finds fault with Leon de Castro's knowledge of Latin and Greek
    and proposes to call witnesses to prove this point, 33 _n._;

  quarrels with Medina, 36 _n._;

  appeals to the Consejo Real at Madrid and wins his case, 36
    _n._;

  is taken to Valladolid jail by Almansa, 40;

  is lodged in the secret cells of the Inquisition, 40;

  is nervous about his health, 41;

  asks for books, for powders for his heart-attacks, and for a knife
    to cut his food, 41;

  is charged with translating into Spanish the _Song of Solomon_,
    and admits having done so, 42;

  implies that a copy may have reached Portugal, 44;

  proves a formidable foe, 46;

  petitions that his University Chair should be kept open until the
    end of his trial, 47;

  his petition is refused and Medina is appointed in his place, 48;

  his health suffers from imprisonment, and he asks for the
    companionship of a monk of his order, 49;

  he requests to be transferred to a Dominican Monastery, 50;

  petitions for leave to go to confession and to say Mass, 50;

  his requests are refused, 50;

  the increasing bias of the tribunal against him, 51;

  he complains of his bad memory, 51;

  his fearless attitude, 52;

  he brands all Dominicans as enemies, 52;

  objects to the Faculty of Theology at Alcalá de Henares, 53;

  inveighs against Medina and Castro, 54;

  prevents Montoya's election as Provincial of the Augustinians in
    Spain, 55;

  describes Montoya as notorious for lying, 56;

  entrusts Arboleda to collect favourable evidence, 56;

  brands Diego de Zúñiga as a deliberate perjurer, 57;

  his criticism on Zúñiga's book, 60;

  his counsel, Dr. Ortiz de Funes, 65;

  his skill in drawing up his own defence, 65;

  he is told to choose two _patronos_ from four names unknown to
    him, 66;

  requests that he be given Sebastian Perez as _patrono_, 66;

  suggests that Dr. Cáncer or Hernando del Castillo may be appointed
    with Perez, 66;

  asks that Castillo's name be removed from the list of
    _patronos_, 67;

  threatens to appeal to the Inquisitor-General against the enforced
    choosing of unknown _patronos_, 67;

  decides to accept as _patronos_ Fray Mancio de _Corpus
    Christi_ and either Medina or Dr. Cáncer, 68;

  Mancio is appointed _patrono_ and makes a report favourable to
    him, 69;

  all information of this is withheld from him, 69;

  he protests against his papers being entrusted to Mancio, 69;

  his suspicions and distrust of Mancio, 69-71;

  he becomes reconciled with Mancio, 72;

  loses judicial favour owing to his vacillations over Mancio, 73;

  his demeanour in court, 74;

  his portrait by Pacheco, 79;

  his want of humour, 80;

  his gift of sarcasm, 80;

  his versatility, 81; his conservatism, 81;

  his teachers, 81;

  his books, 81, 82;

  his knowledge of Italian, 83;

  his curiosity about astrology, 84, 85;

  he urges the Court to prosecute Castro for perjury, 86;

  declares that his detention is illegal and demands compensation for
    it, 86;

  his health declines and his irritability increases, 87;

  he is blamed by Castillo for teaching erroneous doctrine, 89;

  his moods of depression, 89;

  Menchaca, Álava, Tello Maldonado, and Albornoz recommend that he be
    tortured, 90;

  a more lenient view is adopted by Guijano de Mercado and Frechilla,
    91;

  the Supreme Inquisition brushes aside the views of both parties, 91;

  he is publicly reprimanded by order of the Supreme Inquisition and
    acquitted, 92;

  his Spanish version of the _Song of Solomon_ is confiscated,
    92;

  he asks for an official certificate of acquittal and for arrears of
    salary as regards his chair, 92;

  his applications are granted but their fulfilment delayed, 92;

  his return to Salamanca, 145;

  he meets the _Claustro_ of the University, 146;

  renounces all claim to his Chair so long as it is occupied by
    Castillo, 146;

  creation of a provisional new chair for him by the _Claustro_,
    147;

  he lectures in his new chair January 29, 1577, 147;

  his famous alleged phrase _Dicebamus hesterna die_, 147-150;

  difficulties about his lecture-hours, 151;

  he presents himself as a candidate for the Chair of Moral
    Philosophy, 152;

  is strenuously opposed by Zumel, 152;

  defeats Zumel by a majority of seventy-nine votes, 153;

  takes the degree of M.A., 153;

  is appointed member of the committee for the reform of the calendar,
    153;

  his contest with Domingo de Guzman for the Biblical chair at
    Salamanca, vacant by the death of Gregorio Gallo, 154-155;

  he defeats Guzman by thirty-six votes, 157;

  appeal lodged by Guzman against irregularity in voting, 157;

  judgement given in favour of Luis de Leon, 157;

  he reads himself into the chair at Salamanca, December 7, 1579, 158;

  publishes a Latin commentary on the _Song of Solomon_, 158;

  chivalrously supports Montemayor against Domingo de Guzman at a
    theological meeting in Salamanca, 160-161;

  through this action he is involved in a quarrel with Domingo Bañez,
    161;

  the case comes before the Valladolid Inquisition, 162;

  he presents himself voluntarily before the Inquisitionary tribunal
    at Salamanca on March 8, 163;

  appears again before it on March 31, and offers to apologize if he
    has exceeded in his defence of Montemayor, 163;

  his lecture on predestination (1571) is brought before the tribunal
    by Zumel, 164;

  his enemies, Zumel, Guzman, and Bañez, 164;

  he receives a severely reproachful letter from Villavicencio, 165;

  is summoned to Toledo and privately reprimanded by Quiroga, 167;

  publishes _Los Nombres de Cristo_ and _La perfecta
    casada_, 168;

  is appointed to settle the suit between the University of Salamanca
    and the _Colegios Mayores_, 168;

  progress of the suit and conduct of the _Claustro,_ 168-173;

  he refuses the invitation of Sixtus V and Philip II to join the
    committee for the revision of the Vulgate, 173;

  is appointed by the papal nuncio to inquire into the administration
    of funds by the Provincial of the Augustinians in Castile, 173;

  begins the publication of his edition of Saint Theresa's works, 174;

  upholds Madre Ana de Jesus's reforms, 174;

  is appointed by the Pope to execute them, 175;

  is opposed by Doria and Philip II, 175-176;

  his weakening health and the continuous opposition of his enemies,
    178-179;

  he is reported to be suffering from tumour, 180;

  his lingering illness, 181;

  he is elected Provincial of the Augustinians in Castile, August 14,
    1591, 181;

  his death, August 23, 1591, 181;

  his character by Pacheco, 181-183;

  his prose works, 202-210;

  his poems, 210-221;

  his versification, 221-229;

  his character, 230-232.

Leon (Miguel de) 8, 28 _n._

Leon (Pedro de) 25 _n._

Leon (Pero Fernandez de) 26 _n._

Loarte (Diego de) [_see_ Oloarte and Olarte] 195 _n._, 211

Lopez (Diego) 117 _n._, 118 _n._

Lopez de Sedano (Juan Josef) 188 _n._

Lucas (Francisco) 241

Lucas (Saint) 124 _n._


M

Madrigal 195 _n._

Mancio de _Corpus Christi_ 35 _n._, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 81, 91,
  122 _n._, 123 _n._, 124 _n._

Manrique (Angel) 30 _n._

Manrique (Jorge) 203

Mármol (Dr. Bernabé del) 174, 175

Martínez de Cantalapiedra (Martin) 13, 20, 21, 22, 31 _n._, 33
_n._, 37 _n._, 42

Medina (Bartolomé de) 18, 19, 20, 21, 33 _n._, 35 _n._, 36 _n._,
  37 _n._, 38 _n._, 42, 48, 54, 62, 68, 70, 77, 80, 100 _n._,
  105 _n._, 110 _n._, 123 _n._, 129 _n._, 146, 151, 154, 155,
  187 _n._

Menchaca (Francisco de) 90, 139 _n._

Méndez (F. de) 5, 26, 200 _n._

Mendoza (Bernardino de) 35 _n._

Mendoza (Diego Hurtado de) 212

Menéndez y Pelayo (Marcelino) 236 _n._, 237 _n._

Merino (Antolin) 191 _n._

Mondéjar (Marqués de) 35 _n._

Montemayor (Prudencio de) 159, 160, 161, 163

Montoya (Gabriel) 55, 56, 120 _n._

Moreno de Bohorquez (Luis) 182, 240

Muiños Sáenz (Conrado) 114 _n._, 115 _n._, 119 _n._, 188 _n._,
  200 _n._, 201 _n._, 237 _n._

Muñiz 33 _n._

Muñon 33 _n._


N

Napoleon 1

Niño (Hernando) 138 _n._


O

Olarte (Diego de) 233 _n._

Olivares (Conde-duque de) 209

Olivares (Pedro de) 23 _n._

Oloarte (_see_ Loarte and Olarte) 210, 225

Onís (Federico de) 230, 235 _n._

Orozco (Alonso de), 206, 235 _n._

Ortiz de Funes (Doctor), 65, 66, 67, 68, 104 _n._

Osorio (Isabel), 42, 43, 234 _n._


P

Pacheco (Francisco), 78, 79, 80, 160, 181, 182, 184, 200 _n._,
  201 _n._ [_and_ Appendix]

Palacios (Francisco de), 162

Paul (Saint), 12

Peralto (Hernando de), 195 _n._

Perez (Antonio), 230, 231

Perez (Sebastian), 66, 67

Pérez Pastor (Cristóbal), 199 _n._

Philip II, 168, 170, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 181, 183, 184, 243

Picatoste y Rodríguez (Felipe), 112 _n._

Pindar, 83

Pineda, 115 _n._

Pinelo (Gabriel), 95 _n._

Pinto (Hector), 53, 108 _n._, 162

Plantin, 82

Plato, 205

Plutarch, 205

Ponce de Leon (Basilio), 24 _n._, 149, 150

Portocarrero (Alonso), 212

Portocarrero (Pedro), 208, 211, 212, 215, 235 _n._

Portonariis (Gaspar de), 104 _n._

Possevino (Antonio), 242

Poza (Licenciado), 85, 132 _n._

Pozas (Marqués de), 57


Q

Quevedo (_see_ Gomez de Quevedo y Villegas)

Quijano (Juan), 186 _n._, 200 _n._

Quiroga (Gaspar de), 167


R

Ramos (Nicolás), 77, 138 _n._

Rejon (Alonso), 36 _n._

Reusch (Heinrich), 197 _n._

Riego (El Inquisidore), 132 _n._

Rodriguez (Benito), 90

Rodriguez (Diego), _see_ Zúñiga, 58, 63, 113 _n._, 114 _n._, 117 _n._,
  118 _n._

Rodriguez (Diego), 151

Rodríguez Marín (Francisco), 114 _n._, 191 _n._

Rojas (Pedro de), 57, 112 _n._, 114 _n._, 118 _n._, 195 _n._

Ruiz, 195 _n._

Ruiz de Alarcon y Mendoza (Juan), 3


S

Sahagun (Doctor Diego de), 168

Sainz de Baranda (Pedro), _passim_

Salinas (Francisco de), 7, 80, 84, 154, 190 _n._, 211, 233 _n._

Salvá (Miguel), _passim_

Samson, 217

Sanchez (Bartolomé), 189 _n._

Sanchez (Francisco), _el Brocense_ 32 _n._, 202, 216, 236 _n._

Sanchez (Miguel), 222, 224

Sánchez de Olivares (Díez), 23 _n._

Sánchez de Olivares (Leonor), 6, 23 _n._

Sancho (Francisco, bishop of Segoibe), 152

Sancho (Francisco), 33 _n._, 100 _n._, 104 _n._, 105 _n._

Sancho (el maestro Francisco), 93 _n._

Santa Cruz (Joan de), 162, 163, 193 _n._, 195 _n._

Santa Maria (Francisco de), 176, 177, 178, 199 _n._

Sarmiento de Mendoza (Manuel), 209, 215

Sebastian I, 214

Shakespeare, 221

Siluente (Alonso), 49, 94, 101 _n._

Simonides, 205

Sixtus V, 173, 174

Sobrino (Doctor), 180

Solana (Andrés de), 165

Solís (Antonio de), 168

Sophocles, 83, 205

Suarez (Pedro), 158, 193 _n._


T

Tapia (Mencía de), 28 _n._

Tasso (Bernardo), 223

Tellez Giron (Rodrigo), 23 _n._

Tello Maldonado (Luis), 90, 139 _n._

Theresa (Saint), 12, 174, 175, 178, 180, 181, 199 _n._, 203, 242

Tiberius, 1

'Tirso de Molina', 3

Torre (Francisco de la), 228


U

Uceda (Gaspar de), 110 _n._

Uceda (Pedro de), 100 _n._, 189 _n._

'Urganda la Desconocida', 155, 191 _n._


V

Vadillo (Doctor), 70

Valbás (Doctor), 32 _n._

Valera (Bernardino de), 234 _n._

Valera (Francisco de), 234 _n._

Valera (Inés de), 233 _n._, 234 _n._

Valera (Juan de). 233 _n._

Valladolid (Diego de), 39

Vañez (_see_ Bañez)

Varela Osorio (Maria), 204

Vatable (François), 15, 16, 17, 33 _n._, 82, 104 _n._, 105 _n._

Vega Carpio (Felix Lope de) 3, 244

Velazquez 79

Vicente de la Fuente 31 _n._, 32 _n._, 199 _n._

Villanueva (Leonor de) 6, 23 _n._

Villavicencio (Lorenzo de) 165

Vio (Cardinal Thomas de), surnamed Cajetanus 133 _n._

Vique (Juan) 33 _n._

Virgil 83, 207


W

Wordsworth 229


Z

Zumel (Francisco) 152, 153, 159, 164, 172, 193 _n._

Zúñiga (Diego de), _see_ Arias and Rodriguez, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63,
  77, 83, 113 _n._, 114 _n._, 115 _n._, 117 _n._, 118 _n._, 119 _n._





End of Project Gutenberg's Fray Luis de León, by James Fitzmaurice-Kelly