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 Bartolome 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, Andres de Alava, 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 ineditos, vol. X, pp. 143-144.]

[Footnote 54: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, pp. 174-176.]

[Footnote 55: Luis de Leon administered a fund left by the late Dona Ana Abarca de Sotomayor whose servant Almansa had been. Out of this fund a life-pension was paid to Almansa (Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 333), of whom Luis de Leon formed a good opinion as appears from his request of December 20, 1572 (Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 248): 'Yo entiendo que con la mudanza de los priores estara trastornada toda mi celda, y en poco tiempo faltara lo mas della, porque conozco en esto la condicion de mi gente; y podra ser tener yo necesidad para mi negocio de algunas cosas della; y tambien hay cosas agenas y que estan a mi cargo dar cuenta dellas si Dios fuere servido darme libertad algun dia. Suplico a V. md. por amor de Dios sea servido de enviar a mandar al maestro Francisco Sancho, o a Francisco de Almansa, el familiar que vino conmigo, que la cierre y tome todas las llaves y las guarde. Y este Almansa lo hara muy bien, porque es hombre de mucha verdad y recaudo. Y suplico a 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 ineditos, vol. XI, p. 188).]

[Footnote 56: Documentos ineditos, 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 a veinte tres, o veinte cuatro del dicho mes [de marzo pasado], el dicho Senor Inquisidor [Diego Gonzalez] me mando prender,...' (Documentos ineditos, 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 Garcia thought that this was not the case (op. cit., p. 129 n). The recurrence of such phrases as mando subir de su carcel (Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 22, 36, 129, 196) perhaps indicates that Luis de Leon's cell was underground.]

[Footnote 58: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 179. 'Y suplico a sus mercedes sean servidos dar licencia para que se le diga al dicho padre prior [Fray Gabriel Pinelo] que avise a Ana de Espinosa, monja en el monasterio de Madrigal, que envie una caja de unos polvos que ella solia hacer y enviarme para mis melancolias y pasiones de corazon, que ella sola los sabe hacer, y nunca tuve dellos mas necesidad que agora; y sobre todo que me encomiende a 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 a suplicar se me de un cuchillo para cortar lo que como; que por la misericordia de Dios, seguramente se me puede dar; que jamas desee 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 ineditos, vol. X, pp. 179-180).]

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

[Footnote 61: It figures as the sixth charge in the speech of the prosecuting counsel, Diego de Haedo (Documentos ineditos, 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 a quistion de tormento hasta que enteramente diga verdad etc.' (Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 209).]

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

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

[Footnote 64: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, pp. 98-101.]

[Footnote 65: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 6.]

[Footnote 66: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, pp. 98-99.]

[Footnote 67: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 489.]

[Footnote 68: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 353, 355.]

[Footnote 69: Documentos ineditos, 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 ineditos, vol. X, pp. 449-467.]

[Footnote 71: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 99: '...pero no obstante esto a algunos amigos mios, y a otros, les ha parecido tener inconveniente por andar en lengua vulgar; y a mi, por la misma razon, me ha pesado que ande, y si lo pudiera estorbar, lo hubiera estorbado. Y para remedio dello, el ano pasado comence a 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 asi digo que estoy presto a hacer esta o otra cualquier diligencia que por V.m. me fuere mandada, y que me pesa de cualquier culpa que haya cometido, o en componer en vulgar el dicho libro, o en haber dado ocasion directa o indirectamente a que se divulgase. Y estoy aparejado a hacer en ello la enmienda que por V.m. me fuere impuesta: y digo que subjecto humilde y verdaderamente a V.m. y a este Sancto Oficio y tribunal, ansi este dicho libro, como cualquier otra obra y doctrina que o por escrito o por palabra, leyendo o disputando, o en otra cualquier manera haya afirmado o ensenado, para en todo ser enmendado y corregido.]

[Footnote 72: Documentos ineditos, 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 ano de setenta y tres, o por principio de marzo, se cumple el cuadrienio por el cual me esta proveida la catreda de Durando que tengo en la universidad de Salamanca, el cual cumplido como es notorio se vacara, y no oponiendome yo a ella otra vez, se proveera 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 catreda y se proveyese en otra persona, mucho numero de gentes que en el reino y fuera del tienen noticia de mi prision, y presumen por ella mal de mi, sabiendo la dicha vacatura de catreda 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 mi, 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 sucedera; porque las sobredichas personas que no saben el estilo de la dicha universidad, viendome fuera destas carceles, y fuera de las escuelas, siempre entenderian que fue orden de Vs. Mds. y pena de mi culpa, siendo como son los hombres faciles a creer lo peor, en lo cual mi orden y mis deudos, y lo que es principal, la opinion de mi fe y doctrina recibiria notable agravio y detrimento; por tanto en la mejor manera y conforme a derecho haya lugar, pido y suplico a Vs. Mds. sean servidos de o mandar a la dicha universidad que no innove cosa alguna acerca de la dicha catreda, ni de otra cosa que me toque hasta que Vs. Mds. habiendo conocido los meritos deste pleito juzguen y manden lo que fueren servidos conforme a justicia, o me den licencia para... dar poder a dos o las demas personas que me pareciere en Salamanca, porque por mi y en mi nombre, al tiempo que se vacare la dicha catreda, se puedan oponer y opongan a ella, y hagan por mi las demas diligencias que conforme a 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 ineditos, vol. X, p. 135): 'Tres cartas tengo a que responder a Vs. Mds. La una es sobre la catedra del maestro Barrientos, en la cual mandan Vs. Mds. que diga al rector de esta universidad, como esta detenido en ese Santo Oficio, y que en tanto que estuviere ansi detenido, no se provea su catedra, ni se haga mudanza en ello. Y luego que recebi la dicha carta, que fue estando con el mesmo rector, se la mostre y dijo que ansi 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 ineditos, 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 ineditos, vol. X, p. 180) has been already quoted: 'atento que es hombre enfermo....']

[Footnote 76: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 188: 'E antes de ser llevado a su carcel, dijo quel esta muy enfermo de calenturas como a sus mercedes les consta, y no tiene quien le cure en su carcel sino un mochachico que esta alli preso, que es simple; y para habelle de despertar padece trabajo con el, y ha venido dia de quedarse desmayado de hambre por no tener quien le de la comida; y que suplica a sus mercedes le den un fraile de su orden 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 Senor se duelan del y le den un fraile que este en su compania siquiera para que si se muere le ayude a bien morir; y que podra ser que fray Alonso Siluente, que a la sazon que a este prendieron estaba en su compania, holgaria de venir a tenersela si esta en Salamanca, o sino que sea quien sus mercedes mandaren. Con tanto fue llevado a su carcel.']

[Footnote 77: Documentos ineditos, 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 a mis pasiones y flaquezas, en caso que pareciere ser conveniente que la sentencia deste pleito se dilate; suplico a 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 Senor 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 carcel y con un moro a la cabecera.']

[Footnote 78: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 194: 'Tambien se consulto a su Senoria Reverendisima lo que escribis 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 o en el de esta villa se pida un fraile que este con el, y ha parescido que asi se haga; pero advierteseos que el fraile que se le hubiere de dar no ha de salir de la compania del dicho fray Luis hasta que se acabe su causa, y ansi sera bien se le avise al que hubiere de ser antes que entre en las carceles.']

[Footnote 79: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 50-51: '...ha tres anos que estoy preso, y todo este tiempo he estado sin el uso de los sacramentos con detrimento de mi anima, y sin causa que conforme a derecho obligase a Vs. Mds. a privarme dellos,... Por lo cual pido y suplico a 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, o por los respectos que a 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. senalaren, y para decir misa en esta sala siquiera de quince en quince dias, en lo cual Vs. Mds. haran gran servicio a Dios, y a mi daran grandisimo 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 ineditos, vol. X, p. 217). No saving of time was wrought by this change.]

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

[Footnote 82: Documentos ineditos, 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 colera de la disputa, algunas veces salen de todos los terminos de razon y modestia los hombres, y se ciegan de manera que dende a 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 ineditos, vol. X, pp. 520-527.)

An amazing lapse of memory led Luis de Leon astray with respect to Bartolome de Medina; as Medina did not take his degree till 1570 (Documentos ineditos, 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 ineditos, 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 ineditos, vol. XI, p. 18.)]

[Footnote 84: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 23, 24: '...antes de agora yo tengo pedido que se me declaren los nombres y personas de los Senores del Consejo de la santa y general Inquisicion, ante quien los auctos y sentencias interlocutorias y difinitivas deste negocio pueden ir a parar, para que sabiendo quien son yo pueda deliberar lo que conviene a mi justicia, y si tengo justa causa para recusar a alguno dellos; y por no se me haber declarado yo tengo apelado. Y porque por estar preso en carceles secretas no puedo por mi ni por otro informarme... pido y suplico a Vs. Mds., e si necesario es, con debido acatamiento y reverencia requiero, no se envie cosa alguna de lo tocante a este mi proceso a los dichos Senores del Consejo, y protesto la nulidad de lo que en contrario se hiciere. Y si tacita o expresamente me fuere denegado otra vez, apelo para ante quien y con derecho debo, y pido los apostolos desta mi apelacion con las instancias e ahincamientos necesarios, y pidolo 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 ineditos, 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 habil en su facultad de teologia, aunque le tenia por hombre algo atrevido en su manera de leer, y a esta causa este testigo... le oia muy pocas veces por ver su desenvoltura en las liciones que leia... entraba muy pocas veces a oir al dicho fray Luis de Leon, e que a 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 ineditos, vol. X, p. 482) is sufficiently categorical to render further quotations superfluous: 'Demas desto digo que el dia pasado aqui en la audiencia entendi que algunos de mis papeles, los cuales se veen por mandado de Vs. Mds. se han dado a ver y examinar a fray Juan Gutierrez fraile dominico, y ansi entiendo que se habran dado a otros de la misma orden: y siendo notorio como es que todos los frailes de la dicha orden son sospechosos contra mi por las competencias que mi orden, y yo senaladamente he tenido con ellos, y por la catreda 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 ineditos, 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 a teologos doctos y desapasionados; y porque yo tengo tachados por apasionados y sospechosos a todos los frailes de la orden de Santo Domingo y de Sant Hieronimo, y agora de nuevo tacho por lo mismo a los teologos de la universidad de Alcala, porque como es notorio estan encontrados con los teologos de Salamanca por muchas causas antiguas y recientes, y senaladamente porque el Consejo general de la Inquisicion cosas notadas y censuradas por ellos las ha remitido a los de Salamanca, los cuales corrigieren las censuras de los dichos, y el Consejo siguio el parecer de los de Salamanca...' According to Juan de Guevara (Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 277): 'hizo el dicho fray Luis publicamente cuanto pudo contra Hector Pinto, fraile geronimo, en la sostitucion de Biblia, por el maestro Grajal; y los dichos frailes geronimos se quejaron del 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 ineditos, 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 ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 5-7, 17, 24-25).]

[Footnote 90: Documentos ineditos, vols. X, XI, passim.]

[Footnote 91: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 353.]

[Footnote 92: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 318: 'Y para este efecto [fray Bartolome de Medina y el maestro Leon de Castro] hicieron junta de estudiantes, y el dicho Medina llamo a su celda a muchos dellos, y inquirio dellos si habian oido o sabian algo, poniendolos en escandalo, y tomandoles firmas y juramentandolos para que no le descubriesen. Y con el dicho maestro Leon, y ciertos frailes hieronimos y otras personas enemigas, se concerto 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 podran ser informados de fulano de Alarcon, colegial de Sanct Millan en Salamanca, que fue uno de los llamados, y el dira 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 ineditos, vol. X, p. 353, with some comments on Castro's motives.]

[Footnote 93: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, pp. 318, 321, 324, 433.]

[Footnote 94: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, pp. 348, 439.]

[Footnote 95: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 32.]

[Footnote 96: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 369: 'Habra cuatro anos o poco mas que por insistir yo en ello, en un capitulo provincial de mi orden se voto secreto en la eleccion conforme al concilio, y se atajaron los pasos a la ambicion de muchos, y resulto que este que se tenia ya por provincial por la violencia de un su amigo, que si se votara publico como solia, era muy poderoso, quedo en vacio. Y estas son todas sus lagrimas y mis desobediencias.']

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

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

[Footnote 99: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 32.]

[Footnote 100: This we know from Luis de Leon himself: 'fue mi discipulo' (Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 370).]

[Footnote 101: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, pp. 35-40.]

[Footnote 102: Documentos ineditos, 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 a mi bien decillas.']

[Footnote 103: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 38.]

[Footnote 104: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, pp. 33, 42.]

[Footnote 105: Documentos ineditos, 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 si que por esta razon habra 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 ineditos, vol. X, p. 396. The word 'perjuro' is again used by Luis de Leon of this witness in Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 375.]

[Footnote 107: F. Picatoste y Rodriguez, Apuntes para una biblioteca cientifica espanola del siglo XVI (Madrid, 1891), pp. 340-344.]

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

[Footnote 109: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 373: '...es un fraile de mi orden que se llama fray Diego de Zuniga, o por otro nombre Rodriguez, el cual me quiere mal por las causas que articulare en su tiempo y lugar; y en esta deposicion lo muestra no obscuramente, porque demas 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 ineditos, vol. XI): 'Item si saben etc. que... fray Diego Rodriguez, o de Zuniga por otro nombre, se desmando..., y que alli se ordeno que castigasen al dicho fray Diego Rodriguez o Zuniga' (p. 335). 'Item si saben etc. que en un acto,... el dicho fray Diego Rodriguez o Zuniga,...' (p. 336). 'Item si saben etc. que el dicho Rodriguez o Zuniga, de algunos anos a esta parte, ha mostrado en sus palabras y platicas tener enemistad y mala voluntad al dicho maestro fray Luis, hablando mal del 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 ansi' (p. 336).]

[Footnote 110: Pedro de Rojas refers to the fact 'quel dicho fray Diego Rodriguez o Zuniga paso algunas palabras descorteses con el padre Cueto,...' (Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 345).]

[Footnote 111: C. Muinos Saenz, Fr. Luis de Leon y Fr. Diego de Zuniga (El Escorial, [1915]), pp. 47, 245.]

[Footnote 112: C. Muinos Saenz, op. cit., p. 58.]

[Footnote 113: C. Muinos Saenz, op. cit., pp. 57, 64.]

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

[Footnote 115: C. Muinos Saenz, op. cit., p. 48.]

[Footnote 116: C. Muinos Saenz, op. cit., pp. 224-240.]

[Footnote 117: He became professor of Scripture at Osuna in 1575. See F. Rodriguez Marin, Cervantes y la Universidad de Osuna in Homenaje a Menendez 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 Muinos Saenz (op. cit., pp. 19-20), who refers to his brother-Augustinian, M. Gutierrez, 'la doctrina copernicana pugnaba con la opinion generalizada en las escuelas, y tuvo en Espana impugnadores que, como Pineda, y con referencia personal a Zuniga, la calificaron de falsa, no sin anadir que, a juicio de otros autores, merecia las calificaciones de temeraria, peligrosa y opuesta al sentir de la Sagrada Escritura.' It seems likely that Zuniga 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 Zuniga'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 ineditos, vol. X, p. 374) the circumstances as follows: 'Dijome un dia ansi por estas palabras que el Papa tenia gran noticia de su persona y le estimaba en mucho; y tras desto refiriome 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 anadio que habia enviado al Papa un tratadillo que habia compuesto, porque Su Santidad tenia deseo como el decia, de ver alguna cosa suya; y mostromele para que yo le viese... Visto, porque me pidio mi parecer y yo soy claro, dijele que quisiera que una cosa que enviaba a lugar tan senalado por muestra de su ingenio, fuera de mas substancia, o que a 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 el sacado de su estudio y no de los libros ordinarios. Respondiome que era gran verdad que el con su trabajo los habia notado en la Biblia sin ayudarse de otro libro; y creolo porque no se precia de leer ni aun a los sanctos, y promete que de improviso dira 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. Dijele mas que no debiera, porque para su condicion fue palabra dura.']

[Footnote 120: Documentos ineditos, 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 capitulo provincial... que habra diez o once anos que se hizo en la villa de Duenas, fray Diego Rodriguez, o de Zuniga por otro nombre, se desmando en palabras con fray Francisco Cueto, el cual era en aquel capitulo definidor mayor, y que el dicho Cueto se quejo del dicho fray Diego en definitorio al provincial fray Diego Lopez y a los definidores presentes, de los cuales era uno el dicho maestro fray Luis, y que alli se ordeno que castigasen al dicho fray Diego Rodriguez o Zuniga, y que otro dia en ejecucion dello el dicho provincial le dio 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 Zuniga 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 ineditos, 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 a lo que puede imaginar de la condicion del dicho fray Diego [Rodriguez o Zuniga] no dejaria de creer que es ansi, porque es recio de condicion y algo vengativo, y tras esto siempre le ha visto enemigo declarado contra fray Diego Lopez, y tambien ha visto que despues aca nunca vio amistad entre los dichos fray Diego y fray Luis.']

[Footnote 122: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, pp. 67 and 71. Zuniga 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 anos', and again, 'predicador, profeso de la orden de Sanct Agustin... de la dicha ciudad de Toledo, e dijo ser de edad de treinta y seis anos'. 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. (Muinos Saenz, op. cit., pp. 64-67.)]

[Footnote 123: See the previous note.]

[Footnote 124: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 305: '...era mancebo y melancolico, y le parescio a este que habia ido muy adelante en imaginar mal del dicho Benito Arias;...']

[Footnote 125: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, pp. 68-69. The following is Zuniga's account of what occurred: 'Item dijo que habra trece anos estando en Salamanca por huesped, le dijo Fr. Luis de Leon en su celda, que habia venido a sus manos un libro estranamente 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 vio en la oscuridad una luz, y que della oyo que salia una voz que dijo: Quomodo obscuratum est aurum, mutatus est color optimus! y que temiendose este declarante no fuese algun mal libro, le habia mucha instancia que le dijese si habia en el alguna herejia, y que el dicho Fr. Luis de Leon le respondio que en lo de confesion le parescia que decia una herejia, y que entonces este declarante le dijo que quitase alla tal libro y tal revelacion como decia; y que con esto no le dijo mas el dicho fray Luis de Leon; y que despues formo este declarante escrupulo si estaba obligado a denunciar de aquello que le habia dicho, y que lo pregunto a dos personas de ciencia y consciencia, religiosos de su orden, y le dijeron que si;... Y este declarante determinado de denunciar, pregunto al dicho Fray Luis de Leon a 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 altero con esta pregunta, y le dijo muy encarescidamente que era muy buen cristiano, y en prueba dello mostro a este declarante una carta que le habia escripto el dicho Arias Montano en que le daba muy buenos consejos:...']

[Footnote 126: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 369. In relation to Montoya, Luis de Leon says: 'Y cuanto toca al capitulo tercero, si yo no temiera aquella sentencia Maledici 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 a otro sin pedir al perlado licencia, de las cuales este hombre religioso no hace escrupulo. Y esta fuera su merecida respuesta; pero aunque el hable lo que ni sabe ni debe, yo mirare lo que debo a mi habito y a mi persona.']

[Footnote 127: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, pp. 217-218.]

[Footnote 128: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 13-14.]

[Footnote 129: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 14.]

[Footnote 130: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 14-15.]

[Footnote 131: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 15.]

[Footnote 132: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 15-16.]

[Footnote 133: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 12-13.]

[Footnote 134: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 21.]

[Footnote 135: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 22.]

[Footnote 136: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 316-318, 325.]

[Footnote 137: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 317.]

[Footnote 138: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 29-30.]

[Footnote 139: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 30-35.]

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

[Footnote 141: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 35-36.]

[Footnote 142: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 36.]

[Footnote 143: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 37. The instructions of the Supreme Inquisition to the Valladolid judges were as follows: 'En lo que escrebis quel maestro fray Luis de Leon ha recusado al maestro Mancio, que le habia nombrado por patrono, y pedido traslado de lo que dejo escripto en su negocio; consultado con el Reverendisimo Senor Inquisidor general, ha parecido aviseis, Senores, al dicho maestro Mancio que no vuelva ahi hasta que otra cosa se le ordene, y proseguireis 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 dejo anotado en el; 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 Senor vuestras muy Reverendas personas.' This letter was signed in Madrid on November 4, 1574.]

[Footnote 144: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 41-42: 'Digo que yo nombre por mi patron al maestro Mancio catredatico de prima de teulugia en Salamanca, el cual habiendo comenzado a ver mi negocio se ha ausentado a leer su catreda, y porque pudiendo facilmente dar su parecer se ha hecho vehementisimamente sospechoso que es participe y companero en la maldad que contra mi ha intentado fray Bartolome de Medina, fraile de su orden y casa, porque conforme a derecho no carece de sociedad oculta el que deja de obrar a tan manifiesta malicia; y siendo obligado a defenderme por el juramento que se le tomo y por haber empezado el negocio, en desampararme cometio grandisimo pecado, porque conforme a derecho tambien es falso testigo el que deja de decir verdad cuando es obligado a la decir, como el que dice falso testimonio. Y la causa de ir a leer su catreda no le escusa, porque mi defensa se habia de hacer en muy pocos dias, y estando el impedido por Vs. Mds. ni habia de perder la catreda ni multarle en ella, ni los estudiantes recibian detrimento considerable, porque en las catredas de propriedad se asignan lecturas que no las acaban, y el sostituto podia leer de lo del cabo de la asignatura si el queria leer del principio como lo hacen los catredaticos de propiedad que al principio de Sant Lucas estan impedidos.']

[Footnote 145: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 44.]

[Footnote 146: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 45-46.]

[Footnote 147: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 46: '...suplico a Vs. Mds. le manden que con brevedad se resuelva y de su parecer, y ansi mismo suplico, y con el acatamiento que debo requiero a Vs. Mds. manden que ansi 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 a ello, y yo le nombre por patron debajo desta condicion, y no en otra manera,...']

[Footnote 148: Documentos ineditos, 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 asi ciertas y llanas las que yo he afirmado, que decir lo contrario es o temeridad o error; y porque cuando las comunique con el, me dijo claramente delante de Vs. Mds. que eran cosas llanas; pero si por caso hubiese otra cosa, digo que no me danan 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;...

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

[Footnote 149: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 52.]

[Footnote 150: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 52-53.]

[Footnote 151: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 53-55.]

[Footnote 152: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 315: '...suplico a Vs. Mds. sean servidos que se me de entera noticia de todo lo que hay contra mi, por que despues de tantos meses parece justo que yo sepa por que fui preso, lo cual no alcanzo hasta agora por las deposiciones que he visto; y que pueda responder por mi 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 ineditos, 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 juridica ni necesaria,... y yo, dilatandose 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 a mis testigos;...' See also Documentos ineditos, vol. X, pp. 474 and 563.]

[Footnote 154: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 183: 'Fuele dicho que en este Santo Oficio naide se prende sin causa de culpa que tenga en cosas que sean contra nuestra santa fe catolica; por tanto que se le amonesta por reverencia de nuestro Senor Jesucristo y su bendita madre, que diga enteramente la verdad; y haciendolo ansi de lo que sabe de su persona y de otros, se usara con el de mucha misericordia: donde no, que se hara justicia.']

[Footnote 155: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 184.]

[Footnote 156: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 151-186.]

[Footnote 157: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 77: 'Preguntado que es lo que quiere: dijo quel ha entendido quel P. maestro fray Luis de Leon, catredatico de Salamanca de la orden de Senor San Agustin, esta preso en la Inquisicion de Valladolid; y que habia un mes que estando este en el convento de la dicha ciudad de la dicha orden, 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 quel habia ayudado muchas veces a decir misa al dicho fray Luis de Leon en su celda en Salamanca, y que siempre se la oyo 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 paseandose en el monasterio desta ciudad. Y en lo que dice que ha un mes que se lo dijo, no esta bien cierto, sino que de tres meses a esta parte se lo oyo 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 ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 268-272, 273-275, 286-290, 293-294.]

[Footnote 159: The Licentiate Diego Gonzalez, Doctor Guijano de Mercado, and the Licentiate Andres de Alava gave the following ruling (Documentos ineditos, 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 anadidas en otras dellos dadas, que van senalados, les paresce son impertinentes, y que no se debe hacer diligencias por ellos.']

[Footnote 160: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 200.]

[Footnote 161: Documentos ineditos, 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 ineditos, 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 sanctisimo celo que le pudo poner esta nueva, parescio delante de Vs. Mds. en tantos de hebrero del dicho ano [1571] a hacer esta segunda declaracion, donde comenzo a descubrir mas la piedad de su buen animo; y ansi como no tenia de nuevo cosa particular que decir de mi,... dice confusamente que me sintio inclinado a novedades agenas de la antigueedad de nuestra fe y religion, en lo cual si este testigo tuviese conciencia..., habia de senalar en particular algunas novedades que hubiese visto en mi doctrina, o oido en mis disputas;... Demas desto si es verdad que sintio de mi lo que dice ?por que en la deposicion primera que hizo por el diciembre no lo declaro? Pues ninguna cosa de las que entonces declaro es tan pesada como es esto si fuera verdad. Y por la misma causa no es creible que lo dejo por olvido habiendose 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 ineditos, vol. X, p. 347): 'Y hecha la censura, y leyendola yo a los sobredichos maestros que me estaban esperando, me acuerdo que llegando a aquellas palabras anadidas dije: "Estas puse mas de lo que Vs. Mds. ordenaron por contentar al Senor maestro Leon"; y volvime a el riyendo, y dijele: "alomenos hoy no podra decir sino que le tengo bien contento"; y ansi con risa y muy en paz y amistad nos levantamos todos, y quedo ordenada y firmada la dicha censura.']

[Footnote 163: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 303: 'A la decima 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 a cualquiera con quien se pusiese, pudiera llevar cualquier catreda, y mas la d'Escriptura.']

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

[Footnote 165: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 210: '...este declarante... jamas leyo ningun rabino,...' Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 295: 'Al capitulo octavo dijo que este nunca defendio interpretaciones de judios por ser de judios, ni en su vida ha leido comentario de judios...']

[Footnote 166: Documentos ineditos, 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 fue mi maestro,...' (Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 239).]

[Footnote 168: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 388.]

[Footnote 169: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 510.]

[Footnote 170: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 147.]

[Footnote 171: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 305: 'Al segundo capitulo dijo que como tiene declarado en sus confesiones, ha once o doce anos que desde Salamanca vino este confesante no a otra cosa, sino a dar cuenta a los Senores Inquisidores de aquel libro en vida de los Senores Inquisidores Guigelmo y Riego, y lo dio por escripto, porque a este le parescio que aunque tenia el dicho libro muchas cosas catolicas, tenia otras que le parescian a 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 a el, como lo declaro por el dicho escripto al cual se remite.']

[Footnote 172: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 303-304.]

[Footnote 173: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, pp. 200-202: 'Tambien estando escribiendo esto se me ha ofrecido a la memoria que habra como ano y medio que en Salamanca un estudiante licenciado en canones, que se llamaba el licenciado Poza, que me leia principios de astrologia, me dijo un dia que el tenia un cartapacio de cosas curiosas, y que tenia algun escrupulo 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. Vile a ratos, y habia en el cosas curiosas, y otras que tocaban a sigillos astrologicos, y otras que claramente eran de cercos y invocaciones, aunque a la verdad todo ello me parecia que aun en aquella arte era burleria. Y acusome que leyendo este libro, para ver la vanidad del, probe un sigillo astrologico, y en un poco de plomo que me dio el mismo licenciado, con un cuchillo pinte no me acuerdo que rayas, y dije unas palabras que eran sanctas, y proteste que las decia al sentido que en ellas pretendio el Espiritu Sancto, acordandome que Cayetano en la Suma cuenta de si haber probado una cosa semejante con la misma protestacion, para ver y mostrar la vanidad della; y asi todo aquello parecio 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 facil, aunque de hecho no la probe, porque mude la voluntad. Yo quise quemar este libro en presencia de su dueno, y esperandole un dia que me habia de venir a ver, supe que dos dias antes se habia ido a Avila, huyendo de la enfermedad de pintas que andaba entonces en Salamanca; y asi le queme aquella noche en mi celda en una chimenea que hay en ella. Y a todo lo que agora me puedo acordar, me parece que estaba conmigo entonces el padre fray Bartolome de Carranza, y que me pregunto por que quemaba aquello, y se lo dije. Este estudiante me escribio pocos dias despues preguntandome por el libro: yo no le respondi, porque no hubo con quien, ni despues aca he sabido ni oido mas del, porque no volvio mas a Salamanca, ni yo me he acordado del 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 pregunte ni lo se.']

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

[Footnote 175: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 193: 'Por todo lo cual digo que es notorio y manifiesto que en mi no hay conforme a 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 ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 19, 142, 149.]

[Footnote 177: Documentos ineditos, vol. X, p. 385: 'Item ello en si no tiene ninguna verosimilitud ni apariencia de verdad porque ?en que 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 publico como es un convite? Porque si lo echan a donaire, demas de ser muy necio donaire, y muy sin orden, 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 a 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 a voces, ni en publico, sino muy en particular y muy en secreto, y muy despues de haber conocido y tratado a los que los dicen, y fiandose mucho dellos, y a fin de persuadir y no de reir. Y cuando en esto hubiera testimonios contra mi mas claros y mas ciertos que el sol, antes de creello habian Vs. Mds. informarse de si aquel dia habia yo perdido el seso o si estaba borracho, porque si no era asi no era creible cosa semejante.']

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

[Footnote 179: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 228-230: '...no me parece que hay cosa contra la fe, ni doctrina erronea, temeraria o escandalosa. Mas no puede el autor excusarse de gran culpa en haber tratado materia y cuestion semejante en estos tiempos, y leidola a 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 osadia y poca reverencia a la edicion Vulgata que la iglesia catolica nos da por autentica. Y aunque las palabras y razones y autoridades de doctores con que el autor procede, no sean en si malas; pero piden auditorio muy pio, muy docto y muy atento para no tomar de aqui ocasion a tener en poco nuestra Biblia latina, y errar.... Mas no todas las verdades se han de sacar a plaza, ni todos los oyentes son capaces dellas; y por doctrina suelen sacar errores y escandalo, y tal es esto: porque el oficio del teologo en publicas 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 o sospecha en la fe, ni ser proposiciones escandalosas.

De la proposicion 4 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. Cancer. Cancer 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 ineditos, vol. X, pp. 122-127—Cancer wrote, concerning one of Luis de Leon's tenets: 'Haec propositio est irrisoria, injuriosa, temeraria et... haeretica in 2 gradu...']

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

[Footnote 181: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 295: 'Y hacerseha todo luego porque importa la brevedad, y vendra esta por cabeza de todo.']

[Footnote 182: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 195: '...y hecho esto pasareis adelante con el negocio como os esta 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 Salva and Sainz de Baranda. It can scarcely be a mere misprint.]

[Footnote 183: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 351-353: 'Al margen se halla la siguiente nota. "Cuando este proceso se comenzo a ver y hasta la mitad del, se hallaron a la vista los Senores licenciados Juan de Ibarra y Don Hernando Nino, y no lo votaron por no poderlo acabar de ver por estar enfermos." En la villa de Valladolid a veinte e ocho dias del mes de setiembre de mill y quinientos y setenta y seis anos, habiendo visto los Senores licenciado D. Francisco de Menchaca del Consejo de S.M., e dotor Guijano de Mercado, e licenciado Andres de Alava Inquisidores, juntamente con los Senores licenciado Luis Tello Maldonado, D. Pedro de Castro, Francisco de Albornoz, oidores desta Real audiencia e chancilleria, asistiendo a ello por ordinario del obispado de Salamanca el Senor doctor Frechilla catredatico en esta universidad, por virtud del poder que para ello tiene del Senor obispo de Salamanca, que esta en el secreto deste Sancto Oficio, el proceso criminal de fray Luis de Leon, de la orden de Sancto Agustin; los dichos Senores le votaron en la forma siguiente.

Los dichos Senores licenciados Menchaca, Alava, Luis Tello y Albornoz, dijeron que son de voto y parecer que el dicho fray Luis de Leon sea puesto a queistion de tormento sobre la intencion y lo indiciado y testificado, y sobre las proposiciones que estan cualificadas por hereticas, no embargante que los teologos digan ultimamente que satisface, entendiendolo como el, respondiendo a ellas, dice que lo entendio; y que el tormento se le de moderado, atento que el reo es delicado: y con lo que del resultare, se torne a veer y determinar.

Los dichos Senores Inquisidores doctor Guijano, e Frechilla, ordinario, dijeron que atento lo que los calificadores que ultimamente vieron las proposiciones cargadas al reo, y lo que el y su patron responden a 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 escandalo 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 e ambigueas, y que pudieron dar escandalo, que se le daran en escripto en un memorial ordenado por los teologos calificantes con la declaracion que ellos ordenaren; y que extrajudicialmente se diga a su perlado que sin privacion ni otra declaracion, mande a este reo emplear sus estudios en otras cosas de su facultad en que aproveche a la republica, y se abstenga de leer publicamente en escuelas ni en otra partes, y que el libro de los Canticos, traducido en romance, se prohiba y recoja, siendo dello servido el Illmo. Senor Inquisidor General y Senores del Consejo. Y que los libros y papeles pertenecientes a los cargos deste proceso se retengan en este Sancto Oficio.

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

[Footnote 184: The peremptory letter of the Supreme Inquisition to the Valladolid tribunal is printed in Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 354: 'Aqui se ha visto el proceso contra fray Luis de Leon, de la orden de Sant Agustin, preso en esas carceles, y va determinado como vereis por lo que al fin del va asentado. Aquello se ejecutara. Y advertireis a este reo que guarde mucho secreto de todo lo que con el ha pasado y toca a su proceso; y que no tenga pasion ni disensiones con persona alguna, sospechando que haya testificado contra el en esta su causa; porque de todo lo que a esto tocare se tratara en el Sancto Oficio, y no se podra dejar de proveer en ello justicia con rigor. Hacerloeis, Senores, asi. Guarde nuestro Senor vuestras muy Reverendas personas. En Madrid siete de diciembre 1576.'

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

'En la villa de Madrid a siete dias del mes de diciembre de mill y quinientos y setenta y seis anos, habiendo visto los Senores del Consejo de S.M. de la Sancta general Inquisicion, el proceso de pleito criminal contra fray Luis de Leon, de la orden de Sant Agustin, preso en las carceles 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 aqui 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 escandalo 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 ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 354-357), for this closely follows the terms employed by the Supreme Inquisition.]

[Footnote 186: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 356.]

[Footnote 187: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, pp. 357-358: 'El maestro fray Luis de Leon suplico a 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 fui absuelto de la instancia[A] que contra mi 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 a mis ordenes y oficio, y sin penitencia ni nota alguna.

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

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

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

[Footnote 188: Documentos ineditos, vol. XI, p. 358: 'En 13 de agosto de 1577 anos, por mandado de los senores Inquisidores saque esta sentencia de fray Luis, signada, e la entregue al Senor Inquisidor doctor Guijano. Sacose 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 Bartolome 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. Bartolome 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 Banez 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 Castaneda, a Benedictine,[219] advanced views very similar to those of Montemayor; Domingo Banez, whose relations with Luis de Leon were never cordial, was even more emphatic than his brother-Dominican, Domingo de Guzman, and denounced Castaneda's views as savouring of Pelagianism. A sharp passage of arms followed between Banez and Luis de Leon,[220] and, after some exchange of argument, Banez professed to be satisfied with Castaneda'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 visperas against Domingo Banez.[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 Andres 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 Solis, a learned lawyer, was dispatched to Madrid to give advice on legal points; Solis 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 cedula 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 Jesus 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 Jesus 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 Nicolas de Jesus 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 Bernabe del Marmol 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. Marmol 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 Jose de Jesus 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.