[Footnote 33: 'Es muy santo... Tiene mucho caudal de Dios'. These

encomiastic phrases of the pious nun's are quoted by Blanco García
(_op. cit._, p. 245) from Angel Manrique, _Vida de la Venerable Ana de
Jesús_ (Bruselas, 1632), p. 328. Manrique's biography is not within my
reach.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




III


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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