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

Aqui la envidia y mentira
me tuvieron encerrado--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




IV


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GUZMAN                      CERVANTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 226: Even in his official _calificacion_ Joan de la Cruz