Chapter 2

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

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

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

II

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 7: See note 1.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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