Produced by Stan Goodman, Pilar Somoza and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team
HISPANIC
NOTES & MONOGRAPHS
ESSAYS, STUDIES, AND BRIEF
BIOGRAPHIES ISSUED BY THE
HISPANIC SOCIETY OF AMERICA
I
[Illustration: EL MAESTRO FRAI LVIS DE LEON]
FRAY LUIS
DE LEON
A Biographical Fragment
BY
JAMES FITZMAURICE KELLY, F.B.A.
_With a Portrait from
an engraving after Pacheco_.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
HUMPHREY MILFORD
1921
PRINTED IN ENGLAND
AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
BY FREDERICK HALL
PREFACE
This biographical sketch is, in fact, a fragment of a book which will
now never come into existence. This particular chapter has been
snatched from the burning by an accident. The name of Luis de Leon
deservedly ranks as high as that of any poet in the history of Spanish
literature; but his reputation as a poet is mostly local, while he is
known all the world over as the subject of a dubious anecdote. The
attempt is now made to render him more familiar than he has hitherto
been to English-speaking people, and to do this, to exhibit the man as
he was, it proved necessary to analyse the two volumes of his first
trial, the evidence of which is brought together in vols. X and XI of
the _Coleccion de Documentos inéditos para la Historia de España_.
Edited by Miguel Salvá and Pedro Sainz de Baranda, these volumes
appeared in 1847; their value is incontestable, but, though they give
the evidence as it occurs in the register of the Inquisition, this
evidence is not arranged in consistent chronological order, nor is it
supplied with an index. The work, printed seventy-three years ago, is
not within easy reach of every reader; and of those who have access to
it not all are patient enough to read steadily through so large a mass
of somewhat incoherent matter. Should any such readers be tempted to
examine the record closely, it is hoped that this sketch will do
something to make their task easier. An attempt is made here to
picture the man as he was, full of fortitude, yet not exempt from
human weakness. I trust that I have avoided the temptation to go to
the opposite extreme, and lay the blame--as has been done--for the
irregularities of the trial at Luis de Leon's own door.
In dealing with his Spanish poems, I have tried not to put his claims
to consideration too high. Laboulaye, in _La Liberté religieuse_,
calls Luis de Leon 'le premier lyrique de l'Europe moderne'. This
phrase dates from 1859, and was addressed to a generation which
delighted in arranging authors in something like the order of a class
list. Though I have the highest opinion of Luis de Leon's genius, I
have not felt tempted to follow Laboulaye's example; I have by
preference discussed, so far as space allows, such points as the
probable chronology of Luis de Leon's poems. Once more I repeat that
this is a chapter of a book that will now never be written.
It may be as well to add at this point a few explanatory words
concerning the plan of accentuation adopted here. There seems to be no
valid reason for applying, in a book primarily intended for English
readers, the modern Academic system to proper names borne in the
sixteenth century by men who lived more than three hundred years
before the current system was ever invented. Except of course in the
case of quotations, that system is applied rigidly only to the names
of those who have adopted it formally (as on pp. 114 _n._ and 191
_n._). I have gone on the theory that accents should be sparingly used
in a work of this kind, and that, as accents are almost needless for
Spaniards they should be employed only when the needs of foreigners
compel their use. It is a fundamental rule in Spanish that nearly all
words ending in a consonant should be stressed on the last syllable.
But since nobody, however slightly acquainted with Spanish, is tempted
to pronounce such words as Velazquez (p. 79) or Gomez (p. 250)
incorrectly, no graphic accent is employed in such cases. Names ending
in _s_--such as Valbás--are accentuated, however, when the stress
falls on the last syllable: this prevents all possibility of
confusion with the pronunciation of ordinary plural forms.
Place-names--such as Béjar (p. 58) and Córdoba (p. 184)--are
accentuated; so are trisyllables and polysyllables such as Góngora (p.
209) and Zúñiga (p. 57 and elsewhere). It will be seen that, in this
matter, I have been guided by strictly utilitarian principles.
Inconsistencies are perhaps unavoidable under any system. The plan
followed here, while it tends to diminish the total number of accents,
probably involves no more inconsistencies than any other. It is based
on rational grounds, and is, it may be hoped, less offensive to the
eye than the current system. Quotations, I repeat, are reproduced
exactly as they stand in the sources from which they profess to be
taken.
With these words, I close what I have to say here on this subject and
commend these pages to the indulgent judgement of my readers.
The following works, or articles, may be usefully consulted by the
student of Spanish.
EDITIONS. LUIS DE LEON: _Obras_, ed. A. Merino, Madrid, 1804-5-6-16. 6
vols. [reprinted with a preface, by C. Muiños Sáenz, Madrid, 1885, 6
vols.]; _Biblioteca de Autores Españoles_, vols. XXXV, XXXVII, LIII,
LXI, and LXII; _De los nombres de Cristo_, ed. F. de Onís, Madrid,
1914-1917 [Clásicos castellanos, vols. XXVIII and XXXIII]; _La
perfecta casada_, ed. E. Wallace, Chicago, 1903; _La perfecta casada_,
ed. A. Bonilla y San Martín, Madrid, 1917; _El perfecto predicador_,
ed. C. Muiños Saenz in _La Ciudad de Dios_ (1886), vol. XI, pp.
340-348, 432-447, 527-537; (1886), vol. XII, pp. 15-25, 104-111,
211-218, 322-330, 420-427, 504-512; (1887), vol. XIII, pp. 32-38,
106-114, 213-222, 302-312; (1887), vol. XIV, pp. 9-17, 154-160,
305-315, 449-459, 581-591, 729-743; _Exposition del Miserere_
[facsimile of the Barcelona ed. of 1632], ed. A.M. Huntington, New
York, 1903.
WORKS OF REFERENCE: _Proceso original que la Inquisicion de Valladolid
hizo al maestro Fr. Luis de Leon, religioso del órden de S. Agustin_,
ed. M. Salvá and P. Sainz de Baranda, in _Coleccion de Documentos
inéditos para la Historia de España_ (Madrid, 1847), vol. X, pp.
5-575, and vol. XI, pp. 5-358; J. Gonzalez de Tejada, _Vida de Fray
Luis de Leon_ (Madrid, 1863); C.A. Wilkens, _Fray Luis de Leon_
(Halle, 1866); A. Arango y Escandon, _Frai Luis de Leon, ensayo
histórico_, 2ª ed. (Mexico, 1866) [the first edition appeared in _La
Cruz_ (Mexico, 1855-56)]; F.H. Reusch, _Luis de Leon und die spanische
Inquisition_ (Bonn, 1873); M. Gutiérrez, _El misticismo ortodoxo_
(Valladolid, 1886); M. Gutiérrez, _Fray Luis de León y la filosofía
española del siglo_ XVI, 2ª ed. aumentada (Madrid, 1891) [_Adiciones
póstumas_ in _La Ciudad de Dios_ (1907), vol. LXXIII, pp. 391-399,
478-494, 662-667; vol. LXXIV, pp. 49-55, 303-414, 487-496, 628-643; in
_La Ciudad de Dios_ (1908), vol. LXXV, pp. 34-47, 215-221, 291-303,
472-486]; J.M. Guardia, _Fray Luis de Leon ou la poésie dans le
cloître_, in the _Revue germanique_ (1863), vol. XXIV, pp. 307-342; M.
Menéndez y Pelayo, _Horacio en España, Solaces bibliográficas_ 2ª ed.
(Madrid, 1885), vol. I, pp. 11-24, vol. II, pp. 26-36; M. Menéndez y
Pelayo, _Estudios de crítica literaria_, 1ª serie (Madrid, 1893), pp.
1-72; F. Blanco García, _Segundo proceso instruído por la Inquisición
de Valladolid contra Fray Luis de León_ (Madrid, 1896); F. Blanco
García, _Fray Luis de León: rectificaciones biográficas_, in the
_Homenaje a Menéndez y Pelayo_ (Madrid, 1899), vol. I, pp. 153-160;
J.D.M. Ford, _Luis de León, the Spanish poet, humanist and mystic_, in
the _Publications of the Modern Language Association of America_
(Baltimore, 1899), vol. XIV, pp. 267-278; F. Blanco García, _Fr. Luis
de León: estudio biográfico del insigne poeta agustino_ (Madrid,
1904); _Acta de la reposición de Fray Luis de León en una cátedra de
la Universidad de Salamanca_ in the _Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas
y Museos_, Tercera época (1900), vol. IV, pp. 680-682; L.G. Alonso
Getino, _La Causa de Fr. Luis de León ante la crítica y los nuevos
documentos históricos_, in the _Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y
Museos_, Tercera época (1903), vol. IX, pp. 148-156, 268-279, 440-449;
(1904), vol. XI, pp. 288-306, 380-397; C. Muiños Sáenz, _El 'Decíamos
ayer' de Fray Luis de León_, (Madrid, 1905); L. Alonso Getino, _Vida y
procesos del maestro Fr. Luis de León_ (Salamanca, 1907); C. Muiños
Sáenz _El 'Decíamos ayer'... y otros excesos_, in _La Ciudad de Dios_
(1909), vol. LXXVIII, pp. 479-495, 544-560; vol. LXXIX, pp. 18-34,
107-124, 191-212, 353-374, 529-552; vol. LXXX pp. 99-125, 177-197; F.
de Onís _Sobre la trasmisión de la obra literaria de Fray Luis de
León_, in the _Revista de Filología Española_ (Madrid, 1915), vol. II
pp. 217-257; R. Menéndez Pidal, _Una poesia inédita de Fray Luis de
León_, in the _Revista de Filología Española_ (Madrid, 1917), vol. IV,
pp. 389-390; C. Pérez Pastor, _Bibliografía madrileña_ (Madrid,
1891-1906-1907), parte ii, pp. 254-255, and parte iii, pp. 404-409; G.
Vázquez Núñez, _El padre Francisco Zumel, general de la Merced y
catedrático de Salamanca_ (1540-1607), in _Revista de Archivos,
Bibliotecas y Museos_, Tercera época (1918), vol. XXXVIII, pp. 1-19,
170-190; (1918), vol. XXXIX, pp. 53-67, 237-266; (1919), vol. XL, pp.
447-466, 562-594.
J. F-K.
PS. Had they reached me in time, the following two items would have
been included in the respective sections of the foregoing summary
bibliography: _Poesías originales de Fray Luis de León_, ed. F. de
Onís, San José de Costa Rica, 1920; Ad. Coster, _Notes pour une
édition des poésies de Luis de León_ in the _Revue hispanique_ (1919),
vol. XLVI, pp. 193-248.
I
We are all of us familiar with the process of 'whitewashing'
historical characters. We are past being surprised at finding Tiberius
portrayed as an austere and melancholy recluse, Henry VIII pictured as
a pietistic sentimentalist with a pedantic respect for the letter of
the law, and Napoleon depicted as a romantic idealist, seeking to
impose the Social Contract on an immature, reluctant Europe. Though
the 'whitewashing' method is probably not less paradoxical than the
opposite system, it makes a stronger and wider appeal, inasmuch as it
implies a more amiable attitude towards life, and is more consonant
with a flattering conception of the possibilities of human nature. A
prosaic narrative of established facts does not immediately recommend
itself to the average man. Possibly few have existed who were so good
and so great that they can afford to have the whole truth told about
them. At any rate, it is easier to convey a picturesque general
impression than to collect all the available evidence with the
untiring persistence of a model detective and to present it with the
impartial acumen of a competent judge. Moreover, the inertia of
pre-existing opinion has to be overcome. Once readers have been
accustomed to accept as absolutely authentic an idealized conventional
portrait of a man of genius, it is difficult to induce them to abandon
it for a more realistic likeness. In the interest of historical truth,
however, the attempt must be made. We are sometimes told that
'historical truth can afford to wait'. That may be true; but it has
waited for nearly four centuries, and, if it be divulged in English
now, the revelation lays us open to no reasonable charge of
indiscretion or indecent haste.
It may be that the name of Luis de Leon is comparatively unknown
outside the small group of those who are regarded as specialists.
Luis de Leon is nothing like so famous as Cervantes, as Lope de Vega,
as Tirso de Molina, as Ruiz de Alarcon, and as Calderon, whose names,
if not their works, are familiar to the laity. This is one of chance's
unjust caprices. With the single exception of Cervantes perhaps no
figure in the annals of Spanish literature deserves to be more
celebrated than Luis de Leon. He was great in verse, great in prose,
great in mysticism, great in intellectual force and moral courage.
Many may recall him as the hero of a story--possibly apocryphal--in
which he figures as returning to his professorial chair after an
absence of over four years (passed in the prison-cells of the
Inquisition) and beginning his exordium to his students with the
imperturbable remark: 'We were saying yesterday.' Mainly on this
uncertain basis is constructed the current legend that Luis de Leon
was a bloodless philosopher, incapable of resentment, and, indeed,
without a touch of human weakness in his aloof and lofty nature. His
works do not lend colour to this presentation of the man, nor do the
ascertainable details of his chequered career. The conception of Luis
de Leon as a meek spirit, an unresisting victim of malignant
persecution, is not the sole view tenable of a complex character.
However, the recorded facts may be trusted to speak for themselves.
II
What was Luis de Leon's full name? Was it Luis Ponce de Leon? So it
would appear from the summarized results of P. Mendez printed in the
_Revista Agustiniana_.[1] The point is not without interest, for Ponce
de Leon is one of the great historic names of Spain. If Luis de Leon
was entitled to use it, he appears not to have exercised his right,
for in the report of his first trial[2] he consistently employs some
such simple formula as:--'El maestro fray Luis de Leon... digo'.[3]
The omission of the name 'Ponce' during proceedings extending over
more than four years can scarcely be accidental. It may, however, have
been due to monastic humility,[4] or to simple prudence: a desire not
to provoke opponents who declared that Luis de Leon had Jewish blood
in his veins.[5] Whether this assertion, a serious one in
sixteenth-century Spain, had any foundation in fact is disputed. It
is apparently certain that Luis de Leon's great-grandfather married a
Leonor de Villanueva, who is reported to have confessed to practising
Jewish rites and to have been duly condemned by the Inquisition in
1513 or thereabouts.[6] This does not go to the root of the matter,
for Leonor de Villanueva is alleged to have been Lope de Leon's second
wife. His first wife is stated to have been Leonor Sanchez de
Olivares, a lady of unquestioned orthodoxy, and mother of Gomez de
Leon,[7] the future grandfather of the Luis de Leon with whom we are
concerned here. If this statement be correct,[8] obviously there can
be no ground for asserting that Luis de Leon was of Jewish blood. But
it must in candour be admitted that the point is not wholly clear from
doubt.[9]
It is now established that Luis de Leon was born at Belmonte in the
province of Cuenca: 'Belmonte de la Mancha de Aragon' as he calls
it.[10] When was he born? On his tombstone, he was stated to be
sixty-four years old when he died on August 23, 1591.[11] This is
almost the only scrap of evidence available, for no baptismal
registers dating back to the third decade of the sixteenth century are
preserved at Belmonte.[12] Did the inscription on Luis de Leon's tomb
mean that he had completed his sixty-fourth year, or did it mean that,
at the time of his death, he had entered upon his sixty-fourth year?
According to the answer given to these questions, the date of Luis de
Leon's birth must be fixed either in 1527 or 1528.
Apart from the fact that Luis de Leon was taught singing,[13] as
became the future friend of Salinas, we know next to nothing of his
early youth. From himself we learn that he was taken from Belmonte to
Madrid when he was five or six, that at the age of fourteen he was
entered at Salamanca University, where one of his uncles--Francisco de
Leon--was lecturer on Canon Law, and that shortly afterwards he
resolved to enter a religious order.[14] The eldest son of a
judge,[15] Luis de Leon renounced most of his share of the paternal
estate,[16] and gave it up to one--or both--of his younger brothers
Cristóbal and Miguel, each of whom had been _veinticuatro_ of Granada
at some date previous to April 15, 1572.[17] On January 29, 1544, Luis
de Leon was formally professed in the Augustinian order.[18] In his
monastery we may plausibly conjecture that he led a solitary and
bookish existence, poring over his texts and attending lectures
assiduously. As early as 1546-1547 his name appears on the list of
students of theology at Salamanca; the registers of theological
students covering the years 1547-1548 to 1550-1551 are missing; Luis
de Leon's name does not appear in the register for the academic year
1551-1552, but it recurs in the University books for the years
1552-1553 and 1554-1555. He there figures still as a student of
theology.[19] He would seem, therefore, to have shown no amazing
precocity in the schools; but his application, we may be sure, was
intense, and there is nothing rash in assuming that during part of
the two years that he was absent, as he tells us,[20] from Salamanca,
he was lecturing at Soria. The remaining eighteen months he probably
devoted to exegetical studies at Alcalá de Henares, where he
matriculated in 1556.[21] He was about thirty when he rather
unexpectedly graduated as a bachelor of Arts at the University of
Toledo.[22] Why he preferred to take his degree at Toledo instead of
at Salamanca is not clear; it is plausibly conjectured that economy
may have been his motive, as the obtaining of a bachelor's degree at
Salamanca was an expensive business.[23] Confirmation of this
conjecture is afforded by the fact that he speedily returned to his
allegiance, was 'incorporated' as a bachelor at Salamanca in 1588,
graduated there as a licentiate of theology in May 1560, and in the
following month became a master of theology.[24] It soon became clear
that he did not regard a University degree as a mere distinction. The
retirement of Gregorio Gallo caused a vacancy in the chair of
Biblical Exegesis at Salamanca. Luis de Leon, though but a master of a
few months' standing, presented himself as a candidate for the post.
He failed to obtain it, being defeated by Gaspar de Grajal, a future
ally and fellow victim:[25] so far as can be ascertained, this was
Luis de Leon's sole academic check. Manifestly he was not daunted. He
claimed, and established, his right to take part in certain
examinations in his faculty,[26] and 'con mucho exceso' thwarted the
designs of the famous Domingo Bañez, whom he afterwards described as
'enemigo capital'.[27] His combativeness did him no immediate harm,
for, in December 1561, he was elected Professor of Theology at
Salamanca.[28] He was obviously not disposed to hide his light under a
bushel, nor to perform his academic duties in a spirit of humdrum
routine. Whatever he did, he did with all his might, and his strenuous
versatility made him conspicuous in University life. In 1565 he was
transferred from the theological chair to the chair of Scholastic
Theology and Biblical Criticism, in which he succeeded his old master
Juan de Guevara.[29]
Such successes as Luis de Leon had hitherto won he owed mainly to his
own talents.[30] Brilliant as he was, there is no reason to assume
that he was personally popular in Salamanca.[31] It does not appear
that he made any effort to win popularity; nor is it certain that he
would have succeeded even if he had sought to win it. His temper was
impulsive, his disposition was critical and independent; his tongue
and pen were sharp and made enemies among members of his own order;
moreover, he contrived to alienate the Dominicans, a powerful body in
Salamanca, as in the rest of Spain. No doubt he had many admirers,
especially among his own students. Yet the University, as a whole,
stood slightly aloof from him, and before long in certain obscurantist
circles cautious hints of latitudinarianism were murmured against him.
For these mumblings there was absolutely no sort of foundation.[32]
As might be inferred from the simple fact that he was afterwards
chosen to be the first editor of St. Theresa's works, Luis de Leon was
the most orthodox of men. His selection for this piece of work may
have been due to the influence of the saint's friend and successor,
Madre Ana de Jesús, who had the highest opinion of him.[33] But it was
not often that he produced so favourable a personal impression; he had
not mastered the gentle art of ingratiation; it is even conceivable
that he did not strictly observe St. Paul's injunction to 'suffer
fools gladly'.[34] Though fundamentally humble-minded, he was
intolerant of what he thought to be nonsense: a quality which would
perhaps not endear him to all his colleagues. He set a proper value on
himself and his attainments; he was prone to sift the precious metal
of truth from the dross of uninformed assertion; he had an incurable
habit of choosing his friends from amongst those who shared his
tastes. A good Hebrew scholar, he was on terms of special intimacy
with Gaspar de Grajal and with Martin Martinez de Cantalapiedra,[35]
respectively Professors of Biblical Exegesis and of Hebrew in the
University of Salamanca. Frank to the verge of indiscretion and
suspecting no evil, Luis de Leon scattered over Salamanca fagots each
of which contained innumerable sticks that his opponents used later to
beat him with. Lastly, he had the misfortune, as it proved later, to
differ profoundly on exegetical points from a veteran Professor of
Latin, Rhetoric, and Greek.[36] This was Leon de Castro, a man of
considerable but unassimilated learning, an astute wire-puller and
incorrigible reactionary whose name figures in the bibliographies as
the author of a series of commentaries on Isaiah--a performance which
has not been widely read since its tardy first appearance in 1571. The
delay in publishing this work, and the contemporary neglect of it,
were apparently ascribed by Castro to the personal hostility of Luis
de Leon who, though he did not approve of the book, seems to have been
perfectly innocent on both heads.[37]
The fires of these differences had smouldered for some years when,
during the University course (as it appears) of 1568-1569, Luis de
Leon gave a series of lectures wherein he discussed, with critical
respect, the authority attaching to the Vulgate. The respect passed
almost unnoticed; the criticism gave a handle to a group of vigilant
foes. Since 1569 a good deal of water has flowed under the bridges
which span the Tormes, and it is intrinsically likely that, were the
objectionable lectures before us, Luis de Leon might appear to be an
ultra-conservative in matters of Biblical criticism. But this is not
the historical method. In judging the action of Leon de Castro and his
allies we must endeavour to adjust ourselves to the sixteenth-century
point of view. Matters would seem to have developed somewhat as
follows. In 1569 a committee was formed at Salamanca for the purpose
of revising François Vatable's version of the Bible; both Luis de Leon
and Leon de Castro were members of this committee,[38] and as they
represented different schools of thought, there were lively passages
between the two. It is customary to lay at Castro's door all the blame
for the sequel. Nothing is likelier than that Leon de Castro was
incoherent in his recriminations and provocative in tone: it is
further alleged that his commentaries on Isaiah contained gratuitous
digs at the views on Scriptural interpretation ascribed to Luis de
Leon. It may well be that Luis de Leon, who had in him something of
the irritability of a poet, took umbrage at these indirect attacks,
and entered upon the discussion in a fretful state of mind. According
to Leon de Castro, whose testimony on this point is uncontradicted,
the climax came about in connexion with the text: 'Out of the mouth of
babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise.' Castro obstinately
maintained that Vatable's interpretation of this passage was an
interpretation favoured by the Jews against whom he cherished an
incorrigible prejudice. Luis de Leon is reported to have lost patience
at this assertion, and to have said that he would cause Castro's
_Commentaria in Essaiam Prophetam_ to be burnt. Castro, whatever his
faults, was not the man to be cowed by a threat, and he retorted with
the remark that, by God's grace, this should not come to pass, and
that if there were any burning it would be applied rather to Luis de
Leon and his family.[39] Having fired his bolt, but conscious that he
was in a minority on the committee, Castro concluded with the sulky
declaration that he did not propose to attend any further meetings of
that body. He would seem to have changed his mind later on this point,
modestly alleging that he gave way to the insistence of others who
deemed his presence indispensable, on account of his knowledge of
languages.[40] Whatever his linguistic accomplishments, they did not
produce the desired effect, for Vatable's version of the Bible was
passed as revised by the committee of Salamancan theologians in 1571,
though, for some unexplained reason, their revised text was not
published till thirteen years later.
The quarrel between Castro and Luis de Leon soon became public
property. Passions were ablaze in a moment. Parties were formed, and
Castro found much support, especially among the body of
undergraduates, of whom one at least ingenuously described himself as
'del bando de Jesucristo'.[41] There was almost as much tumult in the
University of Salamanca as in Agramante's camp. Even if Castro thought
that the hour of his triumph was at hand, he was too experienced and
too Spanish to be precipitate. He may well have had an inkling that,
if many were repelled by Luis de Leon's austerity and implacable
righteousness, his own reputation as a pedant and reactionary did not
mark him out for leadership. His lack of expository power may also
have struck him as a disqualification.[42] Further, on tactical
grounds, he may have argued that his notorious hostility to Luis de
Leon made it advisable for him not to figure too prominently in the
ranks of the attacking party. Whatever his motive may have been,
Castro gave place to a younger and far abler man, the well-known
Dominican, Bartolomé de Medina, whose relations with Luis de Leon,
never cordial, had grown strained, owing to various checks and
disappointments. Medina honestly differed from Luis de Leon's views as
regards Scriptural interpretation; he would have been a good deal more
(or less) than human if he had not been galled by a series of small
personal mortifications. He particularly resented, as well he might,
being out-argued when he presented himself before Luis de Leon to be
examined for his licentiateship of theology; the knowledge that this
incident was talked over by mocking students did not improve
matters.[43] Medina was, however, too wily to delate Luis de Leon
directly; he reported to the Inquisition on the general situation at
Salamanca, and in this document no names were mentioned. Luis de Leon
was not in a position to counteract the manoeuvres of his opponents.
It is not certain that he could have done so, had he been continuously
in Salamanca at this time: as it happened, he was absent at Belmonte
from the beginning of 1571 till the month of March, and on his return
he fell ill. All this while, Medina and Castro were free to go about
sowing tares, making damaging suggestions, and collecting such
corroborative evidence as could be gleaned from ill-disposed
colleagues and garrulous or slow-witted students.[44] It appears that
Medina's statement, embodying seventeen propositions which (as he
averred) were taught at Salamanca, reached the Supreme Inquisition in
Madrid on December 2, 1571; on December 13 the Inquisitionary
Commissary at Salamanca was instructed to ascertain the source of the
statement,[45] and to report on the tenability of the views set forth
in the seventeen propositions.[46] Evidently the matter was regarded
as urgent: for, on December 17, the Inquisitionary Commissary opened
his preliminary inquiry at Salamanca. The sole witness called at the
first sitting was Medina,[47] who repeated his assertions, mentioning
Luis de Leon, Grajal, and Martinez de Cantalapiedra as offenders. A
committee of five persons was appointed to examine into the orthodoxy
of the views alleged to be held by these three. As Leon de Castro was
a member of this committee, and as none of the other four members was
in sympathy with Luis de Leon, the general tenor of the committee's
findings might readily be predicted. These findings were somewhat
hastily adopted by the local Inquisition at Valladolid on January 26,
1572, when the arrest of Grajal and Martinez de Cantalapiedra was
recommended.[48] Up to this point Luis de Leon would seem not to have
been officially implicated by name, though he was clearly aimed at,
especially by Castro who appeared before the Inquisitionary
Commissary at Salamanca, and reiterated Medina's charges with some
wealth of rancorous detail.[49]
With significant promptitude effect was given to the recommendation of
the local Inquisition: Grajal was apprehended on March 1; shortly
afterwards Martinez de Cantalapiedra was likewise apprehended; and, as
these measures seemed to arouse no feeling more dangerous than
surprise in Salamanca, it was conceivably thought safe to fly at
higher game. Manifestly, Luis de Leon must have known that something
perilous was afoot when he handed in a most respectfully-worded
written statement on March 6, 1572.[50] By about this time there had
arrived in Salamanca Diego Gonzalez--an experienced official, whose
conduct of the Inquisitionary case against Bartolomé de Carranza, the
Archbishop of Toledo, has earned him an unenviable repute.[51] Under
the presidency of Gonzalez, who might be trusted to keep the weaker
brethren, if there were any, up to the mark, the local Inquisition on
March 15 resolved to recommend the arrest of Luis de Leon. Apparently
the gravity of this step was recognized. Another sitting was held on
March 19, and a vote was taken with the result that the previous
decision was confirmed by four votes to two. It should not, however,
be assumed that the vote of the two implied any marked personal
sympathy with Luis de Leon. On the contrary: the difference between
the majority and the minority was concerned solely with a question of
procedure. The minority suggested that it would cause less fuss and
less scandal to seize Luis de Leon, Grajal, and Martinez de
Cantalapiedra, to place each of them in solitary confinement for a
short while in a Valladolid monastery, and thence to remove them,
without trial, to the secret prison of the Inquisition.[52] It is
difficult to detect the humanitarian motive of this alternative
proposal.
II
[Footnote 1: _Revista Agustiniana_ (Madrid, 1882), vol. III, p. 127.
'Lope Alvarez Ponce de Leon, Regidor de Segovia... casó dos veces: la
primera con Doña Leonor Sánchez de Olivares, hija de Díez Sánchez de
Olivares y hermana de aquel valiente caballero Don Pedro de Olivares,
comendador del Olmo, del orden de Calatrava en tiempo del Maestro D.
Rodrigo Téllez Girón. De este matrimonio tuvieron tres hijos. En
segundas nupcias casó con Doña Leonor de Villanueva, y tuvieron dos
hijos; pero no declaran quienes fueron del primer matrimonio, y
quienes del segundo. Solo de D. Gómez consta que es del primer
matrimonio.']
[Footnote 2: _Proceso original que la Inquisicion de Valladolid hizo
al maestro Fr. Luis de Leon, religioso del orden de S. Agustin._ This
_proceso_, edited by D. Miguel Salvá and D. Pedro Sainz de Baranda,
occupies the tenth volume and pp. 5-358 of the eleventh volume of the
_Coleccion de Documentos inéditos para la historia de España_ (Madrid,
1847).]
[Footnote 3: Ex. gr. _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 96-97,
184-185, 255-256; vol. XI, pp. 38, 131, 350.]
[Footnote 4: It is established beyond doubt, however, that some
members of the family used the name Ponce. The works of Luis de Leon's
eminent nephew, Basilio, an Augustinian like himself, bear on their
title-pages the words 'Basilius Pontius Legionensis'.]
[Footnote 5: This assertion is made emphatically by Diego de Haedo,
the prosecuting counsel on behalf of the Inquisition; he calls Luis de
Leon a 'descendiente de generacion de judíos' (_Documentos inéditos_,
vol. X, p. 206). An echo of the charge is faintly audible in Luis de
Leon's own testimony. It is repeated with violence by Leon de Castro:
'...enojado de la porfía el dicho fray Luis, despues le dijo á este
declarante que le habia de hacer quemar un libro que imprimia sobre
Exsahías, y este declarante le respondió que con la gracia de Dios que
ni él, ni su libro no prenderia fuego, ni podia; que primero prenderia
en sus orejas y linaje; y queste declarante no queria ir mas á las
juntas' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 12).]
[Footnote 6: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 157.]
[Footnote 7: See note 1.]
[Footnote 8: Luis de Leon apparently took no special interest in his
family history. Before the Inquisitionary Tribunal at Valladolid on
April 15, 1572, he traced his descent no further back than his
grandparents, adding that, as he entered religion when he was fourteen
years old, 'no tiene entera noticia de qué casta vienen los dichos sus
padres y agüelos, mas de haber oido decir que ciertos contrarios que
tuvo su padre, le pusieron en su hidalguía que venia de casta de
conversos.
E preguntado si sabe que alguno de los de su descendencia ó
trasversalía haya seido preso ó peniado ó condenado por este Santo
Oficio; dijo que no lo sabe' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 182).
By May 14, 1573, Luis de Leon had recalled further particulars:
'Porque mi padre fué un hombre muy católico y muy principal como
conoció todo el reino, y su padre que se llamó Gomez de Leon lo fué no
menos que él en su lugar, y este tuvo un hermano de padre y madre que
se llamó el licenciado Pedro de Leon, que fué collegial en el collegio
del Cardenal desta villa como se puede luego saber; y el padre de
ambos, visagüelo mio, se llamó Lope de Leon muy católico y de los mas
honrados y principales de su lugar; y el padre de este y visagüelo
mio, se llamó Pero Fernandez de Leon que le trujo el primer Señor de
Belmonte consigo á aquel lugar, y fué alcaide en la fortaleza dél todo
el tiempo que vivió, y el mas principal y mas limpio que habia en él,
desto que el mundo llama limpieza, como siendo necesario probaré
bastantemente' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 385-386). This
challenge was never taken up.]
[Footnote 9: It is not free from doubt because, though some of the
witnesses, whose testimony is given in _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X,
pp. 146-174, are doubtless in good faith in their evidence as to Luis
de Leon's Jewish descent, they refer to events which happened long
before; and their memories are apt to play them false and their
narratives are muddled. Luis de Leon appears to point to these
depositions when he says: 'Y no se hallará en memoria de hombres ni de
escrituras ciertas, que nombrada y señaladamente alguno de todos mis
antecesores se haya convertido á la fe de nuevo' (_Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, p. 386). In common fairness, it should be said that
the statement of P. Mendez [see note 1] is more in the nature of
assertion unsupported by full evidence.]
[Footnote 10: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 180.]
[Footnote 11: M.R.P. Francisco Blanco García, _Fr. Luis de León:
estudio biográfico del insigne poeta agustino_, p. 254.]
[Footnote 12: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 23. On April 15, 1572,
Luis de Leon stated that he was about forty-four (_Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, p. 180): '...de edad de cuarenta é cuatro años,
poco mas ó menos tiempo'. This is perhaps too vague to furnish a basis
for a conclusion.]
[Footnote 13: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 173.]
[Footnote 14: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 182. Luis de Leon
states that he made up his mind as to his religious vocation within
four or five months of reaching Salamanca.]
[Footnote 15: 'El licenciado Lope de Leon, oidor que fué de la
Chancillería de Granada, defunto, y Doña Inés de Alarcon su muger, que
agora vive en Granada.' So Luis de Leon described his parents at the
first sitting of the Inquisitionary Tribunal at Valladolid
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 180).]
[Footnote 16: 'Y en lo que toca á mi vida, aunque estoy lleno de
faltas y pecados mas que otro alguno; pero esto es verdad que yo tomé
el hábito de religion que tengo, de 14 años de mi edad, y dejé cuatro
mill ducados de renta que mi padre tenia vinculados en mi cabeza como
en el mayor de sus hijos' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 386).]
[Footnote 17: Luis de Leon seems to have arranged that his brother
Miguel should pay him annually a small sum which was, apparently, to
be spent on books. This is a fair inference from Luis de Leon's reply
to a claim lodged against him by one Lucas Junta, a bookseller of
Salamanca, on March 17, 1575 (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 51,
52). It seems doubtful whether Miguel reached Luis's standard of
punctuality in the matter of payment (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI,
p. 196). Luis de Leon had two sisters, Mencía de Tapia and María de
Alarcon. The latter had died before April, 1572. So had another
brother, Antonio, who was a priest (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p.
182).]
[Footnote 18: _Revista Agustiniana_ (Madrid, 1882), vol. I, p. 414.]
[Footnote 19: Blanco García, _op. cit._, pp. 47-48.]
[Footnote 20: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 182.]
[Footnote 21: J. Gonzalez de Tejada, _Vida de Fray Luis de Leon_,
Madrid, 1863, p. 10.]
[Footnote 22: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 59.]
[Footnote 23: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 59, note I.]
[Footnote 24: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 60.]
[Footnote 25: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 62, note 4. Grajal was so
greatly struck with his opponent's ability that he supported Luis de
Leon in all his subsequent candidatures. On this point we have an
explicit statement from Luis de Leon: 'Es verdad que el maestro Grajal
ha sido y es mi amigo, y querelle yo bien comenzó de que habiendo sido
primero competidores en la cátreda de Biblia que él llevó, en las
demas oposiciones que yo hice, sin sabello yo, trató en mi favor con
tanto cuidado y con tan gran encarecimiento de buenas palabras, que
cuando lo supe quedé obligado á tratalle, y del trato resultó conocer
en él uno de los hombres de mas sanas y limpias entrañas y mas sin
doblez que yo he tratado; y ansí nuestra amistad fué siempre, no como
de hombres de letras para comunicar y conferir nuestros estudios, sino
como de dos hombres que trataban ambos de ser hombres de bien, y por
conocer esto el uno del otro se querian bien' (_Documentos inéditos_,
vol. X, pp. 326-327).]
[Footnote 26: Gonzalez de Tejada, _op. cit._, pp. 21-22.]
[Footnote 27: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 261-262.]
[Footnote 28: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 63.]
[Footnote 29: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 64.]
[Footnote 30: Not altogether, for though Luis de Leon had, in an
eminent degree, the knack of success in all open competitions, the
students took part in the elections of professors at Salamanca, and
this element disturbed calculations.]
[Footnote 31: This is a fair inference from Luis de Leon's assertion:
'en aquella universidad yo tengo muchos enemigos por causa de mis
pretendencias' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 574).]
[Footnote 32: On this head, Luis de Leon's acquittal by the Supreme
Inquisition speaks for itself.]
[Footnote 33: 'Es muy santo... Tiene mucho caudal de Dios'. These
encomiastic phrases of the pious nun's are quoted by Blanco García
(_op. cit._, p. 245) from Angel Manrique, _Vida de la Venerable Ana de
Jesús_ (Bruselas, 1632), p. 328. Manrique's biography is not within my
reach.]
[Footnote 34: Luis de Leon's probity was not free from a touch of
brusqueness. This is disclosed by his own description of his behaviour
to a dullard who made his life at Salamanca a burden: 'Acerca del
capítulo cuarto, demás de lo dicho digo que creo que este testigo es
un bachiller Rodriguez, y por otro nombre el doctor Sutil que en
Salamanca llaman por burla; y sospécholo de que dice en este capítulo
que le dejé sin respuesta, porque jamás dejé de responder á ninguna
persona de aquella universidad que me preguntase algo, sino a éste que
digo, con el cual por ser falto de juicio y preguntar algunas veces
cosas desatinadas, y colligir disparates de lo que oia y no entendia,
me enojaba y le decia que era tonto. Y otras veces por no enojarme ni
desconcertarme con él no le respondia nada, sino huia dél'
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 357-358).]
[Footnote 35: This was the contention of the prosecuting counsel. Luis
de Leon, however, declared that, highly as he thought of Martinez de
Cantalapiedra's patristic learning, there was no marked intimacy
between them, and that he often did not meet Martinez de Cantalapiedra
for a year or two. 'Ni yo tenia con él trato ni conversacion
ordinaria; antes se pasaba un año y dos años que no le veia ni
hablaba.... Y siempre le tuve y tengo por el hombre mas leido en los
sanctos de cuantos hay en aquella universidad' (_Documentos inéditos_,
vol. X, p. 227).]
[Footnote 36: Leon de Castro's first appointment at Salamanca is dated
March 28, 1549: he was 'jubilado' on July 5, 1561. See Vicente de la
Fuente, _Historia de las universidades, colegios y demas
establecimientos en España_ (Madrid, 1884-1889), vol. II, p. 250.]
[Footnote 37: Francisco Sanchez, possibly _El Brocense_, testified to
Castro's saying: '_isti judæi et judaizantes_ me han echado á perder,
y por eso no se vende mi libro'. Sanchez bluntly told the Inquisitors
that he did not believe this, and attributed the book's failure to its
size and price (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 299-300). It is
suggested by Vicente de la Fuente (_op. cit._, vol. II, p. 289, note
3) that there was some basis for Castro's opinion. Luis de Leon
implicitly denied the charge, which he manifestly thought beneath
contempt: 'Y si yo hubiera tratado como Leon cree de que la
Inquisicion vedara su libro, yo hiciera que se advirtiera. Y aunque el
doctor Valbas en Alcalá á quien fué cometido por el Consejo Real, al
principio le quitó grandes pedazos adonde trataba á San Hierónimo como
me trata á mí agora, no le pudo quitar esto que yo digo, por que era
quitalle todo el libro,...' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 352).
Luis de Leon tried in a friendly way to convince Castro about the
errors in his book before it was published and as soon as the printing
began (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 351). This intervention
would nettle Castro, who seems to have had Jewry on the brain; he
mentioned, apparently, that Vatable, St. Jerome, and St. John
Chrysostom were all Jews or Judaizers (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X,
p. 294). What probably nettled Castro still more was that Luis de Leon
found fault with his knowledge of Latin and Greek: 'lo cual él sentia
mucho porque tocaba en propio de su profesion.' Luis de Leon proposed
to call five witnesses on this point (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI,
pp. 256-257), but this was ruled out as irrelevant (_impertinente_) by
the Inquisitionary Tribunal.]
[Footnote 38: The Chairman of this Committee was Francisco Sancho,
Dean of the Theological Faculty of Salamanca. The other members--at
any rate those who signed Sancho's copy of Vatable (_Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 521-522)--were Juan de Almeida, Don Carlos,
García del Castillo, Diego Gonzalez, Grajal, Juan de Guevara, Martinez
de Cantalapiedra, Bartolomé de Medina, Muñiz, and Juan Vique. As the
names of Luis de Leon and Juan Gallo are omitted, the list cannot be
thought exhaustive. So, also, are the names of Bravo and Muñon absent
from the list. These last two omissions are readily explained. Bravo
and Muñon had both died before December 26, 1571 (_Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, p. 10).]
[Footnote 39: Castro's statement was: 'Porfió de tal manera [fray Luis
de Leon] que no era el sentido este deste lugar, y despues de visto
que era ansí, porfió... que tambien podia ser verdadero el sentido de
los judíos...; dijo este testigo que aunque viniesen todos los
letrados del mundo, no podrian hacer que aquel sentido de los judíos
pudiese venir ni cuadrar con la letra griega, ni hebrea ni latina,...
y enojado de la porfía el dicho fray Luis, despues le dijo á este
declarante que le habia de hacer quemar un libro que imprimia sobre
Exsahías, y este declarante le respondió que con la gracia de Dios que
ni él, ni su libro no prenderia fuego, ni podia; que primero prenderia
en sus orejas y linaje; y queste declarante no queria ir mas á las
juntas' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, pp. 11-12). Though far from
friendly to Luis de Leon, the Dominican Juan Gallo was provoked into
saying that he would pare Castro's claws till the blood streamed from
him: 'queriendo decir por las uñas que era este declarante áspero
porque les decia que era aquello de judaizantes, y que no lo decia por
ellos, sino porque defendian las cosas de judíos;...' (_Documentos
inéditos_, vol. X, P. 15).]
[Footnote 40: 'Y el colegio de teólogos envió al maestro fray Juan de
Guevara y á otro maestro, á pedirle y mandarle que no faltase de allí
porque no podían hacer nada sin las lenguas.' This is Castro's
version. (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 12.)]
[Footnote 41: Castro states (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 16)
that this pious student was Bernardino de Mendoza, son of the Marqués
de Mondéjar.]
[Footnote 42: Bartolomé de Carranza mentions (_Documentos inéditos_,
vol. XI, p. 279) Castro's muddle-headed knack of misunderstanding what
was said to him, and his propensity to argue points, imagining that
his opponents had said the very reverse of what they had said. As to
Castro's lack of expository power, Luis de Leon states, 'tiene falta
de lengua' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. X, p. 327).]
[Footnote 43: This is established by the evidence of Mancio, a
professor who came to Medina's rescue: '...vió este testigo quel
dicho fray Luis de Leon arguyó al dicho fray Bartolomé de Medina muy
bien, é que no le concluyó, y ques verdad que tuvo el dicho fray
Bartolomé de Medina padrino en este testigo para ayudalle y le ayudó
para los argumentos que se le ofrecieron; é que lo queste testigo
contó á los estudiantes fué que tuvo necesidad el dicho fray Bartolomé
de Medina que le ayudase, aunque sin padrinos pudiera él responder'
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 317). This must be dated before
February, 1570, when Medina took his degree as Master of Theology
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 340). In May-June, 1571, Luis de
Leon and Medina had a squabble as to the distribution of lectures. The
Rector of Salamanca decided in Medina's favour: Luis de Leon appealed
to the Consejo Real at Madrid, and won his case on September 23, 1566
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 323-327).]