Spain is an embarrassment to the investigator. It is noticeable that
Luis de Leon's references seem to imply some doubt as to his
opponent's real name; he is obviously uncertain whether his accuser
should be called Zúñiga or Rodriguez,[109] and in this uncertainty he
is not alone.[110] It appears that there were at least two
Augustinians known as Diego de Zúñiga in Luis de Leon's time; it
further appears that neither of the two inherited from his father the
surname which he habitually used. Both men claimed relationship with
the Duque de Béjar--it was to the seventh Duque de Béjar that
Cervantes dedicated the First Part of _Don Quixote_ in 1605--and both
assumed the family name of that illustrious stock.[111] The original
name of the more celebrated of these Zúñigas was Diego Arias;[112] the
original name of the less celebrated was Rodriguez.[113] This is not
decisive, but it may well be one of those small facts which speak
volumes. Chronology confirms the conclusion to be drawn from these
considerations. The Zúñiga who appeared against Luis de Leon at
Valladolid was evidently professed as early as 1559 or 1560;[114] the
more celebrated Zúñiga was not professed till 1566.[115] General
considerations point in the same direction. The views of Zúñiga
(_alias_ Arias) were approximately those of Luis de Leon;[116] he
viewed matters from the same standpoint, was himself a university
professor,[117] and had something of Luis de Leon's fearlessness.[118]
Zúñiga (_alias_ Rodriguez) was a man of a very different type:
pedantically attached to the letter of the law, morbidly scrupulous on
points of discipline. There seems to be no touch of burlesque
intention in Luis de Leon's presentment of the man. According to Luis
de Leon, Zúñiga (_alias_ Rodriguez) was half-crazed with vanity, much
given to boasting of the esteem in which he was held at the Papal
Court. On one occasion, the fatuous Zúñiga produced a short treatise
entitled _Manera para aprender todas las ciencias_, and, stating that
he proposed sending this pamphlet to the Pope, made bold to ask what
his interlocutor thought of it. Can he have been vain enough to expect
a favourable verdict? If so, he did not know his man. Luis de Leon
drily expressed his regret that a work destined for the Pope should be
so slight and should contain a number of rather commonplace passages
such as might be found in any current book of reference--though, as he
added politely, he assumed that these passages were the fruit of
independent reading. This courteous assumption, which Zúñiga hastily
assured Luis de Leon was exact,[119] could not alter the fact that the
ambitious author had been severely snubbed, and this snub may well
have rankled in the mind of a man who is described as 'vindictive'.
Zúñiga had another grievance against Luis de Leon, who had taken a
severe view of his companion's insolence to an official superior at a
Provincial Chapter, and had joined in making representations the
upshot of which was that the culprit was publicly and ignominiously
punished.[120] It is well-nigh incredible that the Zúñiga who
championed Copernicus, and displays vigilant self-restraint in his
writings, should have been guilty of such flightiness as is brought
home to his namesake; it is by no means inconceivable that the Zúñiga
who deposed against Luis de Leon should have been guilty of occasional
lapses. He is said to have been impetuous as well as vindictive;[121]
he had the dangerous gift of pulpit eloquence[122] and may have
acquired the trick of saying rather more than he meant. His evidence
against Luis de Leon, though fluent and clear, is not what we should
expect from a man of talent, who recognized the gravity of the charges
against the prisoner. His testimony, such as it is, has less
intellectual substance than the testimony of Castro and Medina; it
turns mainly on petty personal questions or on points of morbid
scrupulousness. The more closely his evidence is scrutinized, the more
difficult is it to avoid the suspicion that Zúñiga was not a perfectly
trustworthy witness. For instance, according to his sworn statement he
was thirty-six years old when he deposed at Toledo on November 4,
1572.[123] The declaration is made positively without any of the
qualifying phrases--'about', 'nearly', 'more or less'--so frequent on
the part of witnesses. Nevertheless, it seems possible that this
assertion is erroneous. Zúñiga refers to a discussion respecting Arias
Montano which he had with Luis de Leon in the latter's cell some
thirteen years previously. At this time Zúñiga would, on his own
showing, be but twenty-three. From what we know of Luis de Leon, it
seems improbable that he would admit to his confidential intimacy a
man so much his junior. No doubt Zúñiga (or Rodriguez) was young at
the time--hardly old enough, by his own reckoning, to be an ordained
priest--a _mancebo_, as he seemed to Luis de Leon's retrospicient
eyes.[124] Yet it is very hard to believe that Zúñiga was no more than
twenty-three when he took it upon himself to cast doubts on the
orthodoxy of Benito Arias Montano;[125] nor is it likely that Luis de
Leon would discuss so delicate a topic with the most brilliant of
youths. Let it not be said that the question of Zúñiga's accuracy in
stating his age is relatively unimportant. It is highly relevant; for,
if Zúñiga were capable of making a mistake on such a point, he was
manifestly more liable to error when dealing with other matters on
which he necessarily knew less. However, Zúñiga's evidence is not
weighty enough to call for detailed examination. He may be left to
bear the burden of Luis de Leon's scorn. I am more concerned here to
suggest that, on the facts before us, we are not compelled to identify
the Zúñiga who deposed against Luis de Leon with a namesake of a
higher intellectual type. To us who read the testimony in cold blood,
more than three centuries after it was given, it seems that Luis de
Leon deals as impartially with his brethren as with members of other
religious orders. This was not his intention, at any rate. He knew his
fellow-Augustinians better than he could know the rest, and he himself
tells us not obscurely that, out of consideration for his gown, he was
silent on various matters which, if proclaimed aloud, would not make
for edification.[126]
Members of the Valladolid Court could see for themselves that while
Luis de Leon's opponents--Dominicans, Jeromites, and the rest--were
banded solidly against him, the Augustinians were by no means
unanimous in his favour. That he was difficult to deal with personally
the Court had opportunities of knowing. His unbending fidelity to
principle and his impetuosity probably produced on the tribunal an
impression of obstinacy combined with caprice. On May 6, 1573, a
certain Dr. Ortiz de Funes was, as is recorded, nominated counsel to
the prisoner;[127] there is no reason to suppose that Ortiz de Funes
was in ability below the average level of the bar, but he was no match
for his client, and though he may have given valuable advice on purely
legal points, when these arose, it soon became plain that Luis de Leon
was the brain of the defence and that he meant to conduct that defence
in his own way. Ortiz de Funes became a nullity or, at least, a mere
figure-head whose main duty consisted in signing papers which the
prisoner had drawn up. A time came when, according to the practice of
the Inquisition, it became necessary for Luis de Leon to nominate
_patronos_, and in this matter Ortiz de Funes intervened somewhat more
prominently than was usual with him. A _patrono_ has no exact
counterpart in English ecclesiastical law; it was his business, within
narrow limits, to defend the interests of the accused from the
theological point of view. On June 26, 1574, Luis de Leon was brought
into court, and was told that he was to choose two _patronos_ out of
four men whose names were given him.[128] He was obviously taken aback
at this proposal, and replying that, since he did not know any of the
four, he was ignorant as to their qualifications, added that he had
already requested the appointment of Sebastian Perez, professor of
Theology at Párraces, as _patrono_. He renewed his request, adding
that either Dr. Cáncer or the Dominican Hernando del Castillo could be
appointed with Perez; but before any determination was taken, he
begged leave to consult his legal adviser.[129] As might have been
expected, Ortiz de Funes fell in with his client's view and two days
later made a formal application to the Court that Perez be appointed
_patrono_, with either Cáncer or Castillo to help him.[130] No
appointment was made at the moment and, as it turned out, this was
perhaps just as well; for by June 30 Luis de Leon had changed his
mind, and appeared in court to ask that Castillo's name be removed
from the list of acceptable _patronos_.[131] On July 14 Ortiz
de Funes announced his client's intention of appealing to the
Inquisitor-General against the decision forcing him to select
_patronos_ from a list of persons unknown to him.[132] Neither Luis de
Leon nor Ortiz de Funes seemed to have guessed that the Valladolid
judges were acting on instructions from the Supreme Inquisition at
Madrid.[133] For a moment the step taken by Ortiz de Funes and his
client appeared to have some slight effect. Luis de Leon was informed
that he would be allowed to appoint Perez as his _patrono_ but on two
conditions: (1) he must undertake to pay all the travelling expenses
of his _patrono_, and (2) an inquiry must be held to establish the
_limpieza_ of Perez. This last proceeding, it was significantly
added, would be slow.[134] Again Ortiz de Funes was consulted; but it
is difficult to believe that he had more than a technical
responsibility for the startling decision which he announced: the
decision to accept as _patronos_ Fray Mancio de _Corpus Christi_ and
either Bartolomé de Medina or Dr. Cáncer.[135] Mancio, whose pupil
Luis de Leon had once been at Alcalá, was a Dominican;[136] hence he
would be suspect--perhaps doubly 'suspect'--in the prisoner's eyes.
Medina, also a Dominican, was an overt foe; Cáncer, of whom Luis de
Leon knew nothing except that he was a professor at Salamanca, proved
to be not over friendly. Luis de Leon may conceivably have thought
that Mancio's undoubted learning would ensure his treading in the
strict path of justice, and that Mancio's advanced age[137] would
enable him to press his views on his coadjutor. It is more likely,
however, that the three names were put forward in a paroxysm of
impatience--at a moment when Luis de Leon was willing to fall in with
any arrangement which might hasten a decision of his case.
Mancio was appointed _patrono_, and was duly sworn in at Valladolid on
October 9, 1574;[138] on October 13 he made a report favourable to the
accused.[139] The prisoner was not informed of this (as he should have
been), and took umbrage at what he thought was an act of insolent
remissness. He appeared in court on October 16, and protested against
any of his papers being entrusted to Mancio, lest he should take them
to his Dominican monastery where they ran the risk of being scanned by
hostile eyes.[140] On October 22 the prisoner showed signs of
increasing distrust, for he then requested the return of thirty-two
sheets of paper, covered with notes for his defence, which he himself
had handed to Mancio.[141] Luis de Leon's suspicions deepened rapidly.
On October 25 he asked to be allowed to cancel his nomination of
Mancio as _patrono_.[142] The local judges referred the application
to the Supreme Inquisition, and were instructed to proceed as though
nothing unusual had happened; Mancio, however, was to be told to stay
away still further notice.[143] On December 7 Luis de Leon handed in a
written explanation of his recent action. With regard to Mancio, he
complained of his _patrono's_ omission to confer with him, expressed
some suspicion that Mancio might have become a party to Medina's plot,
declined to accept as valid Mancio's excuse for not attending--that he
had to lecture in Salamanca--and vehemently declared that Mancio's
negligence amounted to very grave sin.[144] These phrases can scarcely
have been used in their natural sense, for Luis de Leon concluded his
written petition by stating that he was still willing to accept Mancio
as his _patrono_, if Mancio were able to be present at Valladolid.
Should this be impossible, the prisoner asked that Dr. Vadillo, Canon
of Plasencia, and the Augustinian Fray Francisco Cueto should be
assigned to him as _patronos_. A working arrangement thus became
possible, and the General Inquisitor at Madrid ordered that Mancio
should be given due facilities. These orders were received on December
13.[145] It appears that Mancio picked up the dropped threads of this
business on December 23, and spent another day or two in reviewing the
general situation.[146] Mancio's cautious policy was doubtless sound;
but to Luis de Leon, who maintained that the matters on which his
_patrono_ had to pronounce were as simple as could be, these tactics
seemed mistaken, and on January 13, 1575, he begged the Court to press
Mancio to give an opinion without delay.[147] On March 6 Luis de Leon
once more complained of being unable to confer with his _patrono_; but
now, rather late in the day, he came nearer to putting the blame on
the right shoulders. Hitherto he had been prone to ascribe all manner
of evil motives to Mancio, whom he should have known better: at last
it vaguely dawned on him that the obstacles might come (as, in fact,
they did come) from the tribunal which was trying him.[148] On March
15 Mancio wrote a letter to the judges, promising to attend at
Valladolid unless absolutely prevented from doing so.[149] Four days
later the General Inquisition wrote to the same judges, hinting that a
decision might be given shortly.[150] The Valladolid Court was stirred
into temporary activity. A sitting was held on March 30; Mancio was
present; a consultation took place between him and his client;[151]
and henceforth we hear no more of difficulties in connexion with Luis
de Leon's _patrono_. Nearly six months had been wasted owing to want
of tact on the part of the Inquisitionary officials.
As the event proved, the prisoner's protests in this matter were
thoroughly justified. It is easy to perceive this now. We cannot be
sure that we should have taken the same view had we been contemporary
spectators. If appearances were not actually against Luis de Leon,
they combined to reveal him in his least attractive posture. His
comparative promptitude in accepting Mancio as _patrono_, his
unwillingness to abide by his choice, his sudden hostility to Mancio,
his final acceptance of Mancio, are all explicable variations.
Nevertheless they showed a disregard for superficial consistency which
might easily be misinterpreted as caprice. The bias of the court had
been veering away from the prisoner for some time. His series of
actions with respect to Mancio lost him all judicial favour. His
judges considered him as an unreasonable man, a gifted sophist fertile
in inventing objections in and out of season, a hair-splitter
perpetually arguing for argument's sake. Luis de Leon was, as a rule,
so unaccommodating that some of his judges may have begun to think
they understood why he was not universally popular with members of his
own order. Nor did Luis de Leon's demeanour in court serve to
dissipate the atmosphere of almost arrogant rectitude which enveloped
him. He felt bound to criticize the machinery of the Inquisition. He
may easily have seemed to be criticizing those engaged in working the
machinery. At the best of times the procedure of the Court was not
expeditious. For example, though Luis de Leon was arrested on March
27, 1572, the first hearing of his formal defence did not take place
till April 14--more than a fortnight later. More than once Luis de
Leon complained of the Court's delays without going into questions of
motive.[152] In this he was clearly right, for, as we have seen, the
Supreme Inquisition was not wholly satisfied with the progress made.
At other times the prisoner stressed the fact that constant
postponements were apt to do him injury, and he hinted rather plainly
that there was an intention to wear him down by deliberately
prolonging the proceedings.[153] In this conjecture he was almost
certainly wrong. The Valladolid judges had no power to alter the
system which they found in existence; possibly, becoming accustomed to
it, they ended by thinking well of it. Its weak points were naturally
more evident to Luis de Leon, and his torrent of critical remarks may
have seemed to reflect on the intelligence and probity of the Court.
Administrators, however exalted, are human, and even the lowliest of
magistrates is prone to take offence, if given to understand that he
is considered dull and dishonest. Luis de Leon never was betrayed into
using disrespectful language; but his polite formulae could not
conceal the fact that he had no very high opinion of those in whose
hands his fate lay. Nor did the well-meant observance of established
forms on the part of the Court do anything to modify his sentiments.
It was in strict conformity with precedent that he should be adjured
to make a clean breast of it and should be informed that, while
truthfulness would meet with clemency, lying would be severely dealt
with.[154] It is strange that it should have been thought necessary
to use this formula in the case of Luis de Leon--a highly-strung,
sensitive man, with an almost morbid passion for truth. The sole
excuse for the Inquisitors is that this warning was given at the first
sitting. But, at the second sitting, the warning was repeated in
almost identical terms.[155] It seems scarcely possible to show less
tact in the conduct of a difficult case. No doubt the explanation is
that none of the Valladolid judges was sufficiently independent to set
a precedent of his own.
Large allowances must be made for those unhappy men. They cannot
reasonably be blamed for not taking it upon themselves to alter the
established procedure of the Court in which they sat. Their position
was always difficult, and it did not become easier as time went on.
They had good reason to know that a vocal group of influential persons
in Salamanca confidently expected them to condemn Luis de Leon; yet
some of them, at least, were uncomfortably aware that the evidence
before them would not warrant a conviction on the major charges. The
most damaging witnesses--Medina, Castro, and Zúñiga--had been called
at a very early stage of the proceedings. These heavy guns had been
fired without destroying the adversary. There was nothing for it now
but to hope for the worst from the reports of the official
_calificadores_, Dr. Cáncer, Fray Nicolas Ramos, and Dr. Frechilla,
who did their utmost to fulfil expectations.[156] Lest the
pronouncements of this trio proved unconvincing, the precaution was
taken of excluding evidence. At the beginning of the case, any sort of
second-hand gossip was admitted as evidence on the chance that its
cumulative effect might be damaging to the accused. At Murcia, on
February 4, 1573, a hostile Augustinian, Fray Juan Ciguelo, a man of
doubtful character, was permitted to retail idle chatter on the part
of another Augustinian who averred that Luis de Leon was prone to
saying _Requiems_ too often, and was in the habit of reading Latin
too quickly.[157] Ciguelo's testimony, though malignant, had done no
harm; later on, it was thought more prudent to adopt the opposite
policy and to prevent as many as possible of the witnesses for the
defence from being heard. As late as July 7, 1576, no less than three
interrogatories[158] by Luis de Leon were rejected on the ground that
they were irrelevant (_impertinentes_).[159] It is difficult to
reconcile these decisions, except on the hypothesis that the later
ruling was thought to be more likely to damage Luis de Leon than the
earlier one. In their despair, his adversaries trumped up an assertion
which was easily disproved.[160]
Disorderly and incoherent as it is, the record of the case enables us
to corroborate and, in one or two trifling particulars, to supplement
the details reported by Francisco Pacheco who, in his youth, may
easily have met Luis de Leon and must later have known many who had
seen him. According to that painter's _Libro de Descripcion de
verdaderos Retratos de illustres y memorables varones_, Luis de Leon
was below the middle height; he had a large but shapely head, covered
with thick and rather curly hair which grew densely on the crown; his
brow was broad; his features were more blunt than aquiline; his
complexion was darkish; his green eyes were bright; his aspect was
grave; and, we may add, he was prone to walk quickly. Pacheco, indeed,
regarded Luis de Leon as something of a universal genius: an expert in
mathematics, in jurisprudence, in medicine--and, though self-taught as
a painter--an artist of considerable skill. (This last was a
compliment, coming as it did from the future father-in-law of
Velazquez.) Evidently Pacheco was a whole-hearted admirer whose
enthusiasm needs discounting. However, so far as we can check it, his
account seems to be correct in the matter of direct observation. The
fact that there is scarcely one flash of humour in the interminable
record of the Valladolid trial confirms Pacheco's report of the
prisoner's habitual gravity. No doubt the tragic circumstances in
which he found himself were not conducive to displays of humour. When
being tried for his life, the merriest of men does not dwell on the
innate absurdity of things. Humour was, however, one of the few gifts
which nature had denied to Luis de Leon. He was aware of this himself,
to judge from his statement that he had nothing of the jester or
scoffer in him.[161] But if Luis de Leon was relatively poor in
humour, he had an abundant store of mordant sarcasm and a faculty for
ironic banter, as Medina and Castro learned to their chagrin.[162]
Pacheco's opinion of Luis de Leon's versatile talent is borne out by
the scrap of evidence given at the trial by Francisco de Salinas--the
sightless dedicatee of _El aire se serena_. Salinas bore witness that
some of Luis de Leon's admirers were persuaded that he could carry any
University chair against all competition.[163] Evidently to those who
met him frequently Luis de Leon conveyed the impression of
irresistible talent. Though students voted in professorial elections
at Salamanca, and supported Luis de Leon loyally, he did nothing to
conciliate them, and expressed his opinion of them with unquestionable
candour. We gather that he was profoundly attached to the ancient
order of things[164] and that, though accused of interpreting the
Bible in a rabbinical sense, he had never read a rabbinical book.[165]
We learn that among his teachers were Guevara, Mancio, Cipriano, and
Melchor Cano;[166] of these he would seem most to have esteemed
Cano.[167] With such masters, and being the man he was, Luis de Leon
would naturally have got together a good theological library, and he
was allowed to have some of his books in his prison-cell; it is but
natural that most of his requests should be for theological works
which would be of service in preparing his defence on technical
points. Reading was his sole solace during his imprisonment, and it
is noticeable that, whenever he asks for a book he speaks of it--not
with the dry, meticulous precision of a bibliographer but--with all
the caressing detail of a genuine book-lover. He indicates the sizes
of the various works which he needs, describes their bindings, and
mentions in what part of his monastery-cell they will be found. He
wants a Vatable with gilt edges, bound in black; it should be found in
a case for smaller volumes which lies on his writing-table. He asks
for a Bible, printed by Plantin, bound in black leather and fastened
with black silk ribbons. He demands a Biblical concordance which is in
folio. This lies on a high shelf near the window.[168] He begs to have
the works of St. Justin, which will be found in the shelves on the
left as you enter his monastery-cell. But not all his requests are for
theological works. A true son of the Renaissance, he finds
entertainment or instruction in communing with the best of antiquity.
When in this mood he asks for his Aristotle bound in sheep's-skin; it
will be found in the shelves on the right as you enter the
monastery-cell. He would like a Horace and a Virgil--of which there
are a great many ('_de que hay hartos_'), so that he does not
particularize. He wants his Homer (in Greek and Latin) bound in
sheep's-skin, and with red edges; it will be found in the shelves
where the works of St. Justin are.[169] Again, besides the works of
St. Leo, bound in parchment, he asks for his Sophocles in black calf;
for a Pindar (in Greek and Latin), bound partly in black leather, with
gilt edges; and for _Le prose dil Bembo_, a volume in small quarto
with a parchment binding.[170] This throws light on Luis de Leon's
progress as a linguist. An imprisoned man who asks for an Italian book
to becalm his fever may be safely presumed to know that language. In
or about 1569 when Arias Montano read aloud the anonymous Italian work
which disturbed Zúñiga's scrupulous conscience, Luis de Leon, though
of course able to catch the author's drift, did not really know
Italian at that time.[171] This deficiency had been made good, as he
gives us to understand, previous to March 12, 1573--twenty eight
months, or more, before Luis de Leon asked that his copy of _Le prose
dil Bembo_ should be given to him in prison.
The record of the Valladolid trial likewise reveals to us some of Luis
de Leon's intellectual foibles. But these were extremely few. Towards
the end of the proceedings at Valladolid the Inquisitionary judges
there summoned before them Juan Galvan, a young theological student
who lodged with Salinas, the blind musician. Galvan testified that for
about two years he had discussed matters of theology, mathematics, and
astrology with Luis de Leon.[172] It may astonish some that Luis de
Leon toyed with the pseudo-science of astrology: it cannot have
surprised his judges for, on April 18, 1572, while still bewildered as
to the cause of his arrest, he had stated to them in writing that he
had read a compilation on astrology which had been lent to him by a
student named Poza, a licentiate in canon law. Poza seems to have
doubted whether he ought to keep such a work, and consulted Luis de
Leon on the question. Luis de Leon dipped into the book, and came
finally to the conclusion that the whole thing was rubbish. But he
found in the work some curious observations, and was tempted to make
at least one experiment which involved the use of a pious formula. The
owner of the book left Salamanca to avoid an epidemic which was then
raging there. Luis de Leon had expected a visit from Poza that day,
and had intended to burn the volume in Poza's presence. He carried out
the main part of his intention by burning the work in the presence of
Fray Bartolomé de Carranza, to whom he explained the meaning of this
holocaust. No more was heard of Poza; yet it seems that Luis de Leon's
curiosity as to the possibilities of astrology continued with but
little abatement.[173] This half-belief in astrology as a kind of
black art was widespread during the sixteenth century, and vestiges of
this ingenuous credulity have survived in unexpected quarters till our
own time. It was perhaps unwise of Luis de Leon thus to furnish his
adversaries with ammunition which they might use against him; but
could anything bespeak conscious innocence more strongly than his
voluntary avowal?