demands were made upon him. Apparently he refused the invitation of
Sixtus V and Philip II to join a committee appointed to revise the
Vulgate; it is not clear that he altogether approved of the project,
nor of the plan on which the revision was to be carried out.[247] Not
only was his scholarship held in honour; his rigorous, valiant
righteousness was universally recognized. On April 13, 1588, the papal
nuncio signed a brief naming Luis de Leon one of two commissaries who
were entrusted with the delicate task of inquiring into the
administration of certain funds by the Provincial of the Augustinians
in Castile. The result of this inquiry seems not to be recorded, but a
passage in an extant autograph letter of Luis de Leon's suggests that
his conclusions were unfavourable to his official superior.[248] Luis
de Leon's zeal led him to champion (perhaps inopportunely) a change in
the constitution of his order.[249] In 1588 appeared his edition of
Saint Theresa; and as the letter dedicatory to Madre Ana de Jesús is
dated September 15, 1587, it may perhaps be inferred that the editor
before this date was personally acquainted with the great saint's
successor. If not a judge of scholarship, Ana de Jesús was an
excellent judge of character. She had shown uncommon insight in
choosing Luis de Leon as editor of her great friend's writings; she
esteemed him for his eminent sanctity; he proved worthy of her
confidence, and upheld her plans for reform against Nicolás de Jesús
Maria Doria, the Provincial of the Barefooted Carmelites in Spain.
Doria was supported by Philip II and, to some extent, by Sixtus V. The
proceedings of the Carmelite nuns were conducted from this point
onwards with supreme ability. Doctor Bernabé del Mármol was sent to
Rome on a secret mission. His object was to obtain the papal sanction
for reforms which had been advocated by Saint Theresa herself. Mármol
succeeded to admiration. His antagonists had no suspicion of his
errand. A papal brief, dated June 5, 1590, granted the desired
sanction; and a second brief, dated June 27, appointed Teutonio de
Braganza, Archbishop of Evora, and Luis de Leon to carry the first
brief into effect. Braganza was too busy to do the necessary work, and
authorized Luis de Leon to act for him. Luis de Leon begged the
University of Salamanca to grant him some days' leave to attend to the
business. This petition was rejected. But the indomitable man went on.
Taken aback and irritated, Doria hastened to the Prado and easily
induced Philip II[250] (who was, in fact, already won over to approval
of Doria's scheme) to obtain from the papal nuncio an order suspending
the delegate's instructions. After a reasonable time had elapsed Luis
de Leon returned to the charge, and called a meeting of those
immediately concerned; the papal nuncio made no sign, as the King had
not spoken to him again on the subject. Meanwhile Doria, who was
better informed as to what was afoot in Madrid than as to what was
afoot in Rome, once more interviewed Philip II and urged him to stop
Luis de Leon's proceedings. Philip took action. As Luis de Leon's
supporters were filing into the room where they were to discuss the
situation, they were approached by a member of the royal household who
informed them that he had it in command from the King to bid them
suspend the execution of the brief till fresh orders came from Rome.
Annoyed at this piece of fussiness, Luis de Leon is stated to have
left the room, remarking: 'No order of His Holiness can be carried out
in Spain'[251]. This report, which comes down to us on the dubious
authority of the Carmelite chronicler, Fray Francisco de Santa Maria,
may, or may not, be correct. The impetuous Luis de Leon was no doubt
extremely capable of showing that he resented Philip II's interference
in church matters. On the other hand, Santa Maria cannot have written
with any personal knowledge of the facts, as he belonged to a much
later generation. Even had he been an exact contemporary,[252] Santa
Maria's statements would call for careful examination, for he does not
appear to have had a critical intelligence, since he commits himself
to two assertions, one of which is certainly false and the
other--intrinsically unlikely--is without a shred of corroboration.
Santa Maria avers that Philip II showed his displeasure by forbidding
the Augustinians of Castile to elect Luis de Leon as their Provincial.
It is on record, however, that Luis de Leon was elected Provincial of
the Augustinians of Castile on the earliest opportunity (August 14,
1591) that presented itself. Santa Maria further states that Luis de
Leon took the King's annoyance so much to heart that his death was
hastened in consequence. No evidence is produced to support a story
so innately improbable. This legend evidently throve in credulous
opposition circles, for something of the same sort had been set about
earlier by Fray José de Jesús y Maria, a Carmelite historian who,
unaware that Luis de Leon had declined an archbishopric, added a
calumnious insinuation that the editor of Saint Theresa's works was a
disappointed aspirant to episcopal honours.[253] Santa Maria, not
knowing that Philip II highly esteemed Luis de Leon, seems to have
been content to report such gossip as filtered down to him.
The correspondence connected with the papal brief dragged on till
January or February 1591.[254] To all who saw Luis de Leon at this
time it must have occurred that his career was drawing to a close. He
had never been robust; his sedentary habits, his ascetic practices,
and his prolonged imprisonment combined to wear him down. His last
years were packed with troubles. The Inquisition watched him with
suspicious eyes; he had always regarded the Dominicans and Jeromites
as his enemies; he had contrived to increase the forces hostile to him
by alienating the Carmelites. Doria was not without the power to make
his resentment felt; a few well-meaning Augustinians did Luis de Leon
more harm than good by suggesting that he had extorted from the
Inquisition the admission that his doctrinal teachings were
correct;[255] he was deeply affected by the enmity of other
Augustinians whom he (perhaps too hastily) denounced by name to the
Inquisitors.[256] Many of his colleagues at Salamanca stood aloof from
him; some were openly opposed to him; one or two carried their spite
so far as to suggest that he should be deprived of his University
chair. His constant absence from Salamanca gave his foes a handle; it
is conceivable that they might have succeeded in ousting him from his
chair had his life been prolonged. Apart from public business,
connected with his own order and with the proposed reform of the
Carmelite nuns, Luis de Leon was retained in Madrid by his failing
health. On January 11, 1591, he was examined by Doctor Estrada, who
reported that his patient was suffering from a cystic tumour of the
kidney.[257] This is a malady which might last many years. No doubt
Luis de Leon had had the tumour for a long while; it is extremely
likely that at the end the growth became malignant and that he died
from it. It has been alleged that Luis de Leon's end came
suddenly.[258] This is not so. His death was lingering. For all but
himself this was fortunate, and, even for himself the pause before the
end was convenient, for it enabled him to discharge certain duties. As
editor, he was naturally in possession of many of Saint Theresa's
papers; these he had time to make over to Doctor Sobrino, Professor of
Theology in the University of Valladolid, and to Fray Agustin
Antolinez, a future bishop, with instructions to return them to Madre
Ana de Jesús. Nevertheless the saint's papers were not destined to
reach Madre Ana de Jesús, for Philip II asked both the trustees to
give him the holograph copies to be deposited in the Library at the
Escorial. The trustees complied, and the papers are now stored in the
_Camarín de Santa Teresa_.[259] Assiduous to the last in the discharge
of his duties, Luis de Leon dragged himself to Madrigal, where a
Chapter of the Augustinian Order was to be held in August 1591. The
effort was too much for him. He had to take to his bed, and was still
there on August 14 when he was elected Provincial[260]. He did not
enjoy the honour long, for he died on August 23.
Though most people who are interested in Luis de Leon at all are
familiar with Pacheco's portrait of him, Pacheco's character-sketch is
so apt to be overlooked that it may be briefly summarized here.[261]
Pacheco reports Luis de Leon as having a special gift of silence, as
being the most taciturn of men though one of the wittiest; as being a
man most trustworthy, truthful and upright, precise in speech and in
the keeping of promises, reserved, not given to smiling; in the
gravity of his countenance his nobility of soul and, still more, his
deep humility were obvious; most cleanly, chaste, and reflective, he
was a great monk and a close observer of laws; so marked was his
devotion to the Blessed Virgin that he fasted on the eve of feasts,
dined at three, and ate no supper; in her honour he wrote the lovely
hymn _Virgen que el Sol mas pura_, very spiritually-minded and greatly
given to prayer, at the time of his severest trials God hearkened to
him. Though by nature hasty, he was very long-suffering and gentle to
those with whom he had to deal; he was most abstemious in matters of
food, drink, and sleep; indeed with regard to sleep (as was stated to
Pacheco by Fray Luis Moreno de Bohorquez, who had lived in the same
monastery as Luis de Leon for four years) he carried mortification so
far that he seldom lay down, and the monk who had to make his bed
would often find that it had not been slept in. So great were his
intellectual gifts that he seemed more meet to teach every one than to
learn things from anybody. On matters concerning government his
judgement was sound; he was highly esteemed by prominent men both in
Spain and out of it; Philip II was wont to consult him in difficult
cases, and would send messengers from Madrid to Salamanca; when he
visited Madrid on University business he was admitted to private
audience and received signal marks of royal favour; with respect to
offers of bishoprics and the Archbishopric of Mexico he displayed his
courage and magnanimous spirits not only by stripping himself of rank
(a thing seldom done) but of all he had in the world; a man of truly
evangelical temper. In those holy exercises, and in fitting sequel to
his life, he piously ended his course as Provincial of Castile,
leaving all in great affliction, but with a still greater certainty of
his glory.
This estimate was printed in 1599, eight years after Luis de Leon's
death and one year after Philip II's death. Making some allowance for
the partiality of an admirer, Pacheco's description may stand. A dry
contemporary chronicler, like Luis Cabrera de Córdoba,[262] after
paying tribute to Luis de Leon's intellectual gifts and heroic courage
in adversity, speaks of his death as a national loss. Even in his
lifetime Luis de Leon was recognized by men of exceptional genius as
one of themselves. His poems, which were not published till forty
years after his death, must have been handed about in manuscript long
before. In 1585 Cervantes in his _Galatea_ introduced Luis de Leon
into the _Canto de Caliope_. It cannot well be maintained that
Cervantes had been impressed by Luis de Leon's Latin treatises, by _De
los nombres de Cristo_, and by _La perfecta casada_. The _Canto de
Caliope_ records the names of those only whom Cervantes considered to
be eminent poets--masters _en la alegre sciencia dela poesia_--and
hence it is to the poet that he refers when he writes in his 84th
stanza:
Quisiera rematar mi dulce canto
en tal sazon pastores, con loaros
un ingenio que al mundo pone espanto
y que pudiera en estasis robaros.
En el cifro y recojo todo quanto
he mostrado hasta aqui, y he de mostraros
Fray Luys de Leon el que digo
a quien yo reverencio, adoro, y sigo.
IV
[Footnote 189: Bartolomé José Gallardo, _Ensayo de una biblioteca
española de libros raros y curiosos_ (Madrid, 1863-66-88-89), vol. IV,
col. 1328: 'En unos apuntes cronológicos que hacia en Salamanca un
curioso (jesuita?) á fines del siglo XVI, fol. 23 de un tomo de
_Papeles varios_, en folio, se lee:
'Año de 76, Mártes 23 de diciembre dia de San Dámaso, dieron por libre
a _fr. Luis_ sin pena. Y donde a 30 de diciembre entró en Salamanca a
las tres de la tarde con atabales, trompetas y gran acompañamiento de
Caballeros, Doctores, Maestros, &c.']
[Footnote 190: He is clearly wrong in stating that Luis de Leon was
set free on December 23. We have already seen that Luis de Leon
presented two applications in writing on December 15. From the nature
of these applications, it is a fair inference that he was free when he
made them.]
[Footnote 191: Especially as the fact is confirmed by a contemporary
Augustinian, Fray Juan Quijano: see Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 206,
_n._ 1.]
[Footnote 192: This date is given on the authority of the anonymous
writer quoted by Gallardo, _op. cit._, col. 1328: 'Y lunes _adelante_
le presentó el Comisorio al Claustro, para que se le diese su proprio
lugar, honra y cátedra de _Durando_. Él no la quiso y la Universidad
cedió 200 ducados de partido.' The date in this case is corroborated
by a summons from the Rector of the University: see P. Fr. Luis G.
Alonso Getino, O.P., _Vida y procesos del maestro Fr. Luis de León_
(Salamanca, 1907), p. 244.]
[Footnote 193: According to Blanco García (_op. cit._, p. 207), Luis
de Leon did not vote, but assigned his proxy to Bartolomé de Medina.
This incident occurred, but it happened at a meeting of the _Claustro_
held two days later: see Alonso Getino (_op. cit._, pp. 252-254).
Medina seems to have thought that Luis de Leon's chair had not been
legally vacated, and that it was not in Luis de Leon's power to say
that he would assign it to Castillo.]
[Footnote 194: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, p. 258.]
[Footnote 195: Gallardo, _op. cit._, vol. IV, col. 1328: '...y martes
a 29 [de enero de 1577] empezó a leer. Hubo gran concurso, &c.']
[Footnote 196: _Monasticon Augustinianum_ (Munich, 1623), p. 208:
'Primam vero lectionem post tenebras ut auspicabatur, pleno concessu
ad novitatem evocato, inquit: _Dicebamus hesterna die_.' Blanco
García, who quotes this passage (_op. cit._, p. 209, _n._ 1), refers
also to p. 119 of a reprint issued at Valladolid in 1890: this reprint
I have not seen.]
[Footnote 197: Early instances, dating from 1636, are given by Blanco
García, _op. cit._, p. 209, _n._ 2. The story first appeared in print
in Spain in 1771, when it was given in the fifth volume of Juan Josef
Lopez de Sedano, _Parnaso Español_ (Madrid, 1768-1778).]
[Footnote 198: C. Muiños Sáenz, _Sobre el 'Decíamos ayer'... y otros
excesos_ in _La Ciudad de Dios_ (1909), vol. LXXIX, p. 22.]
[Footnote 199: C. Muiños Sáenz, _La Ciudad de Dios_ (1909), vol.
LXXIX, p. 29.]
[Footnote 200: Luis G. Alonso Getino, _Vida y procesos del Maestro Fr.
Luis de León_ (Salamanca, 1907), pp. 242-243, 262-263.]
[Footnote 201: C. Muiños Sáenz, _El 'Decíamos ayer' de Fray Luis de
León_ (Madrid, 1905) and _Sobre el 'Decíamos ayer'... y otros
excesos_ in _La Ciudad de Dios_ (1909), vol. LXXVIII, pp. 479-495,
544-560; (1909), vol. LXXIX, pp. 18-34, 107-124, 191-212, 353-374,
529-552; (1909), vol. LXXX, pp. 99-125, and 177-197.]
[Footnote 202: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 260-261.]
[Footnote 203: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 262-263: 'É despues de
lo sobredicho en la dicha ciudad de Salamanca martes á la hora que dió
las diez de la mañana el relox de la iglesia mayor, al fin de la
lecion del padre mº. Pedro de Uceda, que se contaron veinti nueve dias
del mes de Enero... Antonio de Almaraz bedel puso en la posesion del
dicho salario al dicho padre mº. fray Luis de Leon en la catedra
questá en el general mayor de theologia de escuelas mayores, el qual
la tomó é apprehendió sin contradicion ninguna, y _en lugar de
posesion leyó un poco_. É dijo y protestó... que estaba y está presto
de leer el dicho salario é partido, é que si no leyere no se le pare
por ello perjuicio ni se le descuente de su salario y partido ni por
ello sea multado en cosa alguna, pues no es su culpa, hasta tanto que
le den hora en que lea, conforme á lo proveido por la junta de los
señores theologos... y le señalen lectura, é asi lo pidió é protestó,
siendo presentes por todo el Padre mº. Pedro de Uceda... é Antonio de
Almaraz bedel, é otros muchos estudiantes y personas de la universidad
é yo Bartme. Sanchez notario é vicesecretario.']
[Footnote 204: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 266-268.]
[Footnote 205: Blanco García, _op. cit._, pp. 212-213.]
[Footnote 206: Blanco García, _op. cit._, p. 214, _n._ 1; Alonso
Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 282-301.]
[Footnote 207: The bishop seems to have resented Luis de Leon's
opposition to the candidature of the bishop's brother, Juan Gallo, for
the _cátedra de vísperas de teología_. In this contest Juan Gallo, a
Dominican, was defeated by the Augustinian Fray Juan de Guevara
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, pp. 275-277). Guevara was present
when the bishop told Luis de Leon that 'he knew Luis de Leon's
hostility to his (the bishop's) brother had done him more harm than
all the rest' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 261). Later on, Juan
Gallo appears to have been appointed to another chair at Salamanca
(_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 318).]
[Footnote 208: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 303. Salinas, it
should be noted, denied having heard that this applied specially to
opponents of the Dominican order.]
[Footnote 209: The verses ascribed to Domingo de Guzman are reproduced
in part by Adolfo de Castro, _Biblioteca de Autores Españoles desde la
formacion del lenguaje hasta nuestros dias_ (Madrid, 1847-1880), vol.
XXXV, p. x; they are given in full by Cayetano Alberto de la Barrera
in the _Revista de Ciencias, Literatura y Artes_ (Sevilla, 1856), vol.
II, pp. 731-741; (Sevilla, 1857), vol. III, pp. 5-22, 69-80, 209-220.
La Barrera, following Gallardo, was careful to point out that lines
37-40 of the verses to Urganda la Desconocida are practically
identical with four lines in Domingo de Guzman's _glosa_. Sr.
Rodríguez Marín, in his edition of _Don Quixote_, published at Madrid
in 1916-1917, prints the four lines (vol. I, pp. 49-50) in inverted
commas. Cervantes, if he meant to quote, must have trusted to his
memory.
GUZMAN CERVANTES
que don Albaro de Luna, Que don Aluaro de Lu
que Anibal Cartajines, Que Anibal el de Carta
que Francisco Rey frances, Que Rey Francisco de Espa
se queja de la fortuna. Se quexa de la fortu.
In Guzman's case I reproduce La Barrera's transcription. In the case
of Cervantes I follow the spelling adopted in the _princeps_ of the
First Part of _Don Quixote_.
For some readers, it may be convenient to refer to the revised but
abridged reprint in C.A. de la Barrera, _El Cachetero del Buscapié_
(Santander, 1916), pp. 133-136.]
[Footnote 210: The first _quintilla_ of some verses by a poetaster on
Luis de Leon's side is quoted by Fray Antolin Merino in the preface to
his edition of the _Poesías_ of Luis de Leon contained in the _Obras
del Il. Fr. Luis de Leon_ (Madrid, 1804-1805-1806-1816), vol. XI, p.
xxv:
Luis y Mingo pretenden
casarse con Ana bella,
cada cual pretende habella,
mas segun todos entienden
muérese por Luis ella.
[Footnote 211: Gallardo, _op. cit._, vol. IV, col. 1328: '...En este
año (79) domingo 6 de diciembre se proveyó la (cátedra) de Biblia a
Fr. Luis de Leon, y el dia siguiente tomó la posesión: tuvo 281 votos,
y el maestro fr. Domingo de Guzman tuvo 245: llevóla con 36 votos.']
[Footnote 212: Gallardo, _op. cit._, vol. IV, col. 1328-1329:
'Reguláronse los cursos, y vino en llevarla por solo tres Cursos, y
esto fué quitando un voto señalado, que tenia cinco cursos, el cual se
sospechó era Dominico. No pudiendo conformarse con él, hubo concierto
entre los frailes, que votasen de Santo Domingo 100 y de San Agustin
50. Anduvo pleito hasta viernes 13 de Octubre de 81, que sentenciaron
en Valladolid en favor de fr. Luis de Leon.']
[Footnote 213: For example, by Alonso Getino, op. cit., pp. 268-274.]
[Footnote 214: This is stated by Alonso Fernandez, who wrote more than
twenty years after the election. A relevant passage is given in Alonso
Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 272-273.]
[Footnote 215: The terms of Suarez's order are reproduced by Blanco
García, _op. cit._, p. 218, _n._ 3.]
[Footnote 216: Nothing was known of this second suit by the Valladolid
Inquisitors till 1882, when a considerable part of the report of the
proceedings was published by Sr. D. Álvarez Guijarro in the _Revista
Hispano-Americana_.
It was given later more fully in _La Ciudad de Dios_ (Madrid, 1896),
vol. XLI, pp. 15-31, by P. Francisco Blanco García. The subsequent
references are to the _tirage à part_ entitled: _Segundo Proceso
instruído por la Inquisición de Valladolid contra Fray Luis de León
con prólogo y notas del P. Francisco Blanco García_ (Madrid, 1896).]
[Footnote 217: Zumel gives the date (Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_,
p. 40) as January 21; the delator, Santa Cruz, fixes the date a day
earlier (Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 20).]
[Footnote 218: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 31: '...mouime lo
uno por parecerme que los padres dominicos le querian oprimir por ser
de la compañia contra la qual se muestran siempre apasionados y lo
otro y principal porque me pareció gran sin razon condenar por eregía
una cosa que la presuponen por cierta muchos sanctos y otros muchos
catholicos sanctos y no sanctos la afirman y defienden...']
[Footnote 219: Luis de Leon merely says (Blanco García, _Segundo
proceso_, p. 31) 'un fraile benito': Castañeda's full name is given in
the report of the Valladolid Inquisitors (Blanco García, _Segundo
proceso_, p. 52).]
[Footnote 220: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 32: '...porque se
dezia en la escuela que el maestro yuañez dezia que era error
pelagiano yo dixe que no tenia razon de ponelle aquella nota,...']
[Footnote 221: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 33: '...y despues
del acto me dixo el maestro Vañez que el quedaba bien satisfecho de la
manera como el sustentante auia declarado su opinion'.]
[Footnote 222: Juan de Guevara and Pedro de Aragon, for example. This
emerges from the evidence of the Augustinian Fray Martín de Coscojales
(Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 37). Pedro de Aragon was Duns
Scotus Professor of Theology at Salamanca, a former pupil of Luis de
Leon's and a great admirer of his. He appeared as a witness against
Luis de Leon (Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, pp. 36-37).]
[Footnote 223: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, pp. 20-27.]
[Footnote 224: _Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI, p. 328.]
[Footnote 225: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, pp. 28-34.]
[Footnote 226: Even in his official _calificacion_ Joan de la Cruz
(Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 24) speaks of 'las [cosas] que
yo ví y las que oy y se por Relacion....']
[Footnote 227: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 35.]
[Footnote 228: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, pp. 36-40.]
[Footnote 229: Blanco García, _Fr. Luis de León: estudio biográfico_,
p. 225; Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, pp. 40-45.]
[Footnote 230: This seems to follow from a question which Luis de Leon
proposed to put to six witnesses: the Augustinians Juan de Guevara,
Pedro de Rojas, and Hernando de Peralto, and three laymen, Loarte,
Ruiz, and Madrigal: 'Item si saben etc. que el maestro fray Domingo
Ibañez, antes y al tiempo que juró y depuso en esta causa, era y es
enemigo capital del dicho fray Luis de Leon, ansí por ser fraile
dominico como porque se opuso contra él á una substitucion de
vísperas, y se la llevó fray Luis de Leon con mucho exceso, de lo cual
él y sus frailes se sintieron mucho' (_Documentos inéditos_, vol. XI,
pp. 261-263). Luis de Leon was mistaken in supposing that Bañez had
deposed against him at Valladolid. Alonso Getino endeavours to show
(_op. cit._, pp. 384-386) that Luis de Leon never competed against
Bañez, and that his memory played him a trick on this point.]
[Footnote 231: See note 222.]
[Footnote 232: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, pp. 46-47: 'V.P. dexe
las cosas de la orden aunque esten en peor estado del que hahora
tienen, trate de su cathreda, y dexe de tomar á su cargo el remedio de
las tiranias. No llame tyrano a nadie, y sepa V.P. que publicamente
dicen muchos religiosos que V.P. no hiço bien a nadie y disgustos sí a
muchos, recibiendo buenas obras de aquellos a quien hahora maltrata,
cosa que no puede tener buen suçeso ni puede parecer bien a nadie.']
[Footnote 233: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 52.]
[Footnote 234: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, pp. 52-53: '...sea
gravemente Reprehendido, y... que en su cathedra publicamente declare
la calidad de las proposiciones que se le dieren diçiendo que en
dezir que lo contrario de lo que el sustentaba era heregía, dixo mal,
y que esto era su parezer'. The official report of the proceedings
must be incomplete, for Arresse's _parecer_ mentions that Domingo de
Guzman had spoken of receiving an apology from Luis de Leon. No
evidence by Domingo de Guzman is disclosed in the record.]
[Footnote 235: Fr. Heinrich Reusch, _Luis de Leon und die spanische
Inquisition_ (Bonn, 1873), p. 111.]
[Footnote 236: Blanco García, _Segundo proceso_, p. 53: 'En Toledo...
parescío siendo llamado, el Maestro fray Luis de Leon..., al qual su
señoría Illma reprehendío y declaro la culpa que contra el resulta
por los auctos y meritos deste processo, y le amoneste benigna y
caritativamente, que de aquí adelante se abstenga de dezir, ni
deffender publica ni secretamente, las proposiciones que paresce haver
dicho y defendido,... y el ha confesado que la sentencia dellas no
caresce de alguna temeridad, ni otras semejantes, con apercibimiento
que no lo cumpliendo se procedera contra el por todo rigor de derecho,
y el dicho fray luis de leon promettío de lo cumplir y que lo haria
assí.]
[Footnote 237: By Sr. D. Carlos Álvarez Guijarro. Blanco García
(_Segundo proceso_, p. 54, _n._ 1) dissents from this view.]
[Footnote 238: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 305-308.]
[Footnote 239: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 308-315.]
[Footnote 240: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, p. 316.]
[Footnote 241: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 309, 317-318.]
[Footnote 242: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 319-320.]
[Footnote 243: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, p. 321.]
[Footnote 244: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 327-329.]
[Footnote 245: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 329-331.]
[Footnote 246: Alonso Getino, _op. cit._, pp. 329-335.]
[Footnote 247: Blanco García, _Fr. Luis de León: estudio biográfico,
&c._, pp. 236-239.]
[Footnote 248: Blanco García, _Fr. Luis de León: estudio biográfico_,
pp. 239-240. The pressmark of this autograph letter in the British
Museum is Add. MSS. 28, 698.]