Book: Fray Luis de Leon

J >> James Fitzmaurice Kelly >> Fray Luis de Leon




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 Bartolome 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... caso dos veces: la
primera con Dona Leonor Sanchez de Olivares, hija de Diez Sanchez 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 Tellez Giron. De este matrimonio tuvieron tres hijos. En
segundas nupcias caso con Dona Leonor de Villanueva, y tuvieron dos
hijos; pero no declaran quienes fueron del primer matrimonio, y
quienes del segundo. Solo de D. Gomez 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 Salva and D. Pedro Sainz de Baranda,
occupies the tenth volume and pp. 5-358 of the eleventh volume of the
_Coleccion de Documentos ineditos para la historia de Espana_ (Madrid,
1847).]

[Footnote 3: Ex. gr. _Documentos ineditos_, 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 judios' (_Documentos ineditos_,
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 porfia el dicho fray Luis, despues le dijo a este
declarante que le habia de hacer quemar un libro que imprimia sobre
Exsahias, y este declarante le respondio que con la gracia de Dios que
ni el, ni su libro no prenderia fuego, ni podia; que primero prenderia
en sus orejas y linaje; y queste declarante no queria ir mas a las
juntas' (_Documentos ineditos_, vol. X, p. 12).]

[Footnote 6: _Documentos ineditos_, 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 que casta vienen los dichos sus
padres y agueelos, mas de haber oido decir que ciertos contrarios que
tuvo su padre, le pusieron en su hidalguia que venia de casta de
conversos.

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

By May 14, 1573, Luis de Leon had recalled further particulars:
'Porque mi padre fue un hombre muy catolico y muy principal como
conocio todo el reino, y su padre que se llamo Gomez de Leon lo fue no
menos que el en su lugar, y este tuvo un hermano de padre y madre que
se llamo el licenciado Pedro de Leon, que fue collegial en el collegio
del Cardenal desta villa como se puede luego saber; y el padre de
ambos, visagueelo mio, se llamo Lope de Leon muy catolico y de los mas
honrados y principales de su lugar; y el padre de este y visagueelo
mio, se llamo Pero Fernandez de Leon que le trujo el primer Senor de
Belmonte consigo a aquel lugar, y fue alcaide en la fortaleza del todo
el tiempo que vivio, y el mas principal y mas limpio que habia en el,
desto que el mundo llama limpieza, como siendo necesario probare
bastantemente' (_Documentos ineditos_, 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 ineditos_, 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 hallara en memoria de hombres ni de
escrituras ciertas, que nombrada y senaladamente alguno de todos mis
antecesores se haya convertido a la fe de nuevo' (_Documentos
ineditos_, 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 ineditos_, vol. X, p. 180.]

[Footnote 11: M.R.P. Francisco Blanco Garcia, _Fr. Luis de Leon:
estudio biografico del insigne poeta agustino_, p. 254.]

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

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

[Footnote 14: _Documentos ineditos_, 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 fue de la
Chancilleria de Granada, defunto, y Dona Ines 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 ineditos_, vol. X, p. 180).]

[Footnote 16: 'Y en lo que toca a mi vida, aunque estoy lleno de
faltas y pecados mas que otro alguno; pero esto es verdad que yo tome
el habito de religion que tengo, de 14 anos de mi edad, y deje cuatro
mill ducados de renta que mi padre tenia vinculados en mi cabeza como
en el mayor de sus hijos' (_Documentos ineditos_, 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 ineditos_, vol. XI, pp. 51,
52). It seems doubtful whether Miguel reached Luis's standard of
punctuality in the matter of payment (_Documentos ineditos_, vol. XI,
p. 196). Luis de Leon had two sisters, Mencia de Tapia and Maria de
Alarcon. The latter had died before April, 1572. So had another
brother, Antonio, who was a priest (_Documentos ineditos_, vol. X, p.
182).]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 25: Blanco Garcia, _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 comenzo de que habiendo sido
primero competidores en la catreda de Biblia que el llevo, en las
demas oposiciones que yo hice, sin sabello yo, trato en mi favor con
tanto cuidado y con tan gran encarecimiento de buenas palabras, que
cuando lo supe quede obligado a tratalle, y del trato resulto conocer
en el uno de los hombres de mas sanas y limpias entranas y mas sin
doblez que yo he tratado; y ansi nuestra amistad fue 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 ineditos_,
vol. X, pp. 326-327).]

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

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

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

[Footnote 29: Blanco Garcia, _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 ineditos_, 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 Garcia
(_op. cit._, p. 245) from Angel Manrique, _Vida de la Venerable Ana de
Jesus_ (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
capitulo cuarto, demas 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 sospecholo de que dice en este capitulo
que le deje sin respuesta, porque jamas deje de responder a ninguna
persona de aquella universidad que me preguntase algo, sino a este 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 el no le respondia nada, sino huia del'
(_Documentos ineditos_, 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 el trato ni conversacion
ordinaria; antes se pasaba un ano y dos anos 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 ineditos_,
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 Espana_ (Madrid, 1884-1889), vol. II, p. 250.]

[Footnote 37: Francisco Sanchez, possibly _El Brocense_, testified to
Castro's saying: '_isti judaei et judaizantes_ me han echado a 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 ineditos_, 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 Alcala a quien fue cometido por el Consejo Real, al
principio le quito grandes pedazos adonde trataba a San Hieronimo como
me trata a mi agora, no le pudo quitar esto que yo digo, por que era
quitalle todo el libro,...' (_Documentos ineditos_, 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 ineditos_, 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 ineditos_, 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 el sentia
mucho porque tocaba en propio de su profesion.' Luis de Leon proposed
to call five witnesses on this point (_Documentos ineditos_, 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
ineditos_, vol. X, pp. 521-522)--were Juan de Almeida, Don Carlos,
Garcia del Castillo, Diego Gonzalez, Grajal, Juan de Guevara, Martinez
de Cantalapiedra, Bartolome de Medina, Muniz, 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 Munon absent
from the list. These last two omissions are readily explained. Bravo
and Munon had both died before December 26, 1571 (_Documentos
ineditos_, vol. X, p. 10).]

[Footnote 39: Castro's statement was: 'Porfio de tal manera [fray Luis
de Leon] que no era el sentido este deste lugar, y despues de visto
que era ansi, porfio... que tambien podia ser verdadero el sentido de
los judios...; dijo este testigo que aunque viniesen todos los
letrados del mundo, no podrian hacer que aquel sentido de los judios
pudiese venir ni cuadrar con la letra griega, ni hebrea ni latina,...
y enojado de la porfia el dicho fray Luis, despues le dijo a este
declarante que le habia de hacer quemar un libro que imprimia sobre
Exsahias, y este declarante le respondio que con la gracia de Dios que
ni el, ni su libro no prenderia fuego, ni podia; que primero prenderia
en sus orejas y linaje; y queste declarante no queria ir mas a las
juntas' (_Documentos ineditos_, 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 unas que era este declarante aspero
porque les decia que era aquello de judaizantes, y que no lo decia por
ellos, sino porque defendian las cosas de judios;...' (_Documentos
ineditos_, vol. X, P. 15).]

[Footnote 40: 'Y el colegio de teologos envio al maestro fray Juan de
Guevara y a otro maestro, a pedirle y mandarle que no faltase de alli
porque no podian hacer nada sin las lenguas.' This is Castro's
version. (_Documentos ineditos_, vol. X, p. 12.)]

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

[Footnote 42: Bartolome de Carranza mentions (_Documentos ineditos_,
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 ineditos_, vol. X, p. 327).]

[Footnote 43: This is established by the evidence of Mancio, a
professor who came to Medina's rescue: '...vio este testigo quel
dicho fray Luis de Leon arguyo al dicho fray Bartolome de Medina muy
bien, e que no le concluyo, y ques verdad que tuvo el dicho fray
Bartolome de Medina padrino en este testigo para ayudalle y le ayudo
para los argumentos que se le ofrecieron; e que lo queste testigo
conto a los estudiantes fue que tuvo necesidad el dicho fray Bartolome
de Medina que le ayudase, aunque sin padrinos pudiera el responder'
(_Documentos ineditos_, vol. XI, p. 317). This must be dated before
February, 1570, when Medina took his degree as Master of Theology
(_Documentos ineditos_, 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 ineditos_, vol. XI, pp. 323-327).]

[Footnote 44: The evidence of Alonso Rejon (_Documentos ineditos_,
vol. X, p. 51) seems conclusive: '...preso ya el maestro Grajal, se
llego a este declarante el maestro fray Luis de Leon... quejandose de
algunos maestros de esta universidad y particularmente del maestro
fray Juan Gallego, que admitian dichos de estudiantes, los cuales
decian algunas cosas diferentemente de lo que las habian leido los
maestros,...' As to Medina's action, Luis de Leon wrote (_Documentos
ineditos_, vol. X, p. 228): 'Tambien me acuerdo que vino un
estudiante a mi, y tomandome palabra de secreto, me dijo que fray
Bartolome de Medina andaba haciendo pesquisa de Grajal y Martinez,
aunque no me los nombro, pero entendilo de las senas que dio; y que a
el le habia preguntado, y el le habia dicho cinco o seis cosas que les
habia oido, y acuerdome de dos dellas, porque me parecio que me tocaba
a mi tambien. La una era de la Vulgata que se podria hacer otra mejor,
y yo le dije riendo: _pues quieren atar las manos a Dios que no pueda
hacer un profeta en su iglesia_. Y la otra era que los Cantares eran
_Carmen amatorium_, y le dije: _Carmen amatorium_ ni dice bien ni mal.
Si dice _Carmen amatorium carnale_, eso es mal; pero si dice _Carmen
amatorium spirituale_, eso verdad es. Y a lo demas que me dijo, me
encogi, como cosa que oia entonces, y no entendia bien lo que queria
decir, a todo cuanto me acuerdo;...']

[Footnote 45: These data, given by Blanco Garcia (_op. cit._, pp.
111-115), are derived from the record of Grajal's trial.]

[Footnote 46: The seventeen propositions are printed in _Documentos
ineditos_, vol. X, pp. 286-287; they are reproduced by Blanco Garcia
(_op. cit._, p. 111). According to Bartolome de Medina (_Documentos
ineditos_, vol. X, p. 66), the teaching of the doctrines embodied in
the seventeen propositions scandalized the Salamancan students.]

[Footnote 47: _Documentos ineditos_, vol. X, pp. 5-7.]

[Footnote 48: Blanco Garcia, _op. cit._, p. 113.]

[Footnote 49: _Documentos ineditos_, vol. X, pp. 7-18.]

[Footnote 50: _Documentos ineditos_, vol. X, pp. 96-102.]

[Footnote 51: See _Documentos ineditos_, vol. LXVIII.]

[Footnote 52: Blanco Garcia, _op. cit._, pp. 114-115.]




III


Though, in accord with the customary procedure in such cases, each
witness who appeared before Gonzalez was sworn to secrecy, it is
evident that there was no mystery in Salamanca as to the intention of
the Valladolid Inquisitors. On March 25, 1572, a day before the formal
order for the arrest of Luis de Leon was actually signed, Diego de
Valladolid was accepted as bail to the amount of two thousand ducats,
that the said Luis de Leon would go quietly to prison in Valladolid
without making any attempt at escape.[53] A document to this effect
was drawn up and was duly signed by three witnesses, of whom one was a
Familiar of the Inquisition, Francisco de Almansa. It seems likely
that Almansa may have suspected that, for the time being, the hours of
Luis de Leon's comparative freedom were already numbered; for, on the
following day (March 26, 1572), Almansa was appointed _alguacil_ of
the Valladolid Inquisitionary court, was directed to arrest Luis de
Leon wherever he might be--'in church, or monastery, or other hallowed
place'--and was further ordered to sequestrate any arms, cash, jewels,
or papers which the prisoner might have about him.[54] Almansa, to
whom Luis de Leon was perfectly well known,[55] obeyed instructions,
and reached the Valladolid jail with his captive at about six o'clock
in the evening of Thursday, March 27, 1572.[56] After being carefully
searched, Luis de Leon was lodged in the secret cells of the
Inquisition, and there, except for his appearances in court, he was
detained for over four years and eight months.[57]

Though he was notoriously in weak health, the prisoner does not seem
to have received any special consideration. On the other hand, it
cannot be maintained that, at the outset, his judges treated him with
inhumanity. That Luis de Leon was nervous about himself, and that he
believed it possible he might die without warning is the impression
conveyed by a fervent act of faith which, though undated, was probably
written almost as soon as his imprisonment began. On March 31, Luis de
Leon asked for various things besides four books: one of them a box of
powder with which he was usually provided by a nun named Ana de
Espinosa to alleviate his heart-attacks.[58] This petition was
granted. Luis de Leon's request for a knife to cut his food with was
so clearly against all prison regulations that he can scarcely have
expected a favourable reply.[59] The Inquisitors met him half-way by
ordering that he should at once be supplied with a rounded spoon,
sufficient for his purpose, though useless to a prisoner of suicidal
tendencies.[60] At this stage, it cannot be said that Luis de Leon was
treated with any want of lenity. There was no reason why he should be.
He was arrested mainly on suspicion of being concerned in the (purely
imaginary) Jewish propaganda imputed to his colleagues Grajal and
Martinez de Cantalapiedra; the evidence against him was second-hand
and meagre.

Before long matters began to take a graver aspect. A definite
charge[61] emerged that some ten or eleven years earlier[62] Luis de
Leon had translated from the Hebrew into Spanish the _Song of
Solomon_, to which he appended a commentary, also in Spanish. This he
did at the request of a nun whose name is incidentally revealed as
'Dona Isabel Osorio, monja de Sancti Espiritu de Salamanca'.[63] That
Luis de Leon's proceeding was most imprudent is undeniable. With
characteristic courage and candour, in his first _confesion_ of March
6, he volunteered the admission that he had made such a rendering.[64]
At this moment he was apparently unaware that the existence of this
rendering had been already brought to the notice of the Inquisition by
Medina.[65] Nobody questions Luis de Leon's good faith. Nevertheless
one gets the impression that he felt this to be a weak point in his
case. It was. He had committed a serious indiscretion by infringing
the general prohibition of vernacular versions of any part of
Scripture. No doubt it might be contended that his rendering of the
_Song of Solomon_, and his commentary on it, were originally meant to
be used by only one private person; that the prohibition referred to
the circulation of vernacular versions; that this particular version,
made for the exclusive use of Dona Isabel Osorio, did not amount to
circulation (within the four corners of the general prohibition); and
that such circulation as had taken place had occurred against the will
of the translator. This is not mere sophistry. What seems to have
happened was this. It appears that a lay brother, named Diego de Leon,
part of whose business it was to tidy Luis de Leon's cell, stumbled
one day upon the original manuscript of the vernacular version of the
_Song of Solomon_, copied it without leave or licence, and allowed so
many transcriptions of his copy to be made that it became absolutely
impossible for the translator to control or recall them
afterwards.[66] Manifestly Diego de Leon did not venture to remove the
original manuscript from its resting-place; it was still in Luis de
Leon's monastery-cell on November 7, 1573.[67] Search being made for
it, the version was found, handed over to the Inquisitionary
authorities, and retained by them when judgement was pronounced.[68]
There is evidence to show that many manuscript copies of the
vernacular _Song of Solomon_ stole into existence and were widely
distributed. On March 6, 1572, Luis de Leon, whose references to this
matter are tinged with regret, uses words which seem to imply that a
copy had reached Portugal; and an inquiry, opened at Cuzco in the
autumn of 1575, revealed the fact that a transcription of the
_Cantares que llaman de fray Luis de Leon_ had been made by Fray Luis
Alvarez and conveyed by him to South America. This transcription,
after being recopied by a Lima graduate, who appears to have left for
Spain to continue his studies at the University of Alcala de Henares,
was deposited in the public library of Quito which was housed in the
Augustinian monastery there.[69] This episode denotes a morbid
curiosity which must have been revolting to Luis de Leon's austere
nature. He candidly avowed doubts as to the prudence of facilitating
the reading of the _Song of Solomon_ in Spanish, and would have
cancelled all manuscript copies if he could.[70] In this respect,
however, he was powerless, and no better remedy occurred to him than
to set to work on a Latin version which, when printed, should supplant
the Spanish rendering. This he hoped to be able to disown. But fate
was hostile to his design. Constant ill-health hindered him from
making rapid headway with his projected Latin translation. He
submitted himself to the Court which, naturally enough, vouchsafed no
reply to his request for alternative suggestions as to how he could
make amends for a preliminary error of judgement.[71]

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.