Book: Fray Luis de Leon

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




If Luis de Leon's opponents expected to overwhelm him by the
suddenness, vehemence, or volume of their attack, they must speedily
have been disillusioned. The mystic poet proved to be a formidable
fighting-man. Before very long it must have dawned upon the
Inquisitionary deputies at Valladolid that they had caught a Tartar.
Unversed in the ways of the world, Luis de Leon came of a legal stock,
and was thoroughly at home in a law-court. A master of dialectics, he
was always alert, always prompt to criticize the evidence, always
ready to deal with every point as it arose, always prepared to furnish
elaborate written or verbal explanations as to every detail concerning
which the tribunal could harbour a reasonable doubt. The official
secretaries of the Court--Celedon Gustin and the rest of them--must
have grown to dread Luis de Leon's continual demands for sheets of
paper on which to write his long, considered replies. It would be
idle to attempt to summarize the technical arguments advanced by each
side in support of conflicting views on doctrinal or exegetical
problems. In this place, it will suffice to advert to points which
help to illuminate the character of Luis de Leon, or to exemplify the
attitude of the court towards him.

At the outset, as already stated, there seems to have existed no
decided prejudice against Luis de Leon in the minds of his judges:
they apparently administered the existing system in a not illiberal
spirit. There are indications, however, that this position of relative
impartiality was not maintained. That the court became gradually
biased against the accused seems to follow from the small but eloquent
fact of its rejecting Luis de Leon's petition that his University
chair should not be declared vacant till the end of his trial.[72] It
cannot be argued that the judges were concerned for the efficiency of
the teaching in the University of Salamanca--a matter in which they
took no sort of interest. The decision of the court in Luis de Leon's
case was in direct conflict with the ruling of the same court as
regards Barrientos, another Salamancan professor who was in custody of
the Valladolid Inquisition on May 20, 1572.[73] It was then settled
that Barrientos should not be disturbed, and that no successor to him
should be appointed so long as he was imprisoned. Luis de Leon's chair
was declared vacant as soon as his normal tenure of four years had
expired; the ordinary course of unquestioned renewal was not followed;
and, to make matters worse, his implacable opponent, Bartolome de
Medina, was appointed to succeed Luis de Leon in his chair.[74] For
this appointment, no doubt, the University of Salamanca is entitled to
claim such credit as is due. But no such appointment would have been
possible had the Valladolid Inquisitors been consistent. What caused
the court to be more severe to Luis de Leon than to his colleague
Barrientos?

This instance of inconsiderateness is not unique. As time went on the
bias of the court against the accused waxed rather than waned. Luis de
Leon's ill-health was notorious and, in fact, so obvious that it is
recorded by the court in an official minute.[75] His state did not
improve in jail. Suffering from fever--'como a sus mercedes les
consta'--so he says plaintively--he had nobody to look after him in
his secret cell save a sleepy-headed boy, a fellow-prisoner who was
half a simpleton. Luis de Leon had fainted from lack of food, and, in
the circumstances, it is not surprising that he should have asked to
be allowed the companionship of a monk of his order--preferably Fray
Alonso Siluente--or anybody else whom the court should think fit to
name.[76] Somewhat later, while still suffering from fever, Luis de
Leon begged that, on his providing satisfactory bail, he might be
transferred from his prison-cell to some neighbouring monastery, where
he could be detained till the end of his trial. So depressed was he
at this moment that he even welcomed the idea of being placed in a
Dominican monastery; it was true that the Dominicans were hostile to
him, yet if he died among them, he should be dying like a Christian,
surrounded by religious--not like a heathen with a blackamoor at his
bedside.[77] The first of these two requests was made to the
Valladolid judges, who passed it on to the Supreme Inquisition at
Madrid; the reply of this body was discouraging, for, though the
request was granted in principle, impossible conditions, tantamount to
a refusal, were imposed.[78] Luis de Leon's second request was
addressed direct to the Inquisitor-General: this petition was
disregarded. In other matters, less urgent but not less important from
an orthodox point of view, the Inquisitionary judges at Valladolid
made no concession to the prisoner. He asked to be allowed to go to
confession, and to say Mass once a fortnight in the hall where his
case was heard.[79] Apparently a deaf ear was turned to his
entreaties. A hostile critic might be tempted to say that a vindictive
spirit prevailed in the deliberations of the Valladolid tribunal.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, as the case developed,
the attitude of the Valladolid judges became less and less favourable
to Luis de Leon. Judges are mortals and liable to error. The very
pertinacity of the prisoner may have impressed them badly.[80] It is
in the highest degree improbable that they attached any importance to
his few slips. He speaks of having a naturally weak memory which, so
he declares, had grown worse while he was in prison,[81] and he was
frankly sceptical as to the possibility of any man's recalling every
incident in squabbles that happened years before.[82] As it happens,
his memory seems to have been excellent. No doubt it failed him now
and then; but seldom did it mislead him on any essential point.[83] It
is conceivable that Luis de Leon's judges at Valladolid thought him
lacking in deference. Though perfectly respectful, his attitude to
them was anything but subservient. The judges were accustomed to see
prisoners who were brought before them crushed with awe and a sense of
impending doom. Conscious of the baselessness of the charges against
him, the accused seemed to take his acquittal as certain; and he stood
so little in awe of his judges that he announced his intention of
appealing over their heads to the members of the Supreme
Inquisition.[84] Timidity was not among his failings. A priest of
Astudillo, formerly a student at Salamanca, had occasionally strayed
into Luis de Leon's densely-packed lecture-room, and retained an
abiding impression of the professor's _desenvoltura_ in his chair.[85]
Luis de Leon had not become wholly subdued during the intervening
years. He did not mince words in court, and indulged in sweeping
denunciations of large groups of men; he branded all Dominicans as
'enemies';[86] he was scarcely more indulgent in speaking of the
Jeromites (who resented his opposition to the candidature of their
representative, Hector Pinto, for a chair at Salamanca);[87] and on
general grounds, not unconnected with ancient academic rancours, he
objected to the entire faculty of theology at the University of Alcala
de Henares.[88] The evidence of such persons should, he suggested, be
discounted in advance. Slow to think evil of his neighbours, Luis de
Leon was apt, once his suspicions were aroused, to fling his net
widely. He had some inkling that he and his had the fatal gift of
rousing antagonism. His uncle had been a practising lawyer, and Luis
de Leon argued that all who had suffered through the professional
activities of his kinsman should be debarred from testifying in his
case.[89] The unworldly man manifestly took it for granted that
witnesses who harboured any such grudge against him would willingly
admit it, if pressed on the point.

Outspoken as was Luis de Leon with regard to groups, he was not less
outspoken with regard to individuals, and in this respect it must be
admitted that he does not appear at his best. Vehemence of language
had been the rule in the Salamancan _juntas_ of professors, and much
of this intemperate tone clung to Luis de Leon. No doubt large
allowances should be made for him. He knew that his honour was at
stake and that his life was in peril.[90] As he was persuaded--perhaps
rightly--he had been brought to this pass mainly through the intrigues
of an unscrupulous pair.[91] His provocation was extreme. It was
almost to be expected that he should use plain words when referring to
foes as malignant as Medina and Castro. These two men he accused of
deliberately organizing a conspiracy against him;[92] he spoke bluntly
of Medina's 'hatred', 'rage', 'trickery', and 'lying';[93] he was not
mealy-mouthed in describing Castro's 'malice', 'deceit', 'calumnies',
and 'perjury'.[94] Luis de Leon dealt no less faithfully with some
members of his own order who were spiteful or cowardly--or both. As
early as the beginning of August 1572 Fray Gabriel Montoya, Prior of
the Augustinian Monastery at Toledo, stated to the Inquisitors at
Valladolid that, in his opinion, certain remarks on the Vulgate, made
by Luis de Leon in the course of a lecture, were of an heretical
savour.[95] The value of this opinion is somewhat diminished by the
fact that Montoya had a personal grudge against Luis de Leon who, some
four or five years previously, had prevented Montoya's election as
Provincial of the Augustinians in Spain.[96] This check seems to have
galled Montoya, who gives the impression of being a rancorous gossip,
and, before leaving the court, he repeated a malignant rumour--derived
he knew not whence--to the effect that Luis de Leon's father had
enjoined his son to be submissive to his superiors and to follow the
current opinion in matters intellectual.[97] Luis de Leon indulges in
no circuitous phrases when he comes to deal with Montoya, whom he
describes as an enemy notorious for his untruthfulness.[98] It would
appear that much of Montoya's second-hand information came from
another Augustinian, Francisco de Arboleda,[99] who had once been a
student of Luis de Leon's,[100] and had been entrusted by the prisoner
with the delicate mission of collecting from certain theologians in
Seville opinions favourable to Luis de Leon's views upon the
Vulgate.[101] This very sensible precaution scandalized Montoya. It is
open to criticism solely on the ground that Luis de Leon chose his
agent badly. To this criticism the real answer is that Luis de Leon
had to employ what agents he could, and that nobody but Arboleda, who
was not above flattering his old master,[102] was available at the
time of his mission to Seville. Arboleda's evidence was not damaging;
it was ill-intentioned and impertinent, inasmuch as it repeated vague
rumours of the Jewish descent of the accused;[103] the gravest fact
the witness could allege was Luis de Leon's view that a friar,
despite his vow of poverty, might spend a couple of coppers without
mortal sin in buying an _Agnus Dei_.[104] Arboleda gives the
impression of being a dullard, and this is pretty much the description
of him by another member of the Augustinian order--Pedro de
Rojas,[105] son of the Marques de Pozas and afterwards Bishop of
Astorga and Osuna. Luis de Leon apparently agreed with Rojas in his
estimate of Arboleda's ability, and this may account for his
comparative leniency to the poor numbskull. More severe treatment is
meted out to another Augustinian, Diego de Zuniga, whom Luis de Leon
brands as a deliberate perjurer.[106] Who was this Zuniga? He has
generally been identified with the Zuniga who was among the first in
Spain to declare in favour of the Copernican theory;[107] this action
needed courage and Zuniga has had his reward. As he is respectfully
quoted by Galileo, he has attained something like immortality.[108]
There is, however, no conclusive evidence to show that this
enlightened writer is the Zuniga who came under Luis de Leon's lash.
The correctness of the current identification is, at least, doubtful.

The fact that Diego de Zuniga is a frequent combination of names in
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 Zuniga 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 Zuniga 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 Bejar--it was to the seventh Duque de Bejar 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 Zunigas 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 Zuniga who appeared against Luis de Leon at
Valladolid was evidently professed as early as 1559 or 1560;[114] the
more celebrated Zuniga was not professed till 1566.[115] General
considerations point in the same direction. The views of Zuniga
(_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]
Zuniga (_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, Zuniga (_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 Zuniga 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 Zuniga 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'.
Zuniga 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 Zuniga 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 Zuniga
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 Zuniga 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. Zuniga 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 Zuniga 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 Zuniga (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 Zuniga 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 Zuniga's accuracy in
stating his age is relatively unimportant. It is highly relevant; for,
if Zuniga 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, Zuniga'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 Zuniga 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 Parraces, as _patrono_. He renewed his request, adding
that either Dr. Cancer 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 Cancer 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 Bartolome de Medina or Dr. Cancer.[135] Mancio, whose pupil
Luis de Leon had once been at Alcala, 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; Cancer, 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.

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