Fray Luis de León | Page 6

gratuitous digs at the views on
Scriptural interpretation ascribed to Luis de Leon. It may well be that
Luis de Leon, who had in him something of the irritability of a poet,
took umbrage at these indirect attacks, and entered upon the discussion
in a fretful state of mind. According to Leon de Castro, whose
testimony on this point is uncontradicted, the climax came about in
connexion with the text: 'Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou
hast perfected praise.' Castro obstinately maintained that Vatable's
interpretation of this passage was an interpretation favoured by the
Jews against whom he cherished an incorrigible prejudice. Luis de
Leon is reported to have lost patience at this assertion, and to have said
that he would cause Castro's Commentaria in Essaiam Prophetam to be
burnt. Castro, whatever his faults, was not the man to be cowed by a
threat, and he retorted with the remark that, by God's grace, this should
not come to pass, and that if there were any burning it would be applied
rather to Luis de Leon and his family.[39] Having fired his bolt, but
conscious that he was in a minority on the committee, Castro concluded
with the sulky declaration that he did not propose to attend any further

meetings of that body. He would seem to have changed his mind later
on this point, modestly alleging that he gave way to the insistence of
others who deemed his presence indispensable, on account of his
knowledge of languages.[40] Whatever his linguistic accomplishments,
they did not produce the desired effect, for Vatable's version of the
Bible was passed as revised by the committee of Salamancan
theologians in 1571, though, for some unexplained reason, their revised
text was not published till thirteen years later.
The quarrel between Castro and Luis de Leon soon became public
property. Passions were ablaze in a moment. Parties were formed, and
Castro found much support, especially among the body of
undergraduates, of whom one at least ingenuously described himself as
'del bando de Jesucristo'.[41] There was almost as much tumult in the
University of Salamanca as in Agramante's camp. Even if Castro
thought that the hour of his triumph was at hand, he was too
experienced and too Spanish to be precipitate. He may well have had an
inkling that, if many were repelled by Luis de Leon's austerity and
implacable righteousness, his own reputation as a pedant and
reactionary did not mark him out for leadership. His lack of expository
power may also have struck him as a disqualification.[42] Further, on
tactical grounds, he may have argued that his notorious hostility to Luis
de Leon made it advisable for him not to figure too prominently in the
ranks of the attacking party. Whatever his motive may have been,
Castro gave place to a younger and far abler man, the well-known
Dominican, Bartolomé de Medina, whose relations with Luis de Leon,
never cordial, had grown strained, owing to various checks and
disappointments. Medina honestly differed from Luis de Leon's views
as regards Scriptural interpretation; he would have been a good deal
more (or less) than human if he had not been galled by a series of small
personal mortifications. He particularly resented, as well he might,
being out-argued when he presented himself before Luis de Leon to be
examined for his licentiateship of theology; the knowledge that this
incident was talked over by mocking students did not improve
matters.[43] Medina was, however, too wily to delate Luis de Leon
directly; he reported to the Inquisition on the general situation at
Salamanca, and in this document no names were mentioned. Luis de
Leon was not in a position to counteract the manoeuvres of his

opponents. It is not certain that he could have done so, had he been
continuously in Salamanca at this time: as it happened, he was absent at
Belmonte from the beginning of 1571 till the month of March, and on
his return he fell ill. All this while, Medina and Castro were free to go
about sowing tares, making damaging suggestions, and collecting such
corroborative evidence as could be gleaned from ill-disposed
colleagues and garrulous or slow-witted students.[44] It appears that
Medina's statement, embodying seventeen propositions which (as he
averred) were taught at Salamanca, reached the Supreme Inquisition in
Madrid on December 2, 1571; on December 13 the Inquisitionary
Commissary at Salamanca was instructed to ascertain the source of the
statement,[45] and to report on the tenability of the views set forth in
the seventeen propositions.[46] Evidently the matter was regarded as
urgent: for, on December 17, the Inquisitionary Commissary opened
his preliminary inquiry at Salamanca. The sole witness called at the
first sitting was Medina,[47] who repeated his assertions, mentioning
Luis de Leon, Grajal, and Martinez de Cantalapiedra as offenders. A
committee