en tal sazon pastores, con loaros
vn 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 reuerencio, adoro, y sigo.
IV
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.'
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.
Especially as the fact is confirmed by a contemporary Augustinian, Fray Juan Quijano: see Blanco García, op. cit., p. 206, n. 1.
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.
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.
Gallardo, op. cit., vol. IV, col. 1328: '...y martes a 29 [de enero de 1577] empezó a leer. Hubo gran concurso, &c.'
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.
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).
C. Muiños Sáenz, Sobre el 'Decíamos ayer'... y otros excesos in La Ciudad de Dios (1909), vol. LXXIX, p. 22.
Luis G. Alonso Getino, Vida y procesos del Maestro Fr. Luis de León (Salamanca, 1907), pp. 242-243, 262-263.
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.
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.'
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).
Documentos inéditos, vol. XI, p. 303. Salinas, it should be noted, denied having heard that this applied specially to opponents of the Dominican order.
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.
que don Albaro de Luna,
que Anibal Cartajines,
que Francisco Rey frances,
se queja de la fortuna.
Que don Aluaro de Lu
Que Anibal el de Carta
Que Rey Francisco de Espa
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.
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:
casarse con Ana bella,
cada cual pretende habella,
mas segun todos entienden
muérese por Luis ella.
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.'
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.'
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.
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).
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).
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 vna cosa que la presuponen por cierta muchos sanctos y otros muchos catholicos sanctos y no sanctos la afirman y defienden...'
Luis de Leon merely says (Blanco García, Segundo proceso, p. 31) 'vn fraile benito': Castañeda's full name is given in the report of the Valladolid Inquisitors (Blanco García, Segundo proceso, p. 52).
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,...'
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'.
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).
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....'
Blanco García, Fr. Luis de León: estudio biográfico, p. 225; Blanco García, Segundo proceso, pp. 40-45.
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.
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.'
Blanco García, Segundo proceso, pp. 52-53: '...sea grauemente 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.
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 caritatiuamente, que de aquí adelante se abstenga de dezir, ni deffender publica ni secretamente, las proposiciones que paresce hauer 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.
By Sr. D. Carlos Álvarez Guijarro. Blanco García (Segundo proceso, p. 54, n. 1) dissents from this view.
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.
The whole episode is clearly set forth by Blanco García, Fr. Luis de León: estudio biográfico, pp. 246-250.
Blanco García, Fr. Luis de León: estudio biográfico, pp. 248-249; Alonso Getino, op. cit., pp. 349-351.
A passage in Alonso Getino (op. cit., p. 349) describes Santa Maria as 'contemporáneo de los sucesos'. This, though literally true, is somewhat misleading. Santa Maria was twenty-four the year that Luis de Leon died. See Gallardo, op. cit., vol. IV, col. 489.
'...al principal de ellos [los que habían procurado el Breve] y pretensor de mitra, le costó la vida el sentimiento que tuvo de ver tan indignado al Rey Católico'. I have not been able to consult Jesús y Maria's work. My quotation, like Alonso Getino's (op. cit., p. 354), is taken at second-hand from Vicente de la Fuente's edition of Saint Theresa's works.
January 26, 1591, is the latest date attached to the Documentos published by Cristóbal Pérez Pastor, Bibliografía madrileña (Madrid, 1907), Parte III, pp. 404-409. On January 25, 1591, Luis de Leon signed a document undertaking to accept 1,000 reales in lieu of 2,800 due to him by the estate of Cornelio Bonard, formerly a bookseller at Salamanca; see Cristóbal Pérez Pastor, Bibliografía madrileña (Madrid, 1906), Parte II, pp. 454-455.
F. Blanco García, Segundo proceso, p. 53. The Salamancan Inquisitors reported to the Supreme Inquisition: '...hauemos entendido que los de su orden se xatan y alaban de que en este sto offio se a declarado ser verdad lo que el dho frai luis sustentó...'
C. Muiños Sáenz, Sobre el 'Decíamos ayer'... y otros excesos in La Ciudad de Dios (1909), vol. LXXIX, p. 540.
C. Muiños Sáenz, Sobre el 'Decíamos ayer'... y otros excesos in La Ciudad de Dios (1909), vol. LXXIX, p. 540, n. 1.
Alonso Getino writes (op. cit., p. 355): 'al ser elegido Provincial, nueve dias antes de morir, no puede suponerse que estuviera enfermo de consideración'. This is a guess very wide of the mark. F. de Méndez, in the Revista Agustiniana (1881), quoted (p. 351) Juan Quijano, a contemporary whose chronicle is now lost, as saying that when Luis de Leon was elected Provincial he was already confined to his bed with the illness of which he died.
The portrait and character-sketch will be found in the photo-chromotype reproduction of Francisco Pacheco, Libro de descripcion de verdaderos retratos de illustres y memorables varones. The original is dated Sevilla, 1599. The reproduction, due to José María Asensio y Toledo, was photo-chromotyped between 1881 and 1884. Owing to the rarity of the reproduction, it has been thought desirable to reprint in an appendix the passage in which Pacheco deals with Luis de Leon.
The reference is given by C. Muiños Sáenz, Sobre el 'Decíamos ayer'... y otros excesos in La Ciudad de Dios (1909), vol. LXXX, p. 119.
V
By his contemporaries Luis de Leon was perhaps more esteemed as a theologian or a scholar than as a man of letters. This judgement has been reversed by posterity mainly on the strength of the Spanish poems which were little known during the author's lifetime beyond a small circle of his personal friends.[263] Experts tell us that as a theologian he ranks below his master Melchor Cano; and in the annals of scholarship Luis de Leon is less conspicuous than Benito Arias Montano and than Francisco Sanchez (el Brocense). Few now read for pleasure the treatises which Luis de Leon composed in a dead language: in any case these treatises can add nothing to his reputation as a writer of Spanish, and it is solely as a Spanish author that he concerns us here and now. He was by no means the earliest of devout writers to use Spanish as a literary medium. There is a long and illustrious bead-roll of authors from Bernardino de Laredo to Saint Theresa to prove the contrary. Much less was Luis de Leon the first post-Renaissance scholar to recognize that Spanish had a great future before it. Yet, if we take leave to assume that Luis de Granada was an ascetic rather than an extatic, we may account Luis de Leon as perhaps the first professional scholar to perceive that Spanish was adequate to convey the subtleties of theology and the ravishments of mysticism. His chief prose works in Castilian include the Exposicion del libro de Job, a commentary dedicated to Madre Ana de Jesús, but not published till near the end of the eighteenth century (1779). The provenance of this work calls for no explanation. Apart from the quotation of a passage in Jorge Manrique's Coplas, the Exposicion del libro de Job offers few indications of Spanish origin and fewer personal touches. Equally Biblical in origin are a rendering of the Song of Songs and a corresponding commentary; the existence of both has a personal interest inasmuch as they prove that Luis de Leon was enabled to carry out a long cherished design by means of which he hoped, as he declared at Valladolid, to counterbalance the indiscreet prying of Fray Diego de Leon. La Perfecta Casada (1583) and De los nombres de Cristo (1583-1585) likewise have their roots in Scripture. La Perfecta Casada is avowedly based on the thirty-first chapter of Proverbs, and De los nombres de Cristo, the first part of which appeared simultaneously with La Perfecta Casada,[264] discusses the various symbolic names applied to the Saviour in the Bible.
La Perfecta Casada is dedicated to Maria Varela Osorio, a recently wedded bride, who may have been a distant kinswoman of the author's.[265] Nowhere more clearly than in this treatise does Luis de Leon justify the statement that he had a Hebrew soul. He takes for granted the Oriental point of view, and illustrates his imperious thesis with ample quotations from writers of all types—pagans, Christians, saints, and laymen. There are references to Simonides, to Sophocles, to Euripides, to Plutarch, to Saint Clement of Alexandria, to Saint Cyprian, to Saint Ambrose, to Garcilasso de la Vega. It seems likely that La Perfecta Casada was written after De los nombres de Cristo, which was almost certainly begun in prison. But there is perhaps nothing in the internal evidence of the style which would point to that conclusion. The style of La Perfecta Casada is vigorous and clear; but it is marred by gusts of rhetoric and by an excess of copulative conjunctions. These peculiarities produce the effect of relative inexperience, and might easily mislead a too confident critic.
De los nombres de Cristo is cast in the Platonic form of dialogue, and, in the section entitled Pastor, Plato is quoted by name. But the Hellenic influence, though present, is not dominant. Already Alonso de Orozco had anticipated Luis de Leon with De los nueve nombres de Cristo,[266] and there are points of contact in the handling as is inevitable from the similarity of the subject. But it cannot be denied that Luis de Leon's work is suffused with a warmer, more human interest than Orozco's brief sketch. These more intimate personal elements are present on almost every page of De los nombres de Cristo. Nobody can read far without perceiving that Marcello, hindered by his poca salud y muchas occupaciones, is manifestly a double of Luis de Leon; there are passages which gloss themes developed metrically elsewhere; there are retrospicient glances at the Valladolid trial; the scene of the dialogue is laid within view of La Flecha, and the details of the landscape are reproduced with exact fidelity; Luis de Leon has a freer hand in De los nombres de Cristo than in his other prose works, but here again in his paraphrases of the Biblical passages relating to Christ his interpretation is at one with the interpretation of the prophets. And this identity of sentiment has in it nothing dramatic. Those who have alleged that Luis de Leon came of Jewish stock may have been—apparently were—mistaken; but their mistake is comprehensible, for more than any contemporary Spanish poet—more even than Herrera in his odes—is he saturated with the Jewish spirit. In all his work Luis de Leon adheres closely to the Bible. In the De los nombres de Cristo he is also a Platonist within limits: not so much as regards the manner (which tends to an oratorical pomp more reminiscent of Cicero) as in his conciliatory method. With the Jewish and Hellenic blend of influence we must rate the Latin influence—that of Horace and of Virgil. The influence of Horace on Luis de Leon has been often noted. It exists no doubt, but has perhaps been exaggerated: why should we suppose that his love of moderation was learnt from Horace and was not partly, at least, temperamental? May not the references to Horace be a characteristic of humanism? An opinion backed by the weight of classical authority must reach us with irresistible force, must it not? However this may be, the predominant influence in De los nombres de Cristo, as in all Luis de Leon's prose, is Scriptural and Christian. In maturity of development, in intellectual force, in beauty of expression, and in general adequateness, De los nombres de Cristo exhibits Luis de Leon's prose at its culmination. The book is dedicated to Pedro Portocarrero,[267] Bishop of Calahorra, who had previously twice been rector of Salamanca University. It seems probable that Luis de Leon's friendship with him dates back to 1566-1567, when Portocarrero held the office of rector for the second time. Besides De los nombres de Cristo Luis de Leon dedicated to Portocarrero In Abdiam prophetam Explanatio (1589) and the manuscript collection of his poems. For some reason not very obvious this collection of verses was not published till 1631 when it was issued by Quevedo, who hoped that it would help to stem the current of Gongorism in Spain. The poems, printed forty years after the author's death, appeared too late to affect the public taste. Góngora himself had died in 1627, but his influence was undiminished. Quevedo, who had obtained his copies of Luis de Leon's verses from Manuel Sarmiento de Mendoza, a canon of Seville cathedral, did his share as editor by writing two prefaces, one addressed to Sarmiento de Mendoza, and the other to Olivares who was manifestly expected to pronounce against Gongorism. Olivares, however, had no reason to love Quevedo, and was resolved to take no active part in what he doubtless regarded as a scribblers' quarrel. Gongorism pursued its way unchecked. Quevedo's edition, though incomplete and disfigured by certain errors, was reprinted at Milan during the same year (1631), and then all interest in Luis de Leon flickered out for a while.
In the prefatory note of the 1631 Madrid edition—entitled Obras propias, y tradvciones latinas, griegas y italianas—Luis de Leon speaks of his poems slightingly as mere playthings of his youth, now brought together at the request of an anonymous friend—perhaps Benito Arias Montano—to whom they had been ascribed. Luis de Leon arranges the material in three books, containing respectively his original compositions, his translations from authors profane, and his versions of certain psalms, a hymn, and chapters from the Book of Job. But, beyond the general statement as to the early date of composition, Luis de Leon gives no precise information as to when individual poems were written. The assertion that the poems date back almost to the author's childhood is contradicted by concrete facts. Take, for instance, the celebrated Noche serena dedicated to Oloarte. If, as I conjecture, the dedicatee of the Noche serena is identical with the Diego de Loarte, archdeacon of Ledesma, who gave evidence at Salamanca on January 27, 1573, and who on that date had known Luis de Leon for fourteen years, the Noche serena cannot have been composed earlier than 1559 when Luis de Leon was thirty-one—youthful, indeed, but long past his niñez. On January 17, 1573, Francisco Salinas testified at Salamanca to having known Luis de Leon for six years: whence it follows that El aire se serena cannot have been written before 1567, when Luis de Leon was bordering on his fortieth year. As Don Carlos died on July 24, 1568, the Cancion a la muerte de don Carlos and the Epitafio al túmulo del príncipe don Carlos must necessarily have been composed after that date; that is, when Luis de Leon was just forty and had left his niñez far behind him. Besides a general dedication to Portocarrero, the collection includes three individual poems which are dedicated to that personage: (1) Virtud, hija del Cielo; (2) No siempre es poderosa; (3) La cana y alta cumbre. In La cana y alta cumbre there is a reference to
que agora el Marte airado
despierta en la alta sierra.
These verses can scarcely allude to anything but the Alpujarras rising of 1568-1571, and the conjecture hardens into certainty in view of the mention of Alonso and Poqueira: this is clearly the Alonso Portocarrero who, as Hurtado de Mendoza records, perished at Poqueira, 'trabado del veneno usado dende los tiempos antiguos entre cazadores'. This poem must have been written when Luis de Leon was at least forty-one. Virtud, hija del cielo, in mentioning the Miño, refers to Portocarrero's appointment in Galicia; and as Portocarrero's term of office appears to have lasted from 1571 to 1580, the poem cannot be dated earlier than 1571 when Luis de Leon was over forty-three. If the mention of la morisca armada in the lines A Santiago glances at the battle of Lepanto which was fought on October 7, 1571, then the poem must have been written after that date, when the author was close on forty-four. The verses dedicated to Juan de Grial, with their closing reference to the writer's trials: