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