raging there.  Luis de Leon had expected a visit from Poza that day, and had intended to burn the volume in Poza’s presence.  He carried out the main part of his intention by burning the work in the presence of Fray Bartolome de Carranza, to whom he explained the meaning of this holocaust.  No more was heard of Poza; yet it seems that Luis de Leon’s curiosity as to the possibilities of astrology continued with but little abatement.[173] This half-belief in astrology as a kind of black art was widespread during the sixteenth century, and vestiges of this ingenuous credulity have survived in unexpected quarters till our own time.  It was perhaps unwise of Luis de Leon thus to furnish his adversaries with ammunition which they might use against him; but could anything bespeak conscious innocence more strongly than his voluntary avowal?

Luis de Leon heaped one indiscretion on another.  In his protestations of innocence, he went so far as to suggest to the Court what course it should take.  He told the judges plainly that they ought to order Leon de Castro to be prosecuted for perjury.[174] Later on, he declared with vehemence that his detention was without a shadow of legality, that his imprisonment ought not to continue for a single day, and that he ought to be compensated for the injury done him.[175] These may have been truths; but they were decidedly unpalatable, and the expediency of making these assertions to a prejudiced bench is at least doubtful.  But expediency was not an arm that Luis de Leon could bring himself to use.  He complained again and again of delays, attributing this loss of time to official mismanagement and incidentally reflecting on the competency of the judges.  As time went on, and as the prisoner’s health grew weaker, he lost patience, making his complaints of delay more frequently and with increasing vehemence.[176] He impressed on his hearers the fundamental absurdity of certain charges against him, and, waxing indignant at the statement that he had thrown doubt on the coming of Christ, he objected to having so senseless a jest fathered on him.  There was always the alternative that he might be supposed to have used in earnest the words imputed to him; in which case, even if the evidence on this point were far more decisive than it actually was, ’before believing it, it would be your duty to ascertain whether I had gone out of my mind at the time, or were drunk’.[177] It is, no doubt, difficult to meet a contention of this kind; but such a contention is not calculated to capture the sympathies of a wavering Court.  Nor should it be overlooked that the judges were subjected to continual pressure from the attacking parties.  The official calificadores took a serious view of Luis de Leon’s opinions on the authority of the Vulgate; they showered reports upon the judges; naturally these reports did not always agree with one another, but they were unanimous in one respect; they declared against the teaching of