A Little-Studied Manuscript of Luis de León: TheQuaestiones Variae

Abstract

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image sizeBSS Subject Index: LEÓN, FRAY LUIS DE (1527–1591)MANUSCRIPTS/CODICESRELIGION [AS LITERARY, CULTURAL & IDEOLOGICAL THEME]PHILOSOPHYQUAESTIONES VARIAE [L. DE LEÓN] Notes 1. See my two articles in BHS, LVII (1980), 95–102; 199–211. 2. W. Repges, Philologische Untersuchungen zu den Gesprachen über die Namen Christi von Fray Luis de León (Münster, 1959), 430–50; A. C. Vega, ‘Capítulo de una obra inédita de Fray Luis de León’, La Ciudad de Dios, 166 (1954), 127–57. 3. In ‘La escuela teológica agustiniana de Salamanca’, CD, 169 (1956), 656–60. Apart from the missing title, the consequent renumbering of his q.14 as q.15, and some minor errors of transcription, ‘prius’ should read ‘potius’ in q.3, and ‘detulit’ ‘concedit’ in q.8. 4. See Colección de documentos inéditos para la historia de España, ed. Salvá and Sainz de Baranda (Madrid 1847), X, 443, 448; and Vega, ‘Capítulo de una obra inédita …’, 132–33. 5. Opera, ed. M. Gutiérrez, 7 vols. (Salamanca: Episcopali Calatravae Collegio, 1891–95); see Vega, 134–37. 6. On Pineda, see M. Andrés, La teología española en el siglo xvi, 2 vols. (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1976–77), 1, 196. 7. For the teaching of Fray Luis on biblical hermeneutics, see his Tractatus de sensibus Sacrae Scripturae, in O. García de la Fuente, ‘Un tratado inédito y desconocido de Fr. Luis de León’, CD, 170 (1957), 258–334. 8. The belief that Matthew's Gospel was a translation into Greek from the Hebrew (or Aramaic) was widespread until the rise of modern critical scholarship, just as it was thought to be the first to be written. Its nearest modern equivalent would be the ‘Aramaic substratum’ scholars have seen lying beneath the Greek text, and the ‘Q’ hypothesis (material common to Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark, and deriving from an oral source). 9. Bataillon, Erasmo y España, 2nd edn. (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1966), 760–69. 10. For discussion of this, see The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1963–70), III, 59–61. 11. The Targums are translations or interpretations of the Old Testament made when Hebrew was no longer commonly understood by Jews. 12. See for example Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. T. McNeil (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 467–74. 13. Another important discussion of Lutheran-Catholic controversy, this time on the Mass, can be found in MS. cxxiii 2–27 of the Biblioteca Pública de Évora, De Sacramentis, ff. 193r–211v, part of a series of lectures given by Mancio de Corpus Christi, who held the Prime Chair of Theology at Salamanca from 1564–76. It has been claimed that Fray Luis substituted for Mancio in this section, but there is no manuscript evidence to support this view. 14. Fray Luis seems to regard faith as related to the will rather than to the intellect, though this may be a mistake he would have corrected had the work been prepared by him for publication. 15. Philip's rather dark comments come in his reply to a letter of Quiroga, 4 August 1575 (BM MS. Eg. 1506, f. 23r-v). The King had been anxious for Montano to return to Spain for some time, and so had Montano's enemies at court and in the Church. For full discussion of this, see J. L. de Orella y Unzue, Respuestas católicas a las Centurias de Magdeburgo (1559–1588) (Madrid: Fundación Universitaria Española, 1976), 366–86. 16. Part of his self-defence in the trial documents, Colección de documentos inéditos para la historia de España, X (Madrid 1847), 519. 17. Repges, Philologische Untersuchungen … 54–58, provides a bibliography of these.