Law and Apocalypse: The Moral Thought of Luis De León (1527?–1591)

165 Pages·1972·7.29 MB·English

by  Karl A. Kottman (auth.)

LAW AND APOCALYPSE:
THE MORAL THOUGHT OF LUIS DE LEON
(1527?-1591)
ARCHIVES INTERNATIONALES D'HISTOIRE DES IDEES
INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS
44
KARL A. KOTTMAN
LAW AND APOCALYPSE:
THE MORAL THOUGHT OF LUIS DE LEON
52 7? - 59
( I I I )
Directors: P. Dibon (Paris) and R. Popkin (Univ. of California, La Jolla)
Editorial Board: J. Aubin (Paris); J. Collins (St. Louis Univ.); P. Costabel (Paris);
A. Crombie (Oxford); I. Dambska (Cracow); H. de la Fontaine-Verwey (Amsterdam);
H. Gadamer (Heidelberg); H. Gouhier (Paris); T. Gregory (Rome); T. E. Jessop (Hull);
P. O. Kristeller (Columbia Univ.); Elisabeth Labrousse (Paris); S. Lindroth (Upsala);
A. Lossky (Los Angeles); J. Orcibal (Paris); I. S. Revah (Paris); J. Roger (Paris);
H. Rowen (Rutgers Univ., N.Y.) G. Sebba (Emory Univ., Atlanta); R. Shackleton (Oxford);
J. Tans (Groningen); G. Tonelli Binghamton, N.Y.
LAW AND APOCALYPSE:
THE MORAL THOUGHT OF LUIS DE LEON
(I5 7?-I59I)
2
by
KARL A. KOTTMAN
•
MARTINUS NI]HOFF / THE HAGUE / 1972
@ 1972 by Martinus NijhQ/f, The Hague, Netherlands
Softcover reprint oft he hardcover 1st edition 1972
All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to
reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form
ISBN-J3: 978-94-010-2735-9 e-ISBN-J3: 978-94-010-2733-5
DOl: 10.1007/978-94-010-2733-5
With love to my parents, Karl and Dorothy,
and my wife, Mary.
And with respect to:
Ernest J. Burrus, S.J.
Claudio Guillen
James T. Monroe
Stanley Moore
Carlos G. Noreiia
Francisco L. Peccorini
Richard H. Popkin
John R. Quinn
Paul Saltman
William L. Shipley
Avrum Stroll
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE IX
CHAPTER I Introduction
CHAPTER II Christian Hebraism: Its Thomistic Bases and
Its Presence in Luis de Leon 19
CHAPTER III Domingo Soto's Definition of Jus Gentium, Fray
Luis de Leon's De Legibus, and the Law of the Decalog 42
CHAPTER IV Fray Luis' Social Theory 65
CHAPTER V Morality and National Destiny in Fray Luis 86
ApPENDIX I Correspondence of the Commentaries on the
Texts of Canticles as Found in the Tertia Explanatio and the
Pugio Fidei 116
ApPENDIX II Translations of Brief Sections of Fray Luis' Com
mentary on Canticles 5: 10-15, 7: 5,6: 7, and 4: 1-5, and
Its Dependence Upon the Section of the Zohar known as
Ura Rabba or "Greater Holy Assembly" 121
ApPENDIX III Relation of Texts from the Nombre de Cristo:
"Pimpollo" and Texts of De Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis 130
BIBLIOGRAPHY 134
PREFACE
This book has two purposes. The first is clearly historical, the second is
more philosophical and interpretive. Its success in the former will be less
arguable than its attainment of the latter.
The contribution to the history of Spanish letters consists in critically
establishing the fact that the sources of Fray Luis de Le6n's moral and
spiritual thought are Hebraic and that he can be seen to stand as one in
a long line of Christian Hebraists, both scholastic and humanist. His
philosophical views are cast in an Hebraic tradition, not in an Hellenic
one as supposed by nearly every other commentator.
I have stressed the presence of a living Hebrew culture in Spain after
1492, and I have suggested that this and the Jewish parentage of Fray
Luis are very significant. I have also identified an intellectual debt Fray
Luis owed to non-Jewish Orientalists such as Egidio da Viterbo and
Girolamo Seripando. But, even they learned from exiled Spaniards. I
want to present Fray Luis as a most characteristic thinker in the world of
Baroque Spain. I think most will agree with the picture I have outlined.
The more audacious aspect is my wish to show the importance of the
Jewish heritage as found in the literary and philosophical production of
this remarkable genius. It is, of course, my contention that today know
ledge about Fray Luis and what he stood for is extraordinarily important.
I do not insist that his contribution to thought was altogether unique, or
that he was solely responsible for all the good things he was capable of
saying. Like all great teachers, Fray Luis was a follower of mentors and
had faithful students of his own. But, it is apparent that he was an extra
ordinary and gifted student of humanity. He was one of the early, and
perhaps the most significant, of all the interpreters of the discovery of
America and its implications for mankind.
First, what is new about Christians recognizing the importance of
Jewish culture? Of course some have rejected Israel's rich history as of no
x
PREFACE
special significance. Others, like St. Paul, while insisting that grace is
from Jesus Christ, have recognized man's need of divine help and so
have reverenced the traditions of those to whom God has revealed Him
self.
And what of Fray Luis? Perhaps he does emphasize the Hebraic in his
interpretations of Christian ideals, unlike many of his more nationalistic
contemporaries. But, is this not what some Christians have always done?
Indeed, his Hebraicism may seem more the mark of a very conservative
theologian than of an innovator in the philosophical realm.
My own interpretation of Fray Luis depends upon a distinction be
tween religious and rational forms of knowledge. I have supposed this is
correct throughout this study. I do not claim that I can conclusively prove
that it is a real one, but I do suppose that the issue is controversial and I
am inclined personally to accept it. What is more to the point, it is a dis
tinction Fray Luis himself made and it seems to apply in all his writings.
Both religion and reason are common to men. But, does reason ade
quately account for the sources of religious thought? In religion in general,
whether that of the Jews or of the indigenous Mexicans, there may be an
element of the human capacity to know manifested that is not identical
with a solely rational understanding of his nature. Nevertheless, such
elements would be universal as is religion itself.
Religion involves recognition, in thought and action, of man's relation
with the divine. Reason may lead to natural religion, but may it not in
volve also an a priori union with the divine at some higher plane of under
standing?
Everything depends upon human culture's being religious as different
from its being rational. For Fray Luis the categories of religion can be
more general than those of logic. It is in this light that one has to read
him to see the significance of his interest in things Hebraic.
It was never unusual in Christian theology to insist that the Mosaic
revelation really enlightened mankind benighted by sin. However, no
orthodox thinker would see salvation as dependent upon knowing the
Bible in Hebrew.
Nevertheless, Fray Luis does assume that the Hebrew religious culture
is the most natural of all. In the same way, he assumes that Hebrew is the
most natural of all languages. The reason for this is not only that the Old
Testament is divine revelation. True religion, like speech, is something
of which all men are capable with God's help. However, Fray Luis sup
poses, like the Old Testament itself, that reason alone is an insufficient
basis for religion. In the same way not all languages are equally expressive
PREFACE XI
of the truth. Hebraic spirituality is most esteemed by him not so much
because of what it adds to man's natural capacities, but because of the
way in which it perceives the natural limits of his rational ones.
Fray Luis was not unaquainted with the religions of the New World.
His reverence for the religious element in all men is evidenced in his sup
position that at least some of the native Americans may worship God
worthily, even if they had not yet been evangelized by exterior preaching.
Deeply impressed by the rapidity of the evangelization of Mexico, he saw
that true observance of the divine law was already passing from Europe
to America as it has passed to the Roman Empire from the Jewish
evangelists. In a prophetic passage he wrote:
As the sun is ever sending forth its light which now illumines some part of
the world and now fades away in other parts, so the doctrine of Christ is
continually passing from one nation to another, illuminating some while
others again sink into darkness.1
The analogy of Iberia's role in America and the Christian Jews' in
ancient Rome is no accident. It rests upon his view that only Hebraic
Christianity has adequately represented the message of Christ to non
Biblical peoples.
Christ came to unify men. His message was a spiritual one and among
his gifts was supernatural grace. But, the oneness of man is by no means
limited to the supernatural order. Indeed, the spiritual unity of man can
be a natural phenomenon as well. No where was this more evident than
in the rapid spread of Christianity in the Americas, certainly more so
than in the evangelization of Rome. Moral unity can find its basis in
man's asperations. And if these are expressed basically in religious cate
gories, such conversions demonstrate the underlying humanity of the
Christian faith.
It is the Hebrew-Christian tradition which best shows how the messiah
overcomes the cultural differences of men. This is not done by force. As
it is false that Jesus was a temporal ruler, it is no less false that techniques
devised by man adequately explain the spread of the gospel and the ap
parent unification of men from diverse cultures that accompanies it.
I say the Hebrew-Christian tradition because the natural unity Fray
Luis envisioned for men does not end at the spiritual level. Rather, he
insisted that the hopes of Israel for a temporal, this worldly, reign of
universal justice and peace can and must be satisfied. The spiritual and
material hopes of man are focused in a universal religion, and in no other
1 This is from Edward Schuster's abridged translation, Louis of Leon, D.S.A., The
Names of Christ, (St. Louis: Herder, 1955), p. 161.
XII PREFACE
according to Fray Luis, because he saw they were needful of being satis
fied on a world-wide scale in a way never before imagined.
His longing is an Hebraic longing, but it is for him also the longing of
the isles across the sea. Spiritual unity alone inadequately responds to the
fullness of scope and depth in human expectations. So scientific logic
fails to grasp the symbol of their natural authenticity, Fray Luis' Christ.
I will not account for the significance the discovery and evange
lization of Mexico held for Fray Luis in any detail. With this study as a
basis, I hope to do so in the future. So one must not expect me to defend
all I have just outlined.
Many other features of Fray Luis' thought are left undeveloped.
Among the most suggestive are his concept of Church reform, his ideas
about spirituality for women, especially married women, his innovations
in language theory, and his notion of physical science and technology.
A word has to be said about my treatment of Domingo Soto. Of course
I stand by what I say about his ideas in relation to those of Fray Luis.
But, it would be wrong if one were to suppose that there was any personal
bitterness or resentment between them. Besides the fact of Soto's seniority
in age and experience, and his vast personal prestige, it is entirely likely
that Fray Luis admired the liberality of the man who favored the Indians
at Valladolid.
This works owes much to the efforts of Mmes. Fran Newman and Chris
Scott and the resources of the libraries of the University of California, to
Miss Suzanne Enos and Dr. Simon Cohen and to their respective libraries
at Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania, and the Hebrew Union
College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, Ohio.
I offer my gratitude to Father Robert Welsh, O.S.A., President of
Villanova University, Professor Raimundo Lida and Mr. Yosef H.
Yerushalmi, Harvard University, Father Ernest J. Burrus, S.J., Pontifical
Gregorian University, Professors Carlos Norena, Stanley Moore, and
Carlos Blanco, University of California, for their suggestions and valuable
advise. Professors Claudio Guillen, Joaquin Casalduero, James Monroe,
Paul Saltman and A vrum Stroll, University of California, all bolstered
flagging spirits by the example of their personal standards.
I want to thank Professor Paul Dibon for his generous consideration
of this book and Professor Richard H. Popkin who not only interested
me in Fray Luis, but suggested what developed into a satisfying viewpoint
from which to study him. I feel very much in his debt in many ways.
Finally, thanks to my wife, Mary Kottman, for her love and patience
during the writing, and her talents in typing, sine qua non.
San Diego, California K.K.