Luis, Pedro

Author: Mário João Correia
Part of: Varii Conimbricenses (coord. by Mário Santiago de Carvalho)
Peer-Reviewed: Yes
Published: September, 14th, 2024
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.13760255

---

The latest version of this entry may be cited as follows: Correia, Mário João, “Pedro Luis”, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = “10.5281/zenodo.13760255”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/pedro-luis”, latest revision: September, 14th, 2024.

---

Pedro Luis (Pero Luis Beuther, Petrus Ludovicus, 1538-1602) was a Valencian Jesuit philosopher and theologian who left us dozens of writings and participated in the creation and enhancement of the groundbreaking Jesuit theory of God’s foreknowledge of the future contingents that led to the De auxiliis controversy. Despite his prominence as one of the most reputed theologians at the University of Évora at the end of the 16^th century, the fact that he had many institutional issues concerning his Christological theses made him fall into oblivion after his death. Almost all of his works remain unedited, and he is still an unknown figure today, even to scholars who study his period and context. However, Klaus Reinhardt left us many valuable studies on his life and his doctrine of divine foreknowledge, which will be the main source of this entry (cf. Reinhardt 1963, 1965 and 1966). It will be divided into two parts, namely, Life and Works, followed by a list of letters and smaller works from and about Pedro Luis. This list serves as a chronology of the biographical milestones from which we can piece together his life journey.

Life

Youth (1538-1558)

Pedro Luis was born in Valencia in 1538, son of Pedro Antonio Beuther (Pere Antoni Beuther, c. 1490/5-1554), a humanist theologian who wrote the first History of Valencia in Catalan and taught theology at the University of Valencia. In his will, dated 5^th of October 1554, Pedro Antonio Beuther fathered his illegitimate son Pedro Luis and granted him a house and land on the outskirts of Valencia, as well as a sum of money to maintain him in his studies (Batllori 1967: 128-129 and 138-140). From a questionnaire of the Visitor Jerónimo Nadal to the Colégio das Artes of Coimbra (apud Reinhardt 1963: 3-17), answered in 1561, we get to know more detailed information about Luis’ family and youth in Valencia, as well as his path before he arrived at Coimbra. He had two brothers and two sisters, and his family was prosperous economically (“Bien tiene con que vivir”, he says about his mother). Before entering the Jesuit school of Valencia at the age of 16, he was already studying at the University. In his late theological writings, he praises one of his professors in those times: Pedro Juan Nuñez, a Valencian Ramist. From the questionnaire mentioned above, we also learn that Pedro Luis’ inclination and capacity to learn languages, especially poetry, was almost non-existent and that he forgot all he knew about Greek and Hebrew. He thought that he was better in speculative matters. Some years later, he will complain about his inability to learn Portuguese.

In February 1555, he joined the Jesuit school, was admitted to the novitiate, and began again his philosophical studies. As this school was the first instituted in Spain, some of the most reputed Jesuits in those times were Valencian (to name a few, Jerónimo Doménech, Diego Mirón [or Miró], Nicolau Gracida, and Benet Pereira [or Perera]). However, his life was itinerant between his entrance into the Society of Jesus and 1558. He was successively in Cuenca, Alcalá, Medina del Campo, Simancas, Monterey, São Fins (Valença) and finally he arrived at Coimbra, where he would finish his philosophical studies, as we will see. This itinerant life was part of his novitiate, involving the completion of the spiritual exercises, probations, and the first vows. In some of these places, he fell ill. However, he taught grammar in Medina del Campo and was gatekeeper for some months. In Simancas, he wrote and translated whatever he was asked to. In Monterey, he also lectured (“letor de la que allá llaman primera classe”). From 1558 on, although against his wishes, he lived in Portugal until his death.

Philosophy in Coimbra, Braga and Évora (1558-1568)

It is finally in Coimbra that he finished his philosophical formation. He studied there for a year and nine months. He arrived near August 1558. His master was most likely Marcos Jorge since he taught a course that started in 1556 and finished at the beginning of 1560, preserved in manuscript (mss. Escorial, Real Biblioteca del Monasterio de El Escorial, J-III-1, J-III-2, J-III-3, J-III-4, and J-III-5). By the spring of 1560, Pedro Luis was already magister artium, and he had started to study theology for some months, probably also with Marcos Jorge. One of his colleagues was no other than Luis de Molina (Reinhardt 1965: 12).

However, he interrupted his studies and went to Lisbon. The goal of this journey was to be sent on a mission, possibly to India (maybe to Germany), but for some reason (his intellectual capacities? his poor health? who knows…), he didn’t go. We know for sure that his will was to go on a mission to India since he states this wish in more than one document. Instead, he lectured the first philosophy course of the recently founded Colégio de São Paulo in Braga. This three-year course (started on the 18^th of October 1561 and finished at the beginning of 1564) could not be found in any extant manuscript. Klaus Reinhardt (1965: 13) supposes Luis may have used Marcos Jorge’s commentary to teach. We know that Pedro Luis was enthusiastically received and praised, and that he disputed the first public disputation of the new school on the 25^th of January 1562 (Reinhardt 1965: 12-13).

After this course in Braga, Luis moved to Évora in the Autumn of 1564. He taught a four-year philosophy course, partially preserved in two manuscripts (cf. 2.1 below), and then, as usual in his order, he started learning Theology. The other masters teaching philosophy courses during those four years were Pedro Martins, Belchior Afonso, João Brandão, Francisco Cardoso, and João Correia. Many years later, as we will see, João Correia will be one of Luis’ supporters in his struggle to publish his polemical De incarnatione. There is also record of a list of some of his pupils in those years: Sebastião Álvares, Nicolau Pimenta, Manuel Afonso, Brás Marques, Pedro Mascarenhas, Baltasar Esteves, João and Jerónimo Rebelo, Luís Henriques, and Gaspar de Góis (Reinhardt 1965: 13-14). During this period, we also have a record of Luis’ friendship with Manuel Álvares, one of the Forty Martyrs of Brazil, who supposedly told Luis that he had the revelation of his future martyrdom (Franco 1714: 236; Franco 1945: III, ff. 159r and 242v).

Theology in Évora and Coimbra (1568-1595)

Pedro Luis began studying theology for the second time in Évora in 1568 after finishing his Philosophy course. His professors were Fernando Pérez, Luis de Molina, Pedro da Fonseca (for a short period, in 1570), Inácio Martins (also for a brief period, in the same year), Gaspar Gonçalves and Pedro Paulo Ferrer. While studying, he made his vows and was ordained priest in 1570. He completed his studies on July 1573, as baccalaureus, and earned the degree of baccalaureus formatus on the 30^th of January 1574 (Reinhardt 1965: 14-16).

By the end of his studies, however, his letter to the Superior General Everard Mercurian shows that he did not feel at home in Portugal (apud Reinhardt 1963: 7-9). He complains about Évora’s climate, his difficulties with the Portuguese language, and the way his Portuguese brothers treat him. Once again, he stresses his great wish to go on a mission to India. Despite these complaints, he remained in Portugal and started lecturing on ST Ia IIae, substituting Gaspar Gonçalves, who was elected chancellor of the University. Luis used Molina’s early commentary to prepare his lectures, which took place between the 10^th of March 1575 and (probably) July 1576 (cf. ms. Lisboa, Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal [BNP], cod. 2796 and cod. 2802).

These lectures were interrupted due to an outbreak of plague in Évora. Luis moved to Coimbra and lectured for three years, but there is no record of his teachings. According to Klaus Reinhardt, Fernão Rebelo, his fellow there, already showed his disapproval of Luis’ teachings in these years. Later, Fernão Rebelo would become one of his fiercest opponents (Reinhardt 1965: 16-17). It was also in these Coimbra years that he took his perpetual solemn vows (on the 14^th of April 1577, in São Roque, Lisbon) and that he earned the title of doctor in theology (on the 21^st of April, in Évora). He stayed in Coimbra until the middle of 1579. The last testimony of his activity before his departure to Évora is a ceremonial speech to the students of Colégio das Artes on the 9^th of May 1579 (ms. Coimbra, Biblioteca Geral da Universidade de Coimbra [BGUC], cod. 993, ff. 446v-447v).

From July 1579 on, Évora was his home. Most of his extant writings were redacted during this long Évora period. He was given the cadeira de Véspera between 1579 and 1584, when he substituted Molina and was assigned the cadeira de Prima. He lectured uninterruptedly this class until 1592. Below, in 2.2, one can find a list of his extant writings on ST I and ST III, the result of his lectures in those years.

The year 1584 is also the date of the first of many preserved documents that point to a disquiet around Pedro Luis and his supposedly extravagant teachings. In 3, below, I listed the documents Reinhardt found and edited containing complaints, censurae, and apologiae of Pedro Luis’ teachings, mainly on the satisfaction and the merit of Christ, contrition, predestination, and justification. His main opponents were Fernão Rebelo, Brás Viegas, and Francisco Pereira. Even João Correia, who supported Luis, censored some of his theses. One can easily notice that Pedro Luis was a source of unrest. We even have a letter from Brás Viegas to the Superior General Claudio Aquaviva requesting the expulsion of Pedro Luis from the University (apud Reinhardt 1966: 39-40).

In July 1592, a letter from João Álvares, the Provincial of Portugal, to Aquaviva informs us that Pedro Luis was very ill and had to interrupt his lectures and move to Vale do Rosal (Almada). Pedro Luis writes to Aquaviva on the 28^th of December, still from Vale do Rosal, trying to convalesce and recover his strength (apud Reinhardt 1963: 42-45).

In spite of his poor health, Pedro Luis lectured until 1595. In April 1593, he participated in the Provincial Congregation in Lisbon and reported it to Aquaviva. Shortly after, he started his lectures again in Évora. He finished António Carvalho’s (his substitute while recovering) lectures on ST II IIae and then moved for the second time to ST III. Moreover, he helped Pedro da Fonseca in the completion of his commentary on the Metaphysics, as well as in a failed project of a compendium (ms. Rome, ARSI, Lusitania 72, f. 213v. Cf. Carvalho 2023: 35; Carvalho 2020: ch. 1.6.; and Gomes 1965: XXXII). He collaborated with Fonseca in this task at least in 1594, maybe earlier than that. By May 1595, Francisco de Gouveia, the Provincial, wrote to Aquaviva saying that Évora was short of professors since Pedro Luis was unable to keep teaching. Although he still attends some academic acts in the next year, 1595 is the end of a long career as a professor of Prima (Reinhardt 1965: 18). A new phase in his life begins: Luis’ struggle to publish his controversial commentary on ST III, titled De incarnatione.

Last years: illness, controversies and oblivion (1595-1602)

Pedro Luis’ last years were marked by his defence against the censorship of some of his Christological ideas. As we saw, Brás Viegas demanded his expulsion, or at least Luis’ move to another province. However, the Provincial Francisco de Gouveia wasn’t so harsh on Luis. He appointed Luis Vice-Rector of the Colégio da Purificação da Nossa Senhora, in Évora, and even demanded that the Rector of the University, Jerónimo Dias, should show more compassion towards Luis. At the same time, Gouveia submitted Luis’ De incarnatione to a commission of theologians for examination and delayed the permission to print it. This commission was made up of João Correia, António de Castelo-Branco, and Lourenço Fernandes. Pedro Luis’ work was approved and praised by the commission, and so, by January 1599, everything seemed to favour the publication of his polemical work (cf. Correia’s letter apud Reinhardt 1966: 53).

Pedro Luis planned a trip to Madrid to find a publisher. But once again, his fellows stopped him: in a letter from Francisco Pereira, collaborator of the Portuguese Inquisition, to Claudio Aquaviva, written on the 3^rd of June 1599, he warned about Pedro Luis’ trip and demanded a new revision of De incarnatione with the argument that Luis had chosen the Portuguese commission that evaluated his work. Francisco Pereira warns that one should be particularly attentive to the following problems: satisfaction, perfect contrition, predestination, grace, divine relations, and Luis’ way of philosophizing, too close to the Nominalists, too far from Thomas, and distorting the authorities. As Brás Viegas, Francisco Pereira asks Aquaviva at least to send Luis away from the Portuguese province, to Castille (apud Reinhardt 1966: 53-55).

Aquaviva acquiesced to Pereira’s request and a second commission was summoned in Rome to evaluate De incarnatione. By 1600, the Roman commission had permitted the publication of Luis’ work, though it demanded some changes (apud Reinhardt 1966: 55-63). Luis was finally free from accusations and went to Madrid by the end of 1600 and the beginning of 1601. There is record that he was there, but there is no record of the success of his journey. The only information we have after this trip to Madrid is his death, most likely on the 13^th of March 1602. His disease, probably tuberculosis (hectica), finally defeated him (cf. Reinhardt 1965: 21). Luis died unpublished, uncelebrated, forgotten. His works are yet to be thoroughly studied. Some of them have not been studied at all.

Works

This section presents a detailed list of Pedro Luis’ writings, with some first insights into his doctrines and specificities. The list is dependent on Reinhardt’s (1965: ch. 2), with slight corrections and adaptations.

Philosophical commentaries (1566-1568)

As said before, the Braga philosophy course has not been found. The Évora course is incomplete:

• Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2535:
  •  Annotationes in libros Physicorum (1566), ff. 1-201v;
  •  In libros Metaphysicae (1566-7), ff. 205r-350v;
  •  In libros Ethicorum Aristotelis (1567), ff. 351r-385v.
• Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2513:
  • In libros de generatione et corruptione (1567), ff. 1-83v;
  • In libros de anima (1567-1568), ff. 84r-182v.

All these texts are yet to be studied deeply. By now, while working on some specific passages of every commentary, we had the opportunity to compare some of them with Marcos Jorge’s course. In general, a reading of these commentaries benefits the most when read together with other contemporary commentaries. Although one cannot say that Luis copies Jorge, it is likely that his master’s commentary was the model from which he built his own. This is clear, at least, in what concerns his commentary on De anima.

From a still superficial point of view, one can find that some issues occupy a more significant dimension and are more developed than others. These are the ones that may be of more interest, both because they were being discussed more intensely during this period and because they would be the ones that Pedro Luis put more effort into. I shall enumerate them shortly.

Following the order of the extant two-thirds of his Évora course, in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, the lengthier of them all, containing both literal explanations of the text (some of them quite long and complex) and questions, a first assessment points that Luis is especially worried about the following topics:

• Questions concerning cognition and the knowledge of nature: whether knowing a thing perfectly is knowing its four causes, the pair notius nobis vs. notius natura, the knowledge of what is more universal and less universal, etc. (book I, ch. 1, ff. 5v-14r).
• Questions concerning infinity, magnitude, and smallness: if Aristotle proved correctly that there is no natural infinity, if there are minima (atoms, indivisibles), if there is any natural infinite being, if God could produce an infinite being either in discrete or in continuous quantity, etc. (book I, ch. 4, ff. 35v-42v; book III, ch. 8, ff. 103v-113v).
• A long set of questions on the ontological status, so to say, of prime matter, privation, negation, nothingness, and the void (book I, ch. 9, 51v-64r).

Luis treats many other issues, such as the notions of nature, cause, local movement, velocity, place, whole and part, etc. Still, it seems to me that the three highlighted sets of topics may be the ones of more interest. In general, it is quite a lengthy commentary, and it may have some interesting insights into how the Jesuit professors dealt with some polemical natural philosophy issues of the 16^th century.

As for his commentary on the Metaphysics, there are three (or four, depending on the count) books that occupy most of his commentary, namely, books IV, V, and a set of questions on books XIII-XIV (ff. 223r-287r and ff. 323r-350v, 91 of a total of 145 ff., more or less two-thirds of the commentary), and there are two issues that are clearly special for Luis:

• Book IV contains a set of questions, almost a separate treatise, on analogy (ch. 2, titled Quaestio de Analogis, ff. 240r-250v).
• The two longest and more complex questions are at the end of the commentary, loosely commenting on books XIII-XIV, in fact, a set of questions on the ontological status of genus, species, and individuals: one against the reality of less-than-numerical unity, other concerning the distinction of essential levels (books. XIII-XIV, qq. 1-2, ff. 323v-343r).

These two issues will surely be the most promising. A first assessment of his theory of analogy shows that the source of the discussion is Caietanus’ De nominum analogia and that he aims at determining if there is only analogy secundum attributionem or if there is a difference between univocation and analogy secundum proportionem. As for the less-than-numerical unity, Luis thinks that the arguments to put forward the real status of this kind of unity are uselessly trying to ground universal knowledge in something hard to hold. According to him, there is no need for something other than similitude between particulars to ground the certitude of universals. In terms of sources, Luis shows a deep knowledge of the Scotist tradition on this matter and the nuances within it by distinguishing the positions of authors such as Francesco Lycheto, Francesco Sansone, Antonio Trombetta or Pierre Tartaret.

His commentary on the Ethics is not as long and well-developed as the others. It has only 34 ff. (against 200 and 145 for the Physics and the Metaphysics, respectively) and consists mainly of small literal commentaries to the chapters, often a phrase or a small paragraph for each chapter, sometimes a bigger explanation. Still, there are some issues that he treats more deeply: happiness (book I, ch. 1, f. 352r-v, and ch. 8, f. 355v-356v); the control of the intellect over the sensitive appetites (book I, ch. 13, ff. 357v-358v); the notion of virtue, passions and the relationship between virtues and passions (book II, ch. 2, f. 359r-v, ch. 4, ff. 360r-361r, ch. 6, ff. 362r-365r, and book V, ch. 1, f. 377r-v); and a theory of the virtue of justice (book V, ch. 2-11, ff. 373v-378r).

Luis comments on De generatione by providing a long and detailed treatment of many matters both through literal commentary and lengthy questions. The lengthier of the questions is about the hypothesis of a plurality of substantial forms in the same substance. It serves as a preamble for one of the core issues of this commentary: once again, as in his commentary on the Physics, prime matter. He dedicates two questions to it: one asks whether accidents have prime matter as their subject; other on the problem of the corpse, i.e., whether in between the corruption of something and the generation of something else, there is a moment where prime matter exists as such, without any form (book 1, ch. 4, qq. 2-3, ff. 15r-22v). Another very important set of long literal commentaries and questions concerns augmentation and rarefaction (book I, ch. 5, ff. 22v-47v). Finally, he dedicates an extensive part of his commentary on Book II to the elements, their origin, and their elemental primary qualities (ch. 2-4, ff. 68r-76r).

As for De anima, the third in size (after Physics and Metaphysics), one can see easily that Luis put great effort into issues that involve cognition, i.e., sensation, the ontological status of various kinds of sensible and intelligible species, and intellection. Here are the sets of questions that seem more relevant at first glance:

• A set of questions on the definition of the soul, the rational soul as the form of man, and the relationship between body and soul (book I, ch. 1, q. un., ff. 90v-92r [ms. numbered 7v-9r], and ch. 2, qq. 1-3, ff. 94v-102r [ms. 11v-19r]).
• A set of questions on the senses, their activity/passivity, sensation, and the ontological status of species (book II, ch. 5-12, ff. 113r-142v [ms. 30r-59v]).
• A long set of questions on the immortality of the rational soul, its powers (with a special focus on the cognitive powers, since the question on the will is very small), the intelligible species, intellection, formal concepts, and the possibility to separate notitiae from the cognitive powers (Book III, ch. 5, qq. 1-10, ff. 156r-175v [ms. 73r-92v]).

By now, while working on his theory of sensation and comparing it to Marcos Jorge’s and also Manuel de Góis’ (the Cursus Conimbricensis), his closeness to Jorge became apparent. Not only do they hold almost the same positions on sensation and its whereabouts, but their commentaries are also very alike in structure and in the questions they pose. As said before, it seems to me that it is possible that Jorge’s course may have been a model for the writing of Luis’ course, but this needs further research.

Theological commentaries

I will follow Reinhardt’s attempt to ascribe the various manuscripts, sometimes with different dates, to the several periods of teaching at the University of Évora. I will abridge and omit the codicological information (cf. Reinhardt 1965: 25-39). It is likely that this list is incomplete, but it already shows an impressive number of copies of his works and a multiplicity of provenances: not only Braga, Coimbra, and Évora but also Portalegre, São Roque, Elvas, etc. All his theological works are commentaries on parts of the Summa, developed in the context of his teachings in Coimbra and mostly Évora. For some parts of the Summa, we have two different redactions from two different periods of teaching, sometimes with relevant changes, as is the case in what concerns Summa I, in questions concerning foreknowledge, predestination, reprobation, etc., and Summa III, in what concerns the necessity of Incarnation, the merit of Christ, etc. At the end of the list, I shall comment on some first insights about this vast amount of unexplored material.

March 1575 – 1576: In Ia IIae, qq. 1 – 72, art. 1:

•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2796, ff. 1r-197v (qq. 1-21 and 49-72, art. 1)
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2802, ff. 1r-172r (qq. 9, art. 2-q. 72, art. 1)

October–November 1579: De sacramento ordinis (In III Suppl. q. 34):

•   Lisboa, Biblioteca da Ajuda, cod. 50-I-67, ff. 676r-719r;
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2834, Int. VI (3 ff., very incomplete)
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 3976, ff. 137r-192v;
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 5205, ff. 330-379;
•   Oxford, Bodleian Libraries, ms. Bodl. 560, ff. 431-631.

1579–October 1583: In IIa IIae, qq. 1-32:

•  Lisboa, Biblioteca da Ajuda, cod. 50-I-69, ff. 1-280v (qq. 1-26, art. 3);
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2656, ff. 1-215 (qq. 23-32).

1584-July 1587: In Ia, qq. 1-73

•   Coimbra, BGUC, cod. 1948, ff. 1-333v (qq. 1-26);
•   Lisboa, Biblioteca da Ajuda, cod. 50-II-22 (qq. 1-72, some blank ff. with significative loss of qq. and articles in ff. 29v-40r, 105v-112v and 457r-561r);
•   Évora, Biblioteca Pública, cod. 118-2-38 (qq. 27-71);
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 5835, Int. II (ff. 153r-329r) (qq. 44-73);
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2842 (qq. 44-73, autograph);
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2928, (beginning, before numeration of ff., De quattuor fluminibus paradisi [q. 69, disp. 111, quaestiuncula 4, dub. 2]);
•   Oxford, Bodleian Libraries, ms. Bodl. 121, ff. 1-209 (qq. 44-73).

October 1587 – July 1589: De incarnatione (In IIIa, qq. 1-32)

•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2816 (qq. 1-16 and disp. Utrum Verbum divinum sit sanguis);
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2848;
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2876;
•   Braga, Biblioteca Pública, cod. 184;
•   Cambridge, Univ., Gg. I 20, 4, ff. 1-341.

October 1589 – July 1591: De sacramentis (In IIIa, qq. 84-87)

•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 3964, ff. 210r-295r.

October 1591 – July 1592: In Ia, qq. 1-24

•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2783;
•   Braga, Biblioteca Pública, cod. 240, ff. 1-82 (qq. 22-23);
•   Porto, Biblioteca Pública Municipal, cod. 1136, II (excerpt of q. 23).

1593: In IIa IIae, qq. 2-16

•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2805, ff. 346r-416v;
•   Lisboa, BNP, cod. 5461, ff- 232r-291r.

(Reinhardt proved [against Stegmüller’s cataloguing] that the mss. Lisboa, BNP, cod. 2545 and Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 28072, do not contain a Pedro Luis’ redaction of IIa IIae commentary)

1593–1595: De incarnatione (In IIIa, qq. 1-28)

•  Lisboa, BNP, cod. 6226. It is most likely the redaction that is closer to the one he intended to publish in Madrid (the one that was approved by the Rome commission in 1600), but it is not exactly the same.

Klaus Reinhardt studied with detail Pedro Luis’ doctrine of contingency, divine foreknowledge, and, to a shorter extent, predestination and reprobation (Reinhardt 1965). He also did an impressive survey on the several controversies around his Christological ideas by gathering documentation containing censurae against and apologiae by Luis, highlighting the main points of discussion (I will list these documents in the next section). He also made a short comparison between Pedro Luis and António Galvão OESA (1559-1609) on their approach to biblical interpretation in the aftermath of the Council of Trent (Reinhardt 1971).

A study, edition and Portuguese translation of his second redaction of Summa I, questions 10, on eternity, and 14, art. 13, on God’s knowledge of the futures contingents, is going to be published soon. Making a comparison with the first redaction, it is easy to notice important changes that may be explained by the publication of Molina’s Concordia in 1588, in between the two redactions, and by a whole movement of discussion of his thesis and theses alike in the period. As for the theory itself, Luis’ taxonomy of divine foreknowledge is closer to Fonseca’s theory than it is to Molina’s, in the sense that Luis prefers to use the term scientia conditionata and not scientia media, and to group it inside scientia simplicis intelligentiae, not posing a third kind of knowledge in God in between abstractive and intuitive knowledge (for a comparison between Fonseca and Molina, cf. Rebalde 2023: 63-85). At the same time, contrary to Fonseca, Luis doesn’t notice that one cannot equate the pair simplicis intelligentiae vs. visionis (or abstractive vs. intuitive) with the pair naturalis vs. libera. Another similarity between Fonseca and Luis is their discomfort with Molina’s supercomprehensio (or inscrutabilis comprehensio) due to the fact that both of them hold that propositions concerning the future contingents are determinately true or false. So, in alternative, both hold that God knows the future contingents through scientia conditionata by knowing the indeterminate free created will, the determinate volitions it will have and the free connection between the free potency and its effects. Reinhardt puts forward the hypothesis of Luis’ closeness to Suárez, but it seems to me that it is more likely that his interlocutors are Fonseca and Molina. Reinhardt himself states that this hypothesis is more likely. Both of them taught him, he collaborated with Fonseca, and he quotes them in his commentary. Suárez, indeed, wrote an opuscule somewhere between 1586 and 1588 called De scientia conditionalium (edited in González Rivas 1948: 81-132), which stated a similar position to theirs, but it remained unpublished. Moreover, in spite of the similarities between these doctrines, there are also slight differences, in particular, Pedro Luis’ identification of his position with Bonaventure’s. Finally, I also studied the consequences of this doctrine of divine foreknowledge for the relation between sin and Incarnation in his last extant commentary on ST III, i.e., probably the one closest to the redaction he planned to publish. Departing from Aquinas’ assumption that predestination presupposes foreknowledge, Luis tries to order God’s knowledge and volitions against Caietanus’ idea of three orders of things, i.e., nature, grace and hypostatic union (Caietanus 1903: III, q. 1, art. 3, 15-16). Luis solves the question of the relationship between sin and Incarnation by introducing a scientia conditionata of Adam’s sin. It is a first attempt to study his De incarnatione more thoroughly.

It is important to stress two features of his theological works that promise to be of great interest: 1) inside the complex of questions concerning foreknowledge, providence, predestination, and grace, the biggest chunk of text left by Pedro Luis concerns the problem of reprobation; 2) most of the institutional issues while trying to publish, as shown before, have to do with the merit of Christ, satisfaction, and related matters. Although Reinhardt studied the censurae and the apologiae, and gave us a first insight on what is at stake, it would be important to focus more deeply in Luis’ huge two redactions of a commentary on ST III. Maybe contrary to what happens with his philosophical commentary, documentation (see 3) shows very clearly that Pedro Luis knew he was proposing innovative theological theories, and he always refused to retract them, even against the Superior General. The discomfort he created among his pairs and his stubbornness in holding them is a clear sign of authorship. I hope that scholars will rediscover and explore these two topics in the future.

Letters and other smaller writings from (and about) Pedro Luis

Klaus Reinhardt gathered and transcribed a great number of texts from and about Luis, most of them extant in the Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu (ARSI). To his list, one should add some documents explored by Miguel Batllori (1967) and Francisco de Gouveia’s letter to the Superior General that gives us information about Luis’ collaboration in the completion of Pedro da Fonseca’s commentary on the Metaphysics, as well as in a compendium. I will provide a very brief summary of the content of each of these documents. With this summary, one obtains a sketch of a chronology of Pedro Luis’ life, completed by the listed manuscripts above, in 2.

• Valencia, 5^th October 1554: Pedro Antonio Beuther’s will recognizing Pedro Luis as his son and granting him a house and a sum of money for his studies and maintenance – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 1646, doc. 24 (edited by Batllori 1967: 138-140).
• Coimbra, May – July 1561: Pedro Luis’ answers to the Visitor Jerónimo Nadal concerning his age, family, studies, preferences, where he has been, his obedience to the rules of the Society of Jesus, etc – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 77, ff. 259r-260r; Fondo Historia Societatis 251, ff. 308r-309v.
• Évora, 19^th December 1573: Letter to the Superior General Everard Mercurian requesting to move to another province or to go on a mission to India. Luis complains about the climate, his health, his struggle to learn Portuguese, and his tense relations with his Portuguese colleagues. – ARSI, Lusitania 65, ff. 291r-292r. Autograph.
• Évora, 3^rd February 1574: Protocolar note on the graduation of Pedro Luis as bachelor (bacharel formado) – Livro dos juramentos e profissões da fee da Universidade de Évora, Évora, Biblioteca Pública, cod. 130-1-3, f. 50v.
• Lisboa, 14^th April 1577: Perpetual solemn vows – ARSI, Lusitania 1, ff. 55v-56r. Autograph.
• Évora, 21^st April 1577: Protocolar note on the promotion of Pedro Luis as doctor in Theology – Livro dos juramentos…, Évora, Biblioteca Pública, cod. 130-1-3, f. 76r.
• Coimbra, 9^th May 1579: Pedro Luis’ speech in the context of the proofs for examination of the Philosophy students of Colégio das Artes, in Coimbra. A speech on beatitudo – Rerum scholasticarum, Coimbra, BGUC, cod. 993, ff. 446v-447v.
• Évora, 20^th May 1584: Letter of Fernão Rebelo addressed to the Superior General Claudio Aquaviva complaining about Pedro Luis and stating that some of his opinions were censored. Fernão Rebelo proposes a revision of Luis’ writings – ARSI, Lusitania 68, f. 378v.
• Évora, Spring 1584: Claudio Aquaviva’s list of eight condemned doctrines that were supposedly being taught in Évora together with the Responsiones of the Évora professors. They concern the hypostatic union, the nature of Christ, and justification. Some of them were held by Pedro Luis – Évora, Biblioteca Pública, cod. 110-1-17, peça 6, ff. 3r-4r.
• Évora, 13^th June 1587: Letter of Pedro Luis addressed to Claudio Aquaviva. Pedro Luis reports a Provincial Congregation that took place in April in the school of São Roque, Lisbon, and warns the Superior General about two issues. The first concerns the habits and behaviours of the Jesuits in the province. The second concerns a first assessment of a draft of the Ratio studiorum, where Luis proposes some adaptions to the needs of the students in Évora. Finally, he states that some of his opinions were censored, but that he sent his defensiones before – ARSI, Lusitania 70, ff. 171r-172v. Autograph.
• Évora, 5^th July 1587: Letter of Pedro Luis addressed to Claudio Aquaviva. Pedro Luis adds some information about the excessive use of titles and lack of humbleness of some Jesuits in the province, still in the context of the Provincial Congregation – ARSI, Lusitania 70, ff. 199r-v. Autograph.
• Portugal (s.l.), 1588: Letter of the Provincial João Correia to Claudio Aquaviva censoring six propositions of Pedro Luis on Incarnation, the merit of Christ, contrition, satisfaction, etc. – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 656, pp. 122-125.
• Évora, 1588: Pedro Luis’ apology against João Correia’s censorship. This apologia is titled In quo consistat incarnatio and is divided into 12 propositions concerning the humanity of the Word, the relations of causation and dependence, the meaning of dare esse, the categorial analysis of the hypostatic union, etc. – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 656, pp. 127-129.
• Rome, 1589: Censura of the Roman Commission about the six theses denounced by João Correia. The censors demand that Luis retract four of his theses on the merit of Christ and contrition – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 656, pp. 134-135.
• Évora, 29^th January 1592: Letter from Pedro Luis addressed to Claudio Aquaviva. Pedro Luis asks for the intervention of the Superior General in matters concerning the lack of scholarship payment to some students in different situations. He also shares his opinion on Fonseca’s Isagoge: «Lo tercero es que la Isagoge del P. Pero da Fonseca es muy docta y grave; pero para servir de texto, tiene este inconveniente que el texto ha de ser indifferente en questiones ventiladas y probables in utramque partem, y él es partial en algunas opinions, y assí tiene por contrarios los que fueren de la contraria opinion. Exemplo es que pone universalia realia y que intellectus non cognoscit primo singularia…». In his opinion, Fonseca’s Isagoge is not suitable as a handbook – ARSI, Lusitania 71, f. 63r-64v. Autograph.
• Coimbra, 31^st July 1592: Letter from the Provincial João Álvares to Claudio Aquaviva informing that Pedro Luis was tired and ill, and that António Carvalho gladly substituted him as professor of Prima – ARSI, Lusitania 71, f. 191r.
• Vale do Rosal (Almada), 28^th December 1592: Letter from Pedro Luis addressed to Claudio Aquaviva. Pedro Luis complains about a game introduced by Pedro da Fonseca in Évora (juego del Truque, a game involving sticks and balls, not the card game with the same name) that led his brothers to some excesses (screams, injuries, playing all night long, etc.). He also says that he has been ill, with long fevers, and that he couldn’t finish some of his lectures. That is one of the reasons why he went to Vale do Rosal – ARSI, Lusitania 71, ff. 311r-v. Autograph.
• Rome, 2^nd August 1593: Letter from Claudio Aquaviva to Pedro Luis. Aquaviva responds to a letter written on the 23^rd of May 1593 (lost) assuring Pedro Luis that in Rome, the assessment of his works won’t be guided by national considerations, as he believes it is not in Portugal either – ARSI, Lusitania 32, ff. 55r-v.
• Évora, March 1594: Pedro Luis’ apologia concerning seven theses about satisfaction and the merit of Christ. He was redacting for a second time his De incarnatione and sought to have the censorship on his theses lifted – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 660, ff. 14r-17v. Autograph.
• Braga, 18^th September 1594: Letter from the Provincial Francisco de Gouveia to Claudio Aquaviva containing, among other things, the following information: «El pe. Pedro Luiz aiuda al pe. Pedro da Fonseca para acabar su metaphysica y hacer compendio della.» – ARSI, Lusitania 72, ff. 213r-214r.
• Évora, 11^th February 1595: Letter from Pedro Luis to Claudio Aquaviva. Pedro Luis clarifies his apology of seven theses of his sent one year before, this time in Spanish, following the request of the Roman censors, such as Bellarmine.
• Évora, 13^th February 1595: Letter from Francisco de Gouveia to Claudio Aquaviva stating that Évora is short of theologians, since Pedro Luis is tired and sick, and won’t be able to teach any longer – ARSI, Lusitania 73, f. 13v.
• Évora, 1595: Pedro Luis’ censorship of two theses by Pedro Novais on the hypostatic union – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 660, f. 12r.
• Évora, 22^nd January 1596: Letter from Brás Viegas to Claudio Aquaviva concerning, among other things, the disquiet around Pedro Luis and his teachings in Évora. Viegas asks Aquaviva to expel Pedro Luis since he is a source of war, endless discussion, and disagreement, and he doesn’t retract his condemned theses on grace, merit, and satisfaction (a list of 64 theses sent to Rome, not found in any document). If things don’t change, he feels obliged to denounce him to the Inquisition – ARSI, Lusitania 73, ff. 94r-95v.
• Évora, 3^rd June 1596: Letter from Francisco de Gouveia to Claudio Aquaviva where he states, among other things, that a group of scholars is preparing a censorship of Pedro Luis’ De incarnatione since it has too many particular opinions, it is not close enough to Thomas Aquinas, and also because Suárez already wrote very well about it – ARSI, Lusitania 73, ff. 137r-v.
• Évora, 22^nd November 1597: Letter from Brás Viegas to Claudio Aquaviva. In this letter, Brás Viegas complains about a group of Jesuits in the Portuguese province that teach theses on grace and predestination that are against the Ratio studiorum and were condemned in Rome: Pedro Luis, but also Pedro Novais, Pedro da Fonseca, Francisco Pereira, António Carvalho, and Nicolau Godinho. According to him, they were holding and teaching Molina’s positions on grace, some of which were condemned by Bellarmine and others. Against Molina, Viegas presents the thesis of physical premotion – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 660, ff. 25r-26v.
• Portugal (s.l.), 1598: Censorship of 28 Pedro Luis’ propositions on the merit of Christ, contrition, and predestination by the Portuguese Order, under the supervision of Cristóvão de Gouveia. This censura was requested by Claudio Aquaviva – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 660, ff. 27r-29v.
• Évora, 17^th January 1599: Letter from João Correia to Claudio Aquaviva. This letter confirms a letter that was lost on its way to Rome (dated 9^th November 1598). In it, João Correia says that he, António de Castelo-Branco, and Lourenço Fernandes revised Pedro Luis’ De incarnatione and approved its printing – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 660, f. 36r.
• Évora, 3^rd June 1599: Letter from Francisco Pereira to Claudio Aquaviva concerning the approval of Pedro Luis’ De incarnatione. Pereira warns Aquaviva that Pedro Luis is traveling to Madrid in order to print his work. Pereira’s goal is to gather a new commission since Pereira thinks that Luis’ work is dangerous for the reputation of the Society of Jesus. Moreover, he accuses Luis of choosing the Portuguese censors that approved his work, i.e., João Correia, António de Castelo-Branco and Lourenço Fernandes – ARSI, Fondo Gesuitico 660, ff. 37r-v.
• Rome, 1600: Roman censura of De incarnatione. Pedro Luis gets a final approval from the Roman censors of his order, but requesting some changes in particular pages. The text that is being approved may be very close to the one that is extant in ms. Lisboa, BNP, cod. 6226, but it is surely not exactly the same text, as pointed out by Reinhardt.

After this date, we only have short notes about his stay in Madrid in 1600/1 and of his death, most likely on the 13^th of March 1602. Luis died without publishing anything, fell into oblivion, and is being slowly rediscovered as an important figure in the last century. May this entry be one more spur in this process of rediscovery.

Bibliography