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 Luis de Leon,[178] and this perhaps decided the tribunal in giving judgement. We may think that the court unconsciously allowed itself to be swayed by personal prejudice against a prisoner who was at no great pains to conceal his estimate of its capacity. However that may be, it must be admitted that the decision of the Court had behind it a great body of what may be called expert opinion. The question of the authority due to the Vulgate was skilfully kept in the foreground; and the report of even so liberal-minded a man as the Dominican Hernando del Castillo was not wholly favourable. Castillo, indeed, came to the conclusion that Luis de Leon had uttered nothing against faith; but while he acquitted the prisoner of teaching 'erroneous, temerarious or scandalous doctrine', he held that Luis de Leon was much to blame for