 The little attention that has been paid to the Antoniana Margarita by Spanish researchers (outside Spain this attention has been non-existent) has been mainly focused on the impact of the work especially in post-sixteenth century philosophy, just when its fortune was linked to the Cartesian philosophy as a possible precedent of the animal mechanism formulated by the French philosopher (see González Vila 1977: 99–125; Bandrés &amp; Llavona 1993: 131–137; Valverde 2019: 55–61). However, a closer look allows us to verify that in the immediate context of sixteenth century Spanish philosophy the Antoniana had a certain impact, negative rather than positive. Gómez Pereira himself introduced in an early reprint of his work the first or at least one of the first reactions to his book. In this case, the reaction was solicited directly by Pereira, because he asked his old teacher Miguel de Palacios, Professor of Theology at the University of Salamanca, for a critical survey of his book. The Objectiones which Palacios wrote to please his pupil were included in the Antoniana Margarita and accompanied by an Apologia where Pereira summarized and defended all the theses previously established. Palacios’ attitude was that of a professor who condescendingly reads the work of a good student, not that of a genuine critic. In any case, these Objectiones failed to identify the central message of the Antoniana, either because the author did not read the work carefully or because he did read it but did not understand his student’s thought.  Palacios’ work analyzed some questions which, even if they do not lack some interest, do not address the core of the work, that is, Pereira’s intention of dissociating the soul and the body so as to formulate on this basis a demonstrative proof of the immortality of the human soul. For, even if in the order of the text the thesis of animals’ lack of sensory perception is the first issue addressed, this was only one of the consequences drawn from the claimed independence and unity of the human soul. In Palacios’ opinion, however, that was the only significant content of the book, so he was unable to build a systematic criticism of Pereira’s arguments.