Philip of Spain (review)

178 Reviews Kamen, Henry, Philip ofSpain, N e w Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1997; cloth; pp. xiii, 384; 26 b / w plates, 3 maps; R.R.P. US$35.00. Hereditary accident largely governed the selection of rulers in the major European countries in the sixteenth century. Marriage alliances, family ties and kinship, legitimate and illegitimate, account for the rest. Ability played no part in a choice which was conventionally seen as God's will, although careful training was expected to develop the understanding and skills needed for the job. Chance produced some exceptionally long reigns, the effects of primogeniture some sprawling and disjointed empires, so that the particular capacities of a handful of monarchs had a disproportionate effect on the history of the century. They were the focus of contemporary attention; the subject of gossip, rumour, innuendo; their aims and objectives distorted by propaganda and misrepresentation. Writing the biography of one of these monarchs therefore requires a range and depth of understanding which develops only after a lifetime of dedicated historical study. Continuing popular interest results in a steady stream of biographies but illuminating studies, great biographies, are rare. Philip of Spain has been particularly ill served. Determined narrators embittered by the effects of Philip's decisions on their country or their religion twisted their accounts to demonise him. The triumph of Protestant nationalism in the nineteenth century produced great historians like Motley whose scholarship reinforced the negative image of the narrow,rigid,religiously biased tyrannical recluse. Subsequent attempts to modify this image have largely failed. Part of the problem is the difficulty of encapsulating in a narrative and chronological story explanations of quite complex social and administrative structures which readers need to understand if the subject's behaviour is to be made intelligible. W h e n there were no political intrigues or religious problems in which a monarch of Philip's stature was not involved, a biography must at least sketch in an history of contemporary war and diplomacy. Henry Kamen has all the qualifications to illuminate the position of a monarch ruling a diverse collection of states in the Spanish peninsula and elsewhere. In earlier works on the inquisition, the counter-reformation and crisis in Spain, Kamen has radically rewritten some of the classic historical interpretations of Spanish life. His purpose here is, against this revised background, similarly to break d o w n the stereotyped image of the reclusive tyrant attempting to govern Europe by pen, and to suggest that Philip's views and actions changed over the period of his reign, were always developed in strict conformity with his legal rights and duties, and that his refusal to permit propagandists at the end of his reign to defend and justify his actions prevented the construction of a positive image. Philip had been involved in rule since the age of sixteen when his father, the emperor Charles V, left him in charge of Spain. Obediently, Philip followed Charles's instructions about consulting his experienced councillors and Reviews ^g assessing all sides of a question before coming to a decision. H e listened in silence to the case presented (a procedure people found daunting and disconcerting) and once he had decided, never changed his mind. This practice he continued throughout his life. Like most monarchs of the period, he encouraged factions at court as a means of obtaining thorough information and maintaining his o w n freedom to decide. Inevitably, the number and influence of his advisors was greater at the beginning of his reign than at the end when his more unsuccessful decisions were taken. Kamen suggests that Philip's formal submission to his father's will from the start concealed real differences of opinion which emerge in their correspondence. Nevertheless there was no moment when he clearly asserted his independence and adopted a new and personal course of action. He underwent a slow metamorphosis from an early preference for peace and consensus to a hard-line determination to prevent the growth of dissent. His initial apparent tolerance of the Protestant leaders he met, his moderation and his opposition to the imposition of uniformity by force were altered, Kamen argues, by the effect...