Download LEGAL HISTORY II TEACHING GUIDE Nr. 2 “The origin of European

LEGAL HISTORY II
TEACHING GUIDE Nr. 2 “The origin of European States”
I. Text:
1. Late medieval monarchy and the origin of the Western state
The considerable surge in economic activity due to the multiplication of trade links
(Commercial Revolution),and the rising cultural level coinciding with the emergence of
the first European universities (Bologna, La Sorbonne, Oxford and Cambridge,
Salamanca), were to transform European society in the Late Middle Ages. The rigid
tripartite structure into which feudal society was organized, featuring a landed nobility,
peasants, and the clergy, was to fundamentally shift as a result of commercial expansion,
the growth of cities, and the emergence of a new social class: the bourgeoisie, which
would amass considerable wealth and gradually upset traditional relationships of power.
These important changes would be reflected in the nature of Europe’s political and legal
organization. Late medieval society would necessarily shed its feudal scheme as bourgeois
city dwellers became the natural allies of the kings, in opposition to the traditional
privileged classes. As the old curia regia (royal court), composed of nobles and bishops,
would absorb representatives of this new social class forming the Assemblies of Estates,
which would discuss the kingdom’s key affairs with the traditional elite and the king.
Moreover, in the final medieval centuries, the confrontation between popes and
emperors would enable a set of strong monarchs to assert the independence of their
kingdoms from the papacy and the Holy German-Roman Empire, above all, in
chronological order, in the kingdoms of Castile, France and England.
In European society, universalism and the feudal model would gradually decline as a series
of kings tended to invest all power in their person. In this sense, the Castilian, French and
English kings of the Late Middle Ages, had little in common with the German “royalty”
which arose after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, because the very nature of the
royal institution underwent three major transformations: the “kings” became “monarchs;”
their crowns came to be inherited; and kings no longer ruled over a certain “nation” or
“people,” but rather over entire territories (territorial conception of law versus personal
conception of law).
a) From kings to monarchs
Kings in the Late Middle Ages were to recover much of the power they had lost in the
early medieval period, both externally, by gaining independence from emperors and
popes, and internally, where they gained ground against their great vassals, the feudal
barons. By becoming the undisputed holders of power, kings evolved into monarchs – a
concept much more akin to the imperial Roman conception of political rule. It is no
coincidence that European lawyers trained in the late medieval universities turned to
citing Roman law texts to justify the kings’ political autonomy, in accord with the wellknown maxim: Rex est imperator in regno suo, which sanctioned the independence of the new
monarchs from the Holy Roman Empire and from papal authority.
The political consolidation of the monarchs of the Late Middle Ages (in contrast to the
kings of the Early Middle Ages) was possible, firstly, because royal status came to be
hierarchically posited, at least in theory, above all feudal bonds. The first to advance
this principle was Abbot Suger de Saint Denis (1081-1151), royal adviser to Louis VI and
Louis VII, and a historian who described feudal society as a pyramid at whose apex stood
the king of France, whose suzerainty prevailed over that of all other lords,1 as Suger
distinguished for the first time, between the crown as a concept and the king as a person
(Grant 1998,178).
Somewhat later, also in France, there appeared the legal term “sovereignty,” coined by
“legists” of Louis IX (1226-1270), better known as St. Louis. Inspired by the Roman
concept of imperium, these jurists contended that the King of France prevailed over all lords
because he was “sovereign.” As Hallam and Everard (2001, 317) affirm, during his reign
the king’s feudal powers were extended to the fullest extent, as he exercised all the rights of
suzerainty, to the point that the extension of traditional royal powers, both ecclesiastical
and feudal, began to modify the very nature of royal authority, transforming the king from
a suzerain into a sovereign.
b) A territorial monarchy
The Late Medieval monarchs not only managed to become “sovereigns,” staking their
legitimacy upon the hereditary principle, but also exerted their power over whole territories.
They became Territorial monarchs. This situation stood in sharp contrast to what
happened during the era of the Germanic kingdoms, when kings represented Germanic
groups. The Visigoth and Frankish monarchs were, for example, elected by their respective
nations.2
In the Late Middle Ages, monarchies came to be defined by the territories over which they
ruled. The king’s power was exercised over entire regions, a new reality reflected in the
royal titles themselves: as of 1190 Philip II Augustus (1179-1223), was referred to in some
official documents as King of France (“Rex Franciae”) (Guenée, 1981, 158), instead of
“Rex Francorum” (King of the Franks), as his predecessors had been designated, and in
1205, there appeared the term regnum Franciae (Lombard-Jourdan 1989, 317),3 a crucial
Specifically, in his Historia Gloriosi regis Ludovici, (Suger, 1992), in which he argues that the French king was
the suzerain, or “lord of lords” (Lemarignier 1965, 167-176). According to Lewis (1987, 51-52), Suger’s
articulation of at least an inchoate theory of suzerainty and his conception of kingship makes him an
authoritative spokesman for royalist ideas, essential for understanding Capetian ideology in his time. For an
overview of Suger’s writings, see Grant (1998, 32-49). France is not the only case. In the Iberian Peninsula,
the same situation appeared in “Catalonia” as we saw in the previous chapter - the only territory where
feudalism fully triumphed in medieval Spain. The Catalonian feudalistic pyramid was described by a 13thcentury Catalonian jurist, Pere Albert, in his work Les Commemoracions (Albert, 1992), in which he defended
the preeminence of royal law and privileges (Kagay 2007, 693-703). In Catalonia there was no king, per se, but
the Count of Barcelona appeared at the top of the pyramid, as the first (princeps) among all Catalonians
(Ferran I Planas 2006, 145-68).
1
Significantly, in 1804, Napoleon declared himself “Emperor of the French” (Empereur des Français) instead of
“Emperor of France,” a distinction intended to convey that he respected Revolutionary principles and had
been nominated by the people through a popular plebiscite (Huet 1999, 55).
2
On the emergence of royal ideology under the reign of Philip Augustus, see Baldwin (1991, 362-366). It is
interesting to note that the use of the words “of France” originated with the common people (Lewis 1981,
185), and was only later taken up by the royal chancery for use in formal texts, becoming widespread over the
course of the 14th century.
3
terminological transition which for some historians, marks the beginning of the history of
the French nation.
The emergence of territory-based monarchies meant that kings had to possess the means
to govern and manage all the land under their rule. Unlike what occurred with the kings
during the feudal period, in the Late Middle Ages the monarch had at his disposal a group
of “officials”4 he was able to pay because he consistently collected taxes. He also
possessed a permanent and professional army, which had already appeared in France in
the mid 15th century under Charles VII (1422-1461) - a factor which proved crucial to
ensuring the French House of Valois’ triumph in the Hundred Years' War5.
c) An expanding monarchy
The burgeoning power of the great medieval European kings led them to attempt to
absorb the greatest amounts of territory possible into their domains. This explains, for
example, the imperialist approach of England to Wales and Scotland; the Kings of
France’s progressive assimilation of important feudal territories as Aquitaine, Britany or
Burgundy; and, in Spain, the progressive incorporation at the end of the Middle Ages of
territories arising as a result of the Reconquest (Asturias, León, Castile, the County of
Barcelona, the Kingdoms of Aragón, Valencia and Mallorca), forming two great political
blocks: The Crown of Castile and the Crown of Aragón. In some cases, the kingdoms
were unified, as was the case with France and Castile, while in others, the union of realms
led to composite monarchies, such as the Crown of Aragon and the British Crown.
d) An administrative monarchy
The territorialization of the monarchy required adaptation to the new circumstances facing
royal institutions. Thus, the curia regis, the old feudal council that advised and counseled the
monarch, was gradually divided into specialized units headed by royally appointed,
professional officials who proceeded in accordance with pre-established procedures.6 As
Desrayaud (1996, 346) points out, the end of the Middle Ages was characterized by the
emergence of a strongly structured royal administration, resulting from the consolidation
of royal power. Medieval monarchies became Administrative monarchies.
“Officials” because they held “offices,” or public posts. Today, the equivalent term would be “civil
servants.” For an overview of the decisive transition from feudal private service to late medieval public
service in European monarchies during the Late Middle Ages, see Fedou (1977, 158-164).
4
The creation of a permanent army (initially approved in Orleans at the Estates General of September 1439,
and consolidated through the creation of the Compagnies d’ordonnance - 20 compagnies of 100 lances each - by the
royal order of Louppy-le-Châtel of 26 May, 1445), justified by the need to defend the kingdom from English
armies (Minois 2005, 495-501), allowed Charles VII to create a set of stable taxes (taille, gabelle) without any
need for the Estates General to renew them annually. This tax system would last until the French Revolution.
As Vale (1974, 231) points out, under Charles VII taxation was heavy, and got heavier with each successive
war. The contemporary historian Philippe de Commynes (1447-1511), has calculated that by the end of his
reign Charles was collecting the equivalent to some 1,800,000 francs a year, while his son Louis XI (14611483), was raising 4,700,000 by the time of his death. The result was that the French were among the most
heavily taxed people in Renaissance Europe.
5
As Guenée points out (1985, 120-21), in the Early Middle Ages the court was not specialized, as kings
received assistance in administrating their lands from vassals, friends and companions, who filled all kinds of
roles in temporary and imprecise ways.
6
The oldest of these bodies was the “Accounts Chamber” or “Comptos “(Exchequer in
England), which administrated the royal agents’ finances and the collection of taxes. The
curia was also deprived of its judicial functions, prompting the emergence of royal tribunals
such as the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster,7 the French parlements,8 and the Castilian
audiencias (high courts) and chancillerías (chanceries).9 These institutions fast came to preside
over the justice administrations due to the quality of their work, which guaranteed a more
dependable application of the law than that provided by local judges, essentially because these
new courts were run by professional lawyers educated at European universities. Thus,
emerged a new type of process with more guarantees in which fundamentally oral processes
gave way to written, documented procedures. The old local courts from the early medieval
period did not entirely disappear, but their powers were reduced and gradually became
hierarchically subject to the royal courts via the instrument of appeals.10 To the extent that
kings were considered God’s representatives, their essential role was to act as judges. Thus, the
late medieval monarchs often turned to the judicial sphere to consolidate their power through
the expansion of Royal jurisdiction.
As Pollock and Maitland underscore, the new court “was no longer to be a special tribunal, a court for great
men, for great causes, for matters that concerned the King; but was to become an ordinary tribunal for the
whole realm.” It started in 1178, when Henry II chose five men, two clerks and two laymen, “who are not to
depart from the king’s court, but are to hear all the complaints of the kingdom.” (Pollock and Maitland 2010,
I, 153-4).
7
In France, the term parlement does not refer to the estate-based assembly (as in England’s Parliament), which
was known as the Estates General. Rather, France’s parlements were its high courts of justice in a given region,
guarantors of the application of the customs of each. They did not only play a judicial role, however, but also
were of significant political importance because they were charged with registering royal edicts - an action
without which royal legislation did not go into effect, save in special cases in which a lit de justice was resorted to.
Thus, the French parlements became symbols of opposition to the absolute power of the French kings of the
Ancien Regime. On the technical mechanism of legislative control exercised by the French parlements, see SaintBonnet (2010, 1-6).
8
The kingdom of Castile had no laws before the reign of Alfonso X the Wise (1252-1284). Rather, local
judges - generally laymen with no legal education - decided judicial conflicts based on their sense of equity
and free will (equidad y libre albedrío),and created law through their decisions (case law). Alfonso X changed all
this, creating, on the basis of the Roman and canon law traditions studied at European universities, complex
legal texts such as the Fuero Real (Royal Law), El Espéculo, and, best known of all, Las Partidas. The Castilians,
however did not care for the new law proceeding from the ius commune (common law) universities, preferring
their traditional customs, and rebelled against the king, who was forced to reestablish traditional legal
customs. Though Alfonso X was unable to create new laws, he was successful in extending royal jurisdiction
to a series of penal cases, which were to be heard only in royal courts (casos de corte), pursuant to an agreement
reached between the Cortes de Zamora and the Castilian cities in 1274 (Iglesia Ferreiros 1971). He transformed
the old Curia regis into a royal court (Tribunal de la Corte), staffed by royal judges (alcaldes de corte). Finally, these
royal judges applied the Fuero Real, which became the law of the royal courts (Pérez de la Canal, 1975). Due to
opposition by the Castilian nobility, however, the system of royal courts was only consolidated in the Cortes de
Toro in 1371, where Henry II of Castile, in an important Act on the Administration of Justice (Ordenamiento
sobre Administración de Justicia), created the first audiencia as an appellate court - so named because the judges
were oidores (from the verb oir, to hear), who heard its cases. If an audiencia received a royal seal of justice,
issued by the chancellor (canciller) it became a chancillería. By the end of the 14th century, the Audiencia ended up
forming part of the royal Chancillería (Garriga 1994, 101-2).
9
This explains the historical origin of common law, as most cases were presented in royal courts, far more
reliable than local judges. In any case it made possible the unification of procedures all over England and,
since the time of Henry II (1154-1189), the law tended to be common throughout the realm because the king
had devised expedients by which trials could be decentralized in an ingenious system of itinerant justice that
helped greatly to promote the popularity and effectiveness of the new royal remedies, preserving, at the same
time, uniformity in their administration and making it possible for the law built around the new remedies to
become a truly national law (Dawson 1968, 1-2). For an overview of this fascinating process, see Baker (1990,
14-43).
10
The medieval kings were essentially judges because their function as Christian monarchs was
to maintain the order created by God. As custom initially prevailed over the law in the
Middle Ages, monarchs such as Henry II of England in the 12th century, or Alfonso X, the
Wise, in Castile in the second half of the 13th century, succeeded in consolidating their power
by expanding the king’s jurisdiction over local judges. As Anderson (2006, 152) has indicated,
one of the “constitutional” consequences of feudalism was that secular government itself was
characteristically narrowed into a new mold, as it became essentially the exercise of “justice,”
which under feudalism occupied a functional position, as it became the central modality of
political power.
2. Absolute monarchy and the increasing power of the European states
In absolute monarchy, the king becomes the sole repository of power. As such, all state
functions are placed in his hands, not only judicial functions (which he already held in
medieval times), but also legislative ones. Unlike what happened in the monarchies of the
Late Middle Ages, the absolute monarchs could make decisions and pass laws without
necessarily consulting the assemblies of the estates (rex legibus solutus). They became
legislators. This marked an important development, as in the Middle Ages the king could not
alter the order established by God through creation, but only maintain and protect it.
Ultimately, the absolute kings established themselves as governors and developed a
centralized administration with a very dense network of royal agents, paid for by an
efficient tax system that, among other things, enabled them to maintain powerful armies and
bring about a “military revolution” (Downing 1993, 10) that consolidated Europe’s system
of modern states. 11As Zmora (2001, 9) points out, the modern state was built upon the pillars
of war and taxation.
a) The “technical” advantages of absolutism
If the absolute kings were all despots and tyrants, it is hard to explain why the absolutist model
became widespread throughout Europe and, above all, why it lasted for several centuries. The
explanation for the entrenchment and consolidation of absolute monarchy is partly to be
found precisely, in the fact that, generally, the absolute kings headed strong governments
which managed to maintain domestic order and ensure expansion abroad. This is why
Louis XIV, the paragon of absolutism, became the model to be emulated across Europe,
essentially because France during his reign was the Continent’s most powerful state. Thus
did the last Stuart kings in England in the second third of the 17th century, seek to follow the
legal and political model imposed by the Sun King.
From the point of view of the history of the modern state, it is also indisputable that absolute
monarchy became the tool which broke the power of those groups which had hitherto
constantly threatened government stability through their infighting and struggling vying for
The “military revolution” refers to the process whereby small, decentralized, self-equipped feudal powers
were dominated by increasingly large, centrally financed and supplied armies wielding ever more sophisticated
and expensive weaponry (Parker 1976, 195-214). This led to an exponential growth of public expenses and
the consolidation of huge bureaucratic apparatuses reinforcing the power of the state. On the relationship
between war and the rise of the state, see Tilly (2002).
11
power: the nobles, local oligarchies, cities and religious sects (Wallernstein 2011, 132-63). The
people perceived a king wielding overwhelming power as the only force capable of bringing
all these privileged classes to heel, dissolving estate-based society and assuring the
implementation of the principle that all subjects were equal before their king. The French
Calvinist Pierre Bayle (1647-1706), in his Historical and Critical Dictionary (1695-1697), wrote that
“the only way of preventing civil war in France is the absolute power of the sovereign,
vigorously sustained and armed with all necessary force so that is duly feared.”12
It is telling and significant that the establishment of regimes of absolute monarchy was
invariably preceded by situations of anarchy. In Castile, royal authority was overwhelmingly
buttressed by the Catholic Monarchs after half a century of long wars between factions of
Castilian nobles, which had taken a considerable toll on the kingdom prior to the advent of
the Catholic Kings. The strengthening of royal authority was consolidated by Charles I as a
result of the “Rebellion of the Communities.”13 Similarly, in France, Henry IV, the first
Bourbon, rose to the throne after the ordeal of the Wars of Religion. The strengthening of
royal authority was relentlessly continued by Cardinal Richelieu (the chief minister of Henry’s
son, Louis XIII) who took on the nobility and the Protestants in order to create a powerful
monarchy. The absolutism of Louis XIV was a reaction against the fear and humiliation that
the young king suffered during the regency as a result of the Fronde Rebellion, backed by the
Parliament and the nobles. The absolutism of the Tudors in England was accepted because
it brought an end to the dark chapter of civil strife and anarchy among the nobility spawned
by the “War of the Roses”. Henry VIII was also a popular king because he was able to tame
the nobility and even the Church, as he nationalized the secular clergy, dissolved the
monasteries and expropriated ecclesiastical holdings.14
Most astonishing of all, as Sevillia (2003, 135) points out, is that when we read memoirs,
personal diaries, and private letters from the 16th and 17th centuries we realize that
absolutism, as a concept, was not widely contested. A concrete measure of the king’s
might be unpopular, or his ministers criticized, but the monarch’s supreme authority and
functions went largely unquestioned. Perhaps this was because, as Anderson (2013, 18) points
out, the absolute monarchs were able to pacify the nobles by convincing and reassuring them
that their policies would not favor the nascent bourgeoisie in such a way that the traditional
elite’s position would be threatened. In the same line Dessert (2000, 8) argues that Louis
XIV’s absolute monarchy was not an autocratic regime, but a centralized and unifying
system under which monarchical authority tended to dominate all the dissenting groups
and bodies that aspired to play a political role, administrating the country through
commissioners named by the king and entirely committed to his authority.15
« Le seul et le vrai moyen d’éviter en France les guerres civiles est la puissance absolue du souverain,
soutenue avec vigueur, et armée de toutes les forces nécessaires à la faire craindre » (Bayle 1820, 441).
12
The cities of Castile, represented in their cortes, rebelled against Charles I, who they accused of being
dominated by foreign advisers. After being defeated in 1523, leaders Juan Bravo, Padilla and Maldonado were
executed, marking the end of Castilian autonomy and the definitive establishment of the preeminence of royal
power.
13
Henry VIII committed atrocities, such as his order to torture and kill 18 Carthusians of the London
Charterhouse between 1535 and 1537, simply because they refused to endorse his divorce from Catherine of
Aragon, and to back him when he broke with Rome. The monks’ approval was important for Henry VIII
because the Carthusians enjoyed great prestige in English public opinion. Their opposition to the king’s will
infuriated Henry VIII to the point that he moved to annihilate them (Gasquet 2006, 202-243).
14
Rowlands (2002, 2), however, dissents and rejects the traditional depiction of Louis XIV’s personal rule as
the expression of an authoritarian, bureaucratic and centralizing regime, arguing that the success of Louis
15
It also should be considered that public opinion throughout Europe began to shift as
people realized that royal, absolute governments were more orderly and efficient than the
ones which had preceded them under feudalism, especially when absolute monarchs were
instilled with the mercantilist ideas of the Modern Age, which endorsed the protection of
national economies and favored a conception of the economy better suited to the times,
promoting national prosperity.
b) The administrative expansion of absolute monarchies
Finally, we must identify as one of the major factors giving rise to the absolutist model of the
state, the growing complexity of the government and its administration, which justified the
professionalization of governmental tasks and consolidated what Ertman calls the triumph
of “Patrimonial Absolutism”. (1999, 90).
The absolute ruler personally wielded executive power, as he was able to decide all questions
of domestic and international policy, including declarations of war and signings of peace.
Consequently, the task of governing became so complex and constraining that kings
usually appointed men to the most important administrative offices, and could even delegate
the government to trusted individuals. Such was the case with a number of powerful
chief ministers during the era, who effectively served as de facto rulers: Cardinal Richelieu
(1585-1642)16 and Cardinal Mazarin (1602-1661) in France; Cardinal Thomas Wolsey (14711530), and chancellors Thomas More (1478-1535) and Thomas Cromwell (1485) in England,
under Henry VIII. Spain’s Catholic Monarchy featured influential royal secretaries such as
Francisco de los Cobos (1477-1547), who served under Charles I, and Mateo Vázquez and
Antonio Perez under Philip II. Beginning with the reign of Philip III (1598-1621), there
appeared the figure of the valido, responsible for handling all matters of government in the
name of the king, 17 the first of these officials being the Duke of Lerma. The most famous of
these validos was the Count Duke of Olivares, who effectively governed the Catholic
Monarchy during the first phase of Philip IV’s reign, beginning in 1621, and during the
Portuguese and Catalonian rebellions of 1640.
The exception was Louis XIV, who after Mazarin’s death in 1661, personally governed
France for more than half a century, though assisted by able ministers and advisory bodies
such as the “High Board” (Conseil d’en haut), 18 whose members were freely appointed by the
monarch, their function being to counsel the king, who made final decisions (Harouel 2007,
342-8). Also noteworthy was the case of England, with its Privy Council (Dicey 2009) under
Elizabeth I, chaired successively by William Cecil (1520-1598), and his son Robert Cecil (15631612). Under the Spanish Catholic monarchy, affairs of state were handled by different
councils, both territorial (Castile, Aragon, Italy, Flanders and America) and specialized (the
XIV’s reign owed much to a conscious royal effort to be far more sensitive to the interests and aspirations of
the social elite. On the same line, see Beik (2005, 194-224).
On Richelieu's death, Pope Urban III famously said: "If there is a God, Cardinal Richelieu will have much
to answer for. If not, he has done very well." (Ohanian 2009, 45)
16
A valido is the person who has access to the monarch and enjoys his friendship and trust, therefore
controlling certain areas of the government and its power. (Escudero 2004, 18)
17
The famous Conseil des Affaires which ended up as the Conseil d’en haut, the predecessor of the subsequent
Conseil d’État, a restricted council made up, depending upon the case, of 3 to 6 members.
18
Councils of State, Treasury and Orders) – all entities created since the era of the Catholic
Kings, and consolidated under Charles I and Philip II. It was the polisinodial regime19 As
Strayer (1970, 103) notes, the principle of collegiality was a practical solution that allowed
the monarch to use experienced, professional councilors freely without delegating too much
power to any one of them.
The substantial growth of royal administration and the ensuing consolidation of the state as an
institution, proved that the triumph of absolute monarchy was not, however, so much the
product of jurists’ theoretical constructions as it was the result of significant economic and
political transformations experienced by European kingdoms in general after 1500,
which demanded a significant bolstering of royal power. As Mulgan (1998, 1) observes, the
rising administrative costs of the new monarchies spurred each government to make its
financial machinery more effective and to better administrate its resources. The final aim was
to augment the wealth of the state through “mercantilism,” a protectionist approach by
which monarchies sought to bolster their national economies, favouring their industries and
establishing a favorable balance of trade, exporting more than importing and monopolizing as
many trades as possible. This vision of the economy and national power, encouraged Europe’s
kings to compete and even clash in a sort of protonational competition; some authors think
that the absolute monarchies might be fairly called “national monarchies.”
3. Towards a Europe of “national” monarchies
But can we speak of “national” sentiments before the rising of the nation-state at the end of
the 18th century? It is true that, as Strayer (1970, 109) points out, nationalism is such a vague
term that it is not easy to say when it evolved, or how it differs from mere xenophobia, its
relationship to old local and regional loyalties, or what its connections are to religious, cultural
and linguistic differences. Despite this, it is clearly possible to affirm that in the 17th century,
there arose signs of what might be called nationalism in the long-established kingdoms of
England, France, and Spain, and that it tended to strengthen those states.20
As Anderson (2013, 38-39) explains, the royal states during the absolutist period did not
disdain to foment patriotic sentiments amongst their subjects during the political and
military conflicts which constantly brought the various monarchies of Western Europe into
conflict with one another. In his view, we cannot speak of proto-nationalism, as in Tudor
England, Bourbon France and Habsburg Spain these feelings did not emanate from a loyal
people who felt invested in, and identified with, their land and its institutions. In fact, in his
view these “national passions” under absolutism, though they may have appeared to be
significant, were in reality highly contingent and volatile, as power and political legitimacy were
of a dynastic nature, constantly vulnerable to manipulation by grandees and sovereigns.
At the end of the 16th century, the Spanish Catholic Monarchy came to depend on 13 different councils:
State, War, the Inquisition, Military Orders, Taxation, Castile, Las Indias (the Americas), Aragon, Navarre,
Italy, Portugal, Flanders, and the Chamber of Castile. As Valero Torrijos (2002, 102) observes, despite the
heterogeneous nature of these institutions, they shared a certain systematic character, with similar organizing
and political principles. Some councils occupied subordinate positions to others, they were all bodies
answering to the monarch, they were established at the Court, their functions were political, and their
members were able to sit on multiple councils at the same time, which assured an indispensable
interrelationship between the different parts of this complex government apparatus.
19
On the formation of the national idea in Spain before the French Revolution, from Roman times to the
early 18th century, see Aguilera-Barchet (2008, 132-148).
20
Regardless of the abovementioned debate, it is quite clear that after the Peace of Westphalia
(1648), the idea of a universal Christian empire was replaced by an international order based
on the struggle between different secular “national monarchies” that would struggle to impose
their hegemony through successive wars during the next three centuries.
II. Basic chronology
966 First regency in European History. Ramiro III inherit the throne of the Spanish
Kingdom of Leon being minor.
978 Appears the word princeps to designate the heir of the throne. The first in the line of
succession. Ramiro III of León designates his uncle Virmundus as his successor naming
him “princeps” (Virmundus Serenissimus Princeps). The monarchy of Leon becomes
hereditary.
1188 Cortes of León. For the first time the citizens are convened in a Kings assembly
with the nobles and the bishops. The Cortes represent the realm.
1151 Death of Abbot Suger of Saint Denis, first intellectual to distinguished for the first
time, between the crown as a concept and the king as a person, a historian who described
feudal society as a pyramid at whose apex stood the king of France, whose suzerainty
prevailed over that of all other lords
1166 Assize of Clarendon. Henry II of England transforms procedure and the Court
system all over his kingdom. He took the initiative of forming the legal system of
“Common Law” –because it was the same for the whole kingdom- through the creation of
royal courts and important legislative reforms
1223 Death of Philip II Augustus, the first to be referred as “Rex Franciae”, instead of
“Rex Francorum”, the traditional title. French monarchy becomes “territorial”.
1265 For the first time ordinary citizens are convened into a Parliament’s meeting
with nobles and bishops by the English nobleman Simon of Monfort in open rebellion
against the king. Edward I would consolidate the principle.
1270 Death of Louis IX of France, Saint Louis. Inspired by the Roman concept of
imperium, his jurists contended for the first time that the King of France prevailed over all
lords because he was “sovereign.”
1284 Death of Alfonso X the Wise (king of Castile since 1252). He is the first king that
creates law in Europe without the acceptance of the States Assemblies (Cortes). On the
basis of the Roman and canon law traditions studied at European universities, he creates
complex legal texts such as the Fuero Real (Royal Law), El Espéculo, and, best known of all,
Las Partidas.
1302 First meeting of the French Estates General, convened by Philip IV the Fair as the
representation of the realm , who asks for aid to fight against the pope.
1307 Death of Edward I of England (king from 1272), called the English Justinian, as
he was a great legislator.
1348 Alfonso XI of Castile in the Cortes of Alcala enhances royal authority by giving
preeminence to Royal acts over Local customs and creating the figure of a permanent
representative of the king in Castilian towns: the “Corregidor. (Ordinance of Alcalá).
1390 Death of John I, king of Castile since 1379, the first king in European history to
affirm he rules based on his absolute royal power.
1461
Death of Charles VII, King of France from 1422 establishes permanent taxes and
raises a permanent army.
1474-1504 The Catholic Kings Ferdinand and Isabelle unify Castile and Aragon and
reinforce the royal authority.
1513 First edition of Machiavelli’s book The Prince.
1521 At the battle of Villalar Charles I (1517-1559) defeats the Army of Castillian cities
(Comunidades) consolidating absolute power of the king in Castile.
1547 Death of Henry VIII, King of England since 1509. A king that controlled
Parliament, used prerogative courts and governed with his privy council.
1576 First edition of Jean Bodin’s work The Six Books of the Commonwealth, advancing the
idea of sovereignty.
1598 Death of Philip II, king of Spain since 1556. He was the most powerful monarch
of his time.
1603 Death of Elizabeth I Queen of England since 1558, who was a monarch as strong
as his father Henry VIII.
1624 Cardinal Richelieu becomes Chief Minister to Louis XIII. He will consolidate the
Royal Power in France.
1651 First edition of Thomas Hobbes book The Leviathan. A theoretical justification of
Absolute Monarchy
1661 Louis XIV of France comes of age. Until his death in 1715 he will be the parangon
of the Absolute ruler.
3. Exercices corresponding to "teaching guide nr.2"
A. MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. Which one of the following factors did not contribute to the consolidation of the
European Late medieval monarchies :
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Commercial expansion
Creation of universities
Growth of cities
Appearance of the bourgeoisie
Disappearance of nobility
2. The oldest European « monarchy » was :
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
France
The papacy
Castile
The Holy German Roman emperor
England
3. Which was the first king that insteado of beeing named « king of the Franks » was
named « King of France » :
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Louis VII
Louis IX « Saint Louis »
Charles VI
Philip Augustus
Hugh Capet
4. Which one of the following factors was not essential to the consolidation of late
medieval European monarchies ? :
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Development of Customary law
Collecting taxes
Appearance of royal officials
Creation of a permanent army
Development of legislation
5. Which one of the following kingdoms did not end up the Middle Ages belonging to a
Composite medieval monarchy (that means : was integrated in a unified monarchy)?:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Wales
Burgundy
Aragon
Scotland
County of Barcelona
6. Which one of the following institutions has nothing to do with theroyal administration
of justice :
a) The exchequer
b) French « parlements »
c) Castilian « audiencias »
d) Curia regis
e) English chancery
7. Mark the wrong answer . Absolutism succeed as a political model in Europe during the
16th and 17th century because Absolute kings:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Headed powerful governments
Maintained domestic order
Exerted a merciless repression through a strong police
Ensured expansion abroad
Brought privileged classes to heel
8. The « Fronde Rebellion » happened in France during the reign of :
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Louis XIII
François I
Louis XIV
Henry IV
Louis XV
9. The Duke of Lerma governed the Spanish Catholic monarchy as a « valido » during the
reign of :
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Charles I
Philip II
Philip III
Philip IV
Charles II
10. Which one of the following councils did not deal with government and administration
of the realm during the Absolute monarchy period?:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Privy Council
Curia regia
Conseil d’en haut
Council of Castile
Council of State
B. CONCRETE QUESTIONS :
1. Through which institution did the bourgeoisie back the king againts the privileged feudal
classes ?
2. Which were the three transformations of the royal institutions that turned late medieval
European kings into monarchs ?
3. In which way European medieval universities contributed to the consolidation of the
power of late medieval kings transforming them into monarchs?
4. What was the essential difference between the terms « suzerainty » and « sovereignty » ?
5. How the collection of taxes is related to the consolidation of a Territorial Monarchy ?
6. Explain the difference between Unified and Composite monarchies. Give some
examples.
7. Why European medieval kings in order to consolidate their power they proceeded
initially to favour the expansion of their royal jurisdiction instead of directly using
legislation?
8. What was the legal essence of Absolute monarchy, compared to Medieval monarchy ?
9. Why the establishment of absolutism was preceded by situation of anarchy ? Give some
examples
10. Explain why the European absolute monarchs brought about a « military revolution »
during 16th and 17th centuries.
11. Why European public opinion in the 16th and 17th century did not widely contest
absolutism
12. Why Tudor’s absolutism was accepted in England ?
13. Why did Absolute kings often delegated government to trusted individuals that became
powerful chief ministers?
14. Explain why the Absolute kings turned to the « principle of collegiality » to govern their
realms ?
C. CONCEPTS :
Commercial Revolution
Bourgeoisie
Privileged classes
Assemblies of Estates
Monarch (vs. King)
Suzerainty
Sovereignty
Legist
Territorial monarchy
Officials
Unified monarchies
Composite monarchies
Curia regis
Administrative monarchies
Exchequer
Chancery
Autocratic
Mercantilism
Protectionism
Patrimonial absolutism
Valido
Conseil d’en Haut
Privy Council
Polisinodial regime
Principle of collegiality
National monarchies
D. GENERAL QUESTIONS :
1. What is the Commercial Revolution and which were its social consequences?
2. What were the Assemblies of Estates and why they were politically significant as far as
the realm was concerned?
3. Why some European kings became independents from popes and emperors?
4. What is the difference between a king and a monarch?
5. What means that kingdoms become territorial in the late Middle Ages? Give some
examples
6. Explain why Late medieval monarchies could be considered the precedent of modern
states
7. Which were the “technical advantages” of Absolutism, as far as the consolidation of the
state model was concerned.
8. Why can we talk of « protonationalism » in some so called « national monarchies » during
the 16th and 17th century ?
E. ESSAY :
Write a 700 words essay over the topic: How did European states develop around the institution of
monarchy? ? Give an ordered approach (plan) and concrete examples in order to prove how
kings became monarchs and what were the benefits for the realm of their increasing power
from the Middle Ages to the end of the “Ancien Régime”.