AS compared with the two preceding eras there was little in this period strikingly new in social history. In the main, society tended to become more thoroughly modern, but along lines whose origins dated farther back. The most marked novelty in Spain was the conversion of the MudÉjares of Aragon, Catalonia, and Valencia, followed less than a century later by the expulsion of the Moriscos from every part of Spain. The most remarkable phase of social history of the time, however, was the subjection, conversion, and to a certain extent the civilization of millions of Indians in the Americas. The work was thorough enough to mark those lands permanently with the impress of Spain.

By a process of natural evolution from the practices current in the reign of the Catholic Kings the nobles came to exhibit characteristics very similar to those of present-day society. They now went to court if they could, or else to the nearest large city, where they became a bourgeois nobility. Those who remained on their estates were soon forgotten. Through social prestige the nobles were still able to procure not only the honorary palace posts but also the majority of the greater political and military commands. Now and then, an untitled letrado would attain to a viceroyalty or other high position, but these cases were the exception. In this way, the great body of the nobles were able to counteract the economic losses of their class occasioned by the new importance of mercantile and industrial wealth. Nevertheless, the wealthiest men of the times were nobles, with whom the richest of middle-class merchants could hardly compare in material possessions. The more extraordinary accumulations of wealth, based on vast lands and the institution of primogeniture, were confined to a few of the greatest nobles of the land, however. The vast horde of the segundones and others of the lesser nobility found service as before at court, or in the train of some great noble, in the army, and in the church. The nobles retained most of the privileges they had previously enjoyed, but except in Aragon proper lost much of the political jurisdiction they had formerly exercised over their own lands. The sentiment in favor of the royal authority was now so strong that any limitation on the power of the sovereign was viewed with disapproval. The jurisdiction which the lords retained was limited by many royal rights of intervention, such as the superior authority of the king’s law, or the royal institution of the pesquisa. Some remnants of the lords’ former political and social power over their vassals existed, but in general the relation was the purely civil one of landlord and tenant. In Aragon, despite attempts to effect reforms, the lords still possessed seigniorial authority, accompanied by the irksome incidents of serfdom; required personal services of their vassals; collected tributes of a medieval character; exercised a paternal authority (such as that of permitting or refusing their vassals a right to marry); and had the power of life and death.

The hierarchy of the nobility was definitely established in this period. At the top, representing the medieval ricoshombres, were the grandees (Grandes) and the “titles” (TÍtulos). The principal difference between the two was that the former were privileged to remain covered in the presence of the king and to be called “cousins” of the monarch, while those of the second grade might only be called “relatives,”—empty honors, which were much esteemed, however, as symbolic of rank. These groups monopolized all titles such as marquis, duke, count, and prince. Below them were the caballeros and the hidalgos. The word hidalgos was employed to designate those nobles of inferior rank without fortune, lands, jurisdiction, or high public office. The desire for the noble rank of hidalgo and the vanity marked by the devising of family shields became a national disease, and resulted in fact in the increase of the hidalgo class. The people of GuipÚzcoa claimed that they were all hidalgos, and received the royal recognition of their pretension. Measures were taken to check this dangerous exemplification of social pride, but on the other hand the treasury found the sale of rights of hidalguÍa a profitable source of income. In 1541 there were less than 800,000 taxpayers in Castile, but over 100,000 hidalgos. The nobles did not at once forget their medieval practices of duelling, private war, plotting, and violence. There were instances of these throughout the era, and in Aragon and Majorca they were almost continuous. Nevertheless, the situation did not become so serious as it had been in the past; it merely represented the deeply rooted force of noble tradition, which objected to any submission to discipline. Both the hierarchy of the nobility, with all its incidents of broad estates, jurisdictions, class pride, and vanity, and the irresponsible practices of the nobles passed over into the Americas.

While there were many different categories of free Christian society the essential grades were those of nobles (or members of the clergy) and plebeians. There were many rich merchants of the middle class who aped the nobility in entailing their estates and in luxurious display, and there were learned men who received distinguished honors or exemptions from duties to the state, but in social prestige they could not compare with the lowest hidalgo. Many of them became noble by royal favor, and especially was this way open to the learned class of the letrados. These men provided lawyers and administrative officers for the state, and, as such, occupied positions which put them on a level, at least in authority, with the nobles. The advance of the merchants and the letrados represented a gain for the plebeian class as a whole, for any free Christian might get to be one or the other and even become ennobled. The economic decline of Spain in the seventeenth century was a severe blow to the merchants, while the letrados were unpopular with nobles and plebeians alike; nevertheless, thoughtful men agreed that the regeneration of the country must come from these two elements.

The masses were poor, as always, but their legal condition, except in Aragon, had been improved. There were many social wars in Aragon throughout the period, but the serfs, unable to act together, could not overcome their oppressors. Something was done by the kings through the incorporation into the crown of seigniorial estates where abuses were most pronounced. The same state of chronic warfare existed in Catalonia, where the rural population, though now freed from serfdom, was still subject to certain seigniorial rights. By the end of the period the victory of the plebeians was clear, and the ties which bound them to the lords were loosened. The social aspects of the civil wars in Castile, Valencia, and Majorca at the outset of the reign of Charles I have already been referred to. These revolts failed, and there were no similar great uprisings of the Christian masses in these regions, but the tendency of the nobility to go to court and the expulsion of the Moriscos were to operate to break down the survivals of seigniorial authority.

Although objections were raised to the enslavement of the Indians in the Americas, the institution of slavery itself was generally recognized; even charitable and religious establishments possessed slaves. Moslem prisoners and negroes (acquired through war or purchase), together with their children, made up the bulk of this class, although there were some slaves of white race. Conversion to Christianity did not procure emancipation, but the slaves were allowed to earn something for themselves with which to purchase their freedom. Certain restrictions—such, for example, as the prohibition against their living in quarters inhabited by newly converted Christians, or against their entering the guilds—were placed upon them once they had become free. Only a little higher in status than the slaves were the Egipcianos, or gypsies. About the middle of the fifteenth century they had entered Spain for the first time by way of Catalonia, and, thenceforth, groups of them wandered about the peninsula, stealing and telling fortunes for a living, and having a government of their own. A law of 1499 required them to settle down in towns and ply honest trades on pain of expulsion from Spain or of enslavement, but the gypsies neither left Spain nor abandoned their nomadic ways, and they were a continual problem to the kings of the House of Austria. Various royal orders provided that they must take up an occupation, although their choice was virtually limited by law to the cultivation of the soil; they were not to live in the smaller villages, were forbidden to use their native language, dress, or names, or to employ their customs in marriage and other matters, and were prohibited from dwelling in a separate quarter of their own. Fear lest the Christian population become contaminated by gypsy superstitions and a regard for public security were the guiding motives for this legislation. Severe penalties were attached, but the evil was not eradicated; similar laws had to be enacted as late as the eighteenth century.

After the time of the Catholic Kings there were no free MudÉjares in Castile, although there were many Moriscos, but in Aragon, Catalonia, and especially in Valencia the MudÉjares were numerous. Many elements, including the majority of the clergy (the officers of the Inquisition in particular), the king, and the Christian masses were in favor of their forcible conversion with a view to the establishment of religious unity in the country, although other reasons were alleged as well. The nobles were warmly opposed, mainly on economic grounds because the MudÉjares formed the principal element among their agricultural workers. Many of the higher clergy joined with them for the same reason, although some of them voiced their objections on the ground that compulsory baptism would only result in apostasy. During the social war in Valencia early in the reign of Charles I the popular faction had forcibly converted a number of the MudÉjares who had fought against them on the side of the lords. The question arose whether these baptisms were valid. Charles decided that they were, and ordered the children of the MudÉjares, who had thus unwillingly become Moriscos, to be baptized also. This provoked a storm of protest on the part of the lords, for the continuance of such a policy might result in emigrations or uprisings, much to their detriment. They cited the royal oath of Ferdinand and of Charles himself to the Cortes of Aragon not to compel the MudÉjares to abjure their faith, but this difficulty was easily overcome. The pope was persuaded to absolve Charles from his oath, and gave his consent to the forcible conversion of the free MudÉjares, on pain of perpetual enslavement or expulsion from Spain. In 1525 Charles published a decree in accordance with the terms of the papal license. The objections of the nobles and the Cortes were overruled, and several isolated rebellions were put down. While many MudÉjares went to Africa, thousands accepted conversion, and, although it was clear that they did not do so of their own free will, were at once made subject to the usual rules applying to converts, including the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. Soon afterward, however, Charles consented to exempt them from religious persecution for a number of years.

The problem of religious unity was now officially solved; all Spain legally had become Christian. The Moriscos were the subject of grave suspicions, however, as regards their orthodoxy, and with reason, since most of them continued to be Mohammedans in fact. The harsh legislation of other days was resurrected, and was applied with even greater severity. Prohibitions extended to the use of anything reminiscent of their former religion or customs, such as amulets, the Arabic language, Arabic names, their special form of dress, their characteristic songs and dances, and their habit of taking baths. The laws applying to Granada were particularly harsh, provoking the already mentioned war of 1568-1571. After the suppression of that rebellion and the deportation of the Granadine Moriscos to other parts of Castile, steps were taken to prevent their return and to keep them under surveillance. The Moriscos were not allowed to dwell together in a district of their own; they might not stay out overnight, or change their residence without permission; and their children were ordered to be brought up in the homes of Christians of long standing, or at any rate to be sent to Christian schools. Prohibitions against carrying arms and other measures designed to prevent the Moriscos from endangering the peace were general throughout Spain. Gradually the idea arose that the best thing to do would be to get rid of the Moriscos in some way. In the first place the attempt to convert them had been a failure. The Moriscos were not altogether to blame, for no adequate steps had been taken to instruct them in the Christian religion. Orders to do so had been issued, but for many reasons they were difficult to execute. Such a task would have been enormously expensive, and the funds were not at hand; few Christian priests were competent to serve as instructors, since not many of them knew Arabic; there existed the serious obstacle of the hatred of the Moriscos for the Christian religion, due to the bad treatment they had received and their fear of the Inquisition; and the nobles threw the weight of their influence against molesting the Moriscos in this way as in others. In the second place, the very hatred of the Christian masses for the Moriscos had rendered their conversion difficult. Some of the charges made against them would seem to indicate that prejudice was the real foundation of this animosity. It was said that the Moriscos ate so little meat and drank so little wine that Christians had to pay nearly all of the alcabala, or the tax on their sale; they were denounced because they monopolized the industrial arts and trades, to the disadvantage of Christians; complaints were made that they always married, never becoming monks, wherefore their numbers increased more rapidly than those of the Christian population. Thus their frugality, industry, and domesticity were made the subject of accusations. Naturally there were more serious grounds of complaint than these, such as the inevitable private conflicts of old Christians and Moriscos, but differences in race, religion, and general customs were enough to cause popular hatred in that day, when intolerance was the rule. In the third place, it must be said in measurable justification of Spanish policy that the Moriscos did represent a danger to the state. They were numerous, and, naturally enough, hostile to the government; time and again they were proved to have fostered or taken part in uprisings and to have worked in conjunction with Moslem pirates; finally, the likelihood of a fresh Moslem descent from Africa, assisted by Spanish Moriscos, was not to be disregarded.

The failure of the attempts to convert the Moriscos had long been recognized, and the question arose what to do with them. Some men proposed a general massacre, or sending them to sea and scuttling the ships. Others suggested that they be sent to the Americas to work in the mines,—a solution which might have had interesting consequences. From about 1582, however, the idea of expelling them from Spain became more and more general, and was favored by men of the highest character,—for example, by Juan de Ribera, archbishop of Valencia (canonized in the eighteenth century). The expulsion was virtually decided upon as early as 1602, but the decrees were postponed for several years. In September, 1609, the expulsion from Valencia was ordered. All Moriscos except certain specified groups were required to be at various designated ports within three days; they were allowed to carry such movable property as they could, while the rest of their possessions was to go to their lords,—a sop to the nobles, for whom the expulsion meant great economic loss; they were informed that they would be taken to Africa free of charge, but were told to carry as much food as they could. Six per cent of the Morisco men and their families were excepted by the decree, so that they might instruct the laborers who should take the place of the expelled Moriscos. Various other groups, such as slaves, small children (under certain specified conditions), and those whose conversion was regarded as unquestionably sincere, were also exempted. The Moriscos were unwilling to avail themselves of the exceptions in their favor, and a general exodus began. The decree was cruelly executed, despite the government’s attempt to prevent it. Murder, robbery, and outrages against women went unpunished; even the soldiers sent to protect the Moriscos were guilty of these abuses. Many Moriscos were sold into slavery, especially children, who were taken from their parents. When news came that the peoples of northern Africa had given a harsh reception to the first of the Moriscos to disembark there, many preferred to take the chances of revolt rather than submit to expulsion, but these uprisings were easily put down. Decrees for the other parts of Spain soon followed; the decree for Castile proper, Extremadura, and La Mancha came in the same year, 1609; for Granada, Andalusia, and Aragon in 1610; and for Catalonia and Murcia in 1611, although the execution of the decree for Murcia was postponed until 1614. The terms of all, while varying in details, resembled that of Valencia. More time was given, usually a month; the permission to carry away personalty was accompanied by a prohibition against the taking of money or precious metals; and in some cases all children under seven were required to remain in Spain when their parents elected to go to Africa. On this account many Moriscos made the voyage to Africa by way of France, on the pretence that they were going to the latter country, thus retaining their children.

Various estimates have been made as to the number of the expelled Moriscos. It is probable that some half a million were obliged to emigrate. Many remained in Spain, forming outlaw bands in the mountains, or hiding under the protection of their lords, while thousands had long since merged with the Christian population. Almost from the start a current of re-immigration set in, for, after all, the Moriscos had in many respects become Spaniards, and they found that conditions in the lands to which they had gone were far from agreeable. Throughout the seventeenth century laws were enacted against returning Moriscos, but were of such little effect that the government virtually admitted its powerlessness in the matter. Southern Spain and the east coast below Catalonia remained strongly Moslem in blood, and the other provinces of the peninsula were not a little affected as well, but as regards religion the Morisco element was gradually merged, and this matter never became a serious problem again. Similar questions arose over returning Jews, who came back to Spain for much the same reasons the Moriscos did. They were not nearly so numerous, however, wherefore their return did not represent such a political danger as did that of the Moriscos.

The legal status of the family underwent no striking change in this period, except that the victory of Roman principles was more and more confirmed. The decisions of the Council of Trent (1545-1563), a famous general council of the Catholic Church, prohibited divorce, clandestine marriage, and in general any kind of marital union not made according to the solemnities and forms of the church, and these principles became law in Spain, but they represented tendencies which had long before appeared in the Partidas and the Leyes de Toro. Unions lacking the sanction of the law did not disappear; rather they were one of the prominent features of the immorality of the times. It was in its economic aspects that the family experienced its most marked change, and this was due to the exceptional favor with which the institution of primogeniture had come to be viewed, keeping pace with the vanity and the furor for ennoblement of the age. The very extension of the practice was its saving grace, for not only the great nobles but also persons of lesser note, including plebeians with not too vast estates, were wont to leave their properties to the eldest son; thus accumulation in the hands of a very few was avoided. For the same reason the crown often favored the custom for the smaller holdings, but restricted it in the case of the latifundia,—for example, in the prohibition issued against the combining of two such great estates. The individualism and capitalism of the Roman law was most marked of all in matters of property. One interesting attempt was made to get around the laws against usury through the purchase of annuities, the censo consignativo. Popular opinion, reinforced by the ideas of the moralists and jurisconsults and even by a bull of the pope, opposed the practice, and it did not survive. Despite the supremacy of the Roman ideas there were many writings of a socialistic character citing the collectivism of the Peruvian Incas or other such states of society as desirable of adoption in Spain. The philosopher Luis Vives, for example, favored a redistribution of natural resources and their equal enjoyment by all.

While the law frowned upon the spirit of association, even prohibiting the founding of new cofradÍas, the guilds enjoyed their greatest era of prosperity. This was due in part to the intervention of the state, which supplanted the municipalities in control of the institution. State regulation, even in technical matters, went further than it had in the fifteenth century. Despite government interest, as evidenced by the according of numerous privileges, the germs of the decline of the guilds were already apparent at the close of the seventeenth century. The exclusive spirit of the guilds whereby they endeavored to keep trade in the hands of their own members and their families, without admitting others who were competent to belong, was one cause of this decline, while their loss of liberty (due to government intervention) and the strife within and without the guild were contributing factors. One novelty of the era was the growing distinction between the manual arts and the liberal professions, the latter of which rose to a higher consideration. Thus lawyers, notaries, and doctors were rated above those engaged in manual labors, while there was also a recognized hierarchy among the last-named, from the workers in gold, silver, jewelry, and rich cloths down to the drivers of mules. The great association of the Mesta still enjoyed wide powers, as did also that of the carriers.

In laxness of morals and in luxury this period was much like the two preceding. It seems worse, but this may be due to the greater variety of materials at hand for study, such as books of travel, novels, plays, satires, letters, laws, and the frequently appearing “relations of events,” which in that day took the place occupied by the modern newspaper. A Spanish writer has characterized the practices of the time in the following language: “The ideal of an exaggerated sense of honor, chivalric quixotism, religious fanaticism, and the exalted predominance of form over the essence of things ruled Spanish society of the seventeenth century, absolutely and tyrannically. Duels and stabbings at every moment to sustain the least question of etiquette or courtesy; scandalous conflicts of jurisdiction between the highest tribunals of state; absurd and ridiculous projects to make silver without silver, fomented by the leading ministers; extremely costly and showy feasts to solemnize ordinary events, while cities, islands, provinces, and even kingdoms were being lost through bad government and worse administration; frequent and pompous public processions; blind belief in the miraculous virtue of some medal, stamp, or old rag of Mother Luisa or some other impostor; politico-religious sermons within and without the royal palace; the most abominable and nefarious sins scattered to an almost unbelievable extent among all classes of Madrid society; the vice of gambling converted into a profession by many persons; and, in fine, the censure of our court, by those who formed part of it and by those who did not, for its astonishing abundance and its depraved life of strumpets and wenches.... It is true that there were men of high degree who preferred the coarse sackcloth of the religious to the rich clothing of brocade and gold, and military leaders who exchanged the sword for the monkish girdle, but these were exceptions, which by the very fewness of their numbers stand out the more strongly from the general stock of that society, so accustomed to laziness, hypocrisy, routine, and external practices as it was, removed from the true paths of virtue, wisdom, and progress.” If to these characteristics there are added those of the misery and ignorance of the common people, and if an exception is made of the men devoted to intellectual pursuits, the above is fairly representative of Spanish society in this period. Loose practices were prevalent in excessive degree at Madrid, which had become the capital in the time of Philip II. While such a state of affairs is not unusual in all great capitals, immorality infected all classes of society in Madrid, and little if any stigma attached in the matter. Philip IV had thirty-two illegitimate children, and Charles I and even the somewhat sombre Philip II were not without reproach. Much that is unspeakable was prevalent, and gambling was generally indulged in. Lack of discipline also manifested itself in frequent duelling, despite prohibitive laws, and in the turbulence of the people on different occasions; university students were somewhat notorious in this respect, indulging in riots which were not free from incidents of an unsavory character. Other cities were little better than Madrid, and those of the south and east, where Moslem blood had been most plentiful, especially Seville and Valencia, had a yet worse reputation; Valencia had even a European notoriety for its licentious customs. These practices passed over into the Americas in an exaggerated form. The Andalusian blood of the conquerors and their adventurous life amidst subject races were not conducive to self-restraint. These evils were not to be without effect in the moulding of the Spanish American peoples. In the smaller Spanish towns and villages there was probably less vice, but there was more ignorance and greater lack of public security. Bands of robbers infested the country.

In luxury as in immorality the example was set by the kings themselves. Some of its manifestations were meritorious (except that expenditures were out of proportion to the resources and needs of the state), especially the encouragement of art through the purchase of paintings and the construction of palaces. But if Charles I and Philip II were lavish, Philip III and Philip IV were extravagant. Both of these kings, in addition to their fondness for the theatre, bull-fighting, dancing, and hunting, were responsible for the most ostentatious display on occasions of court celebrations. When Philip III went to San SebastiÁn in 1615 to attend the double wedding which was to bind together the houses of Austria and Bourbon, he was accompanied by a train of 74 carriages, 174 litters, 190 state coaches, 2750 saddle mules, 374 beasts of burden (of which 128 had coverings embroidered with the royal coat of arms), 1750 mules with silver bells, and 6500 persons, besides an escort of 4000 Guipuzcoans. Equal pomp and extravagance marked the reception to the Archduchess MarÍa Ana of Austria when she came to Spain as the fiancÉe of Philip IV; similarly, the entertainment accorded the Prince of Wales (the later Charles I of England) and the Duke of Buckingham when they visited Spain early in the reign of Philip IV; and likewise the various masquerades during the period of Olivares, one of which is said to have cost over 300,000 ducats (nearly $5,000,000). It would seem that war was not alone responsible for the drains on the Spanish treasury. There was a decline in expenditures in the reign of Charles II, due principally to the fact that there was little left to spend.

Private individuals could not equal the kings in extravagance, but they did the best they could. Houses often lacked comforts in the way of furniture, but made a brave showing in tapestries and paintings. Naturally, great attention was paid to dress. Under Charles I, just as in art, so also in dress, clothing was in a stage which may be called the transition from the “plateresque” to the “Spanish Renaissance.” For example, influenced by German and Swiss fashions, men wore puffs on their forearm or between the waist and hips, variegated oblong pieces in their jackets, bright colors generally, and a tall conical hat. In keeping with the greater sobriety of Philip II, styles became “Herreran” in that the puffs were abandoned, obscure colors replaced gay, and a cap superseded its more pretentious predecessor. Philip III inaugurated the “baroque” in dress with a return to the styles of Charles I, but in an exaggerated form.

Men were much given to sports and outings. The duel as a sport passed out at the beginning of the era, and jousts and tourneys lost their vogue by the end of the sixteenth century, but a host of new games took their place, such as equestrian contests of skill in the use of reed spears, lances, or pikes, but, more than all, the game which has ever since gripped Spanish interest, the bull-fight. Dances, parties, excursions, picnics, and masquerades were also in high favor. Dancing on the stage had a tendency to be indecent,—so much so, that it had to be prohibited. Tobacco was introduced from America at this time. Bathing was unpopular, partly because of the stigma attaching to that hygienic practice as a result of Moslem indulgence therein, but it was also the subject of attacks by writers on ethics, who complained of the immoral uses to which bath-houses were put. Public celebrations of feast days and carnivals were characterized by exhibitions of rough horse-play which were far removed from modern refinement. People considered it amusing to empty tiny baskets of ashes on one another, to trip up passers-by with a rope across the street, to put a lighted rag or a piece of punk in a horse’s ear, to pin an animal’s tail or some other unseemly object on a woman’s dress, to loose harmless snakes or rats in a crowd, to drop filthy waters on passers-by in the streets below, and to hurl egg-shells full of odorous essences at one another, varying the last-named missile with what the present-day American school-boy knows as the “spitball.” These were not the acts of children, but of ladies and gentlemen! Nevertheless, there was a beginning of refinement in table manners. Napkins were introduced, first as an unnecessary luxury, and later more generally,—replacing the use of the table cloth! It also became a polite custom to wash one’s hands before eating. The same progress is to be noted in another respect; Charles I indulged in the somewhat “plateresque” custom of kissing all ladies who were presented to him at court; Philip II in true “Herreran” style gave it up.

Cities were badly cared for. Barcelona, Madrid, and Seville were alone in being paved. Uncleanly human practices, despite efforts to check them, led to the accumulation of filth and odors in the streets, and this condition was not remedied, although there were officials charged with the duty of street-cleaning. No city had a lighting system worthy of the name; in Madrid the only street lights were the faintly glimmering candles or lamps which were placed before sacred images. All Europe exhibited the same social defects as those which have just been detailed, but Spain seemed reduced more than other countries to a state of poverty and misery, displaying every manifestation of mortal decay.