SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTS, 1516-1700
[Sidenote: Principal events in the social history of the era.]
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.
[Sidenote: Gradual approximation of the nobility to present-day
society.]
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.
[Sidenote: Hierarchy of the nobility.]
[Sidenote: Social vanity.]
[Sidenote: Survivals of medievalism among the nobles.]
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.
[Sidenote: Advance of the plebeian classes through the rise of the
merchants and the _letrados_.]
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.
[Sidenote: Improvement in the legal condition of the masses.]
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.
[Sidenote: Slavery.]
[Sidenote: The gypsies.]
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.
[Sidenote: Forced conversion of the Mudéjares of the kingdom of Aragon.]
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.
[Sidenote: Failure of the attempts to Christianize the Moriscos.]
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.
[Sidenote: Expulsion of the Moriscos.]
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.
[Sidenote: Failure of the expulsions to stamp out the Morisco and Jewish
elements in Spanish blood.]
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.
[Sidenote: Influence of Roman principles on the institutions of the
family and private property.]
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.
[Sidenote: Evolution of the guilds.]
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.
[Sidenote: Low moral tone of the era.]
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.
[Sidenote: Royal extravagance.]
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.
[Sidenote: Luxury in general.]
[Sidenote: Dress.]
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.
[Sidenote: Sports and amusements.]
[Sidenote: General social customs.]
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.
[Sidenote: Bad care of cities.]
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.