SPANISH SOCIETY, 1700-1808
[Sidenote: Social characteristics of the era.]
FUNDAMENTALLY, there was no change in the classes of Spanish society in
this period as regards their legal and social standing, except in the
case of the rural population of Aragon. One of the characteristic notes
of the era was a certain democratic sentiment of a philanthropic kind,
exhibiting itself vaguely in a desire for the well-being of mankind, and
practically in the social, economic, and intellectual betterment of the
masses, without any attempt being made to improve their juridical
position. This ideal, which was not confined to Spain, became more and
more widespread with the increase in influence of the French
encyclopedists, and got to be a fad of high society, being encouraged by
the kings themselves. Many of its manifestations will be taken up later
in dealing with economic institutions, but the sentimental discussion of
the ideal may be remarked upon here; this at length went so far as to
result in the formulation of political doctrines of a democratic
character, but they were not yet translated into law. Such social
reforms as were made came for the most part in the last three reigns of
the era, especially in that of Charles III.
[Sidenote: Pride, wealth, and privileges of the nobles.]
[Sidenote: Real decline of their power.]
The description of the nobility in the period of the House of Austria
might almost be repeated for this era. The nobles had long since lost
their political power, but the wealth of the grandees and the privileges
and the prestige of all ranks of the nobility were so great that this
class was a more important factor in Spanish life than it is today.
Pride of noble rank continued to be almost an obsession, despite the
attempts to check it; with a view to diminishing petitions for the
recognition of rights of _hidalguía_, a law was passed in 1758 calling
for the payment of a large sum of money when the petitioner’s title
dated back to the fourth or fifth grandfather. On the other hand, the
kings were responsible for acts which tended to encourage the eagerness
for noble rank. Ferdinand VI officially recognized that the people of
Vizcaya were all of _hidalgo_ rank; Charles III created the order which
bears his name, and Charles IV founded that of the “noble ladies of
María Luisa”; various societies of nobles for equestrian exercises, in
imitation of the military orders, were formed, and they were given
certain privileges in criminal jurisdiction. To be sure, the grant of
these honors was a source of revenue to the state. The recognition of
the privileged character of the nobles was manifest, even in the case of
the more degraded members of that class; a law of 1781 provided that
nobles who were arrested as vagabonds should be sent to the army with
the rank of “distinguished soldiers.” The grandees and the other nobles
possessed of seigniorial estates still controlled the appointment of
many municipal functionaries; in 1787 there were 17 cities, 2358
_villas_, and 1818 _aldeas_ and _pueblos_ in seigniorial hands, in some
of which the king shared jurisdiction with the lords. Similarly, the
military orders had the right to appoint the clergymen of 3 cities, 402
_villas_, 119 _pueblos_, and 261 _aldeas_. Many monopolies of a medieval
type still survived in favor of the lords, such as those of hunting,
fishing, the baking of bread, the making of flour, and the use of
streams and forests, and in some cases the lord’s vassals were subject
to medieval tributes and services. It is rather by comparison with
matters as they are today, however, that these incidents loom large;
they were but the survivals of a system which was already dead. The
worst of these seigniorial rights, the Aragonese lord’s power of life
and death over his villeins, was abolished by Philip V. The kings did
not dare to suppress all of the seigniorial privileges, but took steps
to overcome them, as by submitting the rights of certain lords to
rigorous proofs, by hindering sales of jurisdiction, by subjecting the
appointments of the lords to the approval of the _Cámara_, by naming
special royal officials for the various seigniorial holdings, and in
general by facilitating the reincorporation in the crown of such
estates. By this time the lesser nobility enjoyed few exemptions of a
financial character, but the great nobles still possessed such
privileges. The kings employed indirect methods to cause them to submit
to taxation. Thus payments were demanded in lieu of military service,
and the _media anata_ (half annates) was required for the recognition of
the title of a successor to landed estates; certainly the immensely
wealthy grandees were able to pay these tributes without serious
economic loss to themselves. Furthermore, the great nobles continued to
be a court nobility, and were jealously proud of the special privileges
of an empty character which marked them off from the classes below them.
For example, a grandee had the right to keep his hat on and to sit down
in the presence of the king; to be called “cousin” by the king; to have
a private guard; to preside over the sessions of the noble branch of the
_Cortes_; to be visited and saluted by _ayuntamientos_, viceroys, and
other authorities; to have a better place than others, both indoors and
out; and to be free from imprisonment except by a special decree of the
king.
[Sidenote: Slight gains of the working classes.]
There was no essential change in the composition and character of the
middle classes in this era. The working classes of the cities attained
to a little more liberty than formerly, as a result of the decline of
the guilds, while those of the country, if they had improved their
juridical position, continued nevertheless in a state of misery and
poverty. The rural wars of past reigns were missing, however. The evil
lot of the rural classes was due more to the backwardness of
agriculture, the vast extent of unworked lands common, and the
widespread practice of entailing estates, than to bonds of a social
character. An interesting attempt, at once to raise the urban laborer,
and to break down the sharp dividing line between the nobility and the
plebeian classes, was a law of 1783, which declared that the trades of
artisans--such as those of the carpenter, tailor, and shoemaker--were to
be considered honorable, and since municipal offices were usually in the
hands of the _hidalgo_ class it was also enacted that the practice of
these trades did not incapacitate a man from holding positions in the
local government or even from becoming an _hidalgo_. This well-meant
law was not able to overcome social prejudices, however, and when an
endeavor was made to interpret it in the sense that it authorized the
entry of artisans into the military orders, which had always been
composed only of nobles, it was decreed in 1803 that it had never been
intended to raise them to that degree, for the military orders were
founded on the necessity of maintaining the lustre of the nobility.
[Sidenote: Benevolent legislation affecting gypsies, descendants of
Jews, and slaves.]
A spirit of racial tolerance for the despised classes made its
appearance in this era. Laws placing prohibitions on the gypsies were
repeatedly enacted until the time of Charles III, but in 1783 that
monarch declared that the gypsies were not to be considered a tainted
race, and ordered that they be admitted to the towns and to occupations
on the same basis as other Spaniards, provided they would abandon their
dress, language, and special customs. Similarly, in 1782 Charles III
endeavored to free the descendants of Jews from the stigma of their
ancestry by enacting that they should not be obliged to live in a
separate quarter or wear any device indicative of their origin. A law of
1785 permitted them to serve in the army or navy,--a right which had
previously been denied them. These generous laws for the gypsies and the
descendants of Jews were as little capable as those just mentioned
concerning artisans of overcoming social prejudices, wherefore they
failed of their objects. In matters of religion the laws affecting the
despised classes were more in keeping with general sentiment. In 1712 it
was ordered that Moslem slaves who had been set free must leave the
country; in 1802 the prohibition against Jews returning to the peninsula
was reaffirmed as absolute in the case of those who retained the Jewish
faith. Slavery continued to be legal, but laws were passed that slaves
escaping to Spain from other lands, except from the Spanish colonies,
became _ipso facto_ free. The treaty of 1779 with Morocco provided that
prisoners of war should not henceforth be enslaved. The institution of
slavery existed on a great scale in the Americas, though Charles III
alleviated the rigors of the situation by his beneficent legislation.
[Sidenote: Tightening of the bonds of family.]
[Sidenote: Influence of the physiocratic school on legislation affecting
property.]
Legislation affecting the family aimed to tighten the bonds between
parents and children, which had become loosened as a result of the
increasing spirit of individualism. Thus a law of 1766 ordered that the
prior consent of parents should be obtained before children could marry,
although a remedy was provided for an unreasonable withholding of
consent; in the preamble it was stated that the law was due to the
frequent occurrence of “unequal marriages.” Several later laws upheld
the same principle. Legislation concerning property was characterized by
the ideas of the physiocratic school of thinkers, who referred all
social and economic problems to the land as the fundamental basis. Among
the Spanish physiocrats (for the physiocratic ideal was widespread in
western Europe) were Campomanes, Floridablanca, and Jovellanos, who were
among the greatest of Spanish reformers in the reign of Charles III and
the early years of Charles IV. In keeping with physiocratic views the
laws tended to the release of realty from incumbrances and to the
distribution of lands among many persons. The practice of entailing
estates in primogeniture was one of the institutions attacked by the
physiocrats. It was admitted that it was necessary in the case of the
great nobles, in order to maintain the prestige of the family name, but
it was held to be desirable to check the extension of the institution in
other cases and to facilitate the extinction of entails. Thus a law of
1749 permitted of the sale of entailed estates for an annuity in the
case of financially ruined houses; a law of 1789 prohibited the founding
of new entails, and facilitated the sale of realty already so held; a
law of 1795 imposed heavy taxes on existing entails; and a law of 1798
authorized the sale of entailed estates, provided the funds should be
invested in a certain loan announced at that time. Still other laws were
passed in this period, with the result that many entails disappeared and
others were diminished in size. The nobles resisted the change, and the
greater number of the entails remained in existence, although reduced in
income. In the same way municipal and ecclesiastical holdings were
attacked. In the case of the former (_propios_), laws were passed
repeatedly--for example in 1761, 1766, 1767, 1768, and especially in
1770--for the partition of the cultivable and pastoral lands and for
their assignment to a number of individuals. Nevertheless, the majority
of this type of municipal lands continued in the possession of the
towns, for the laws were not fully executed. As concerns lands utilized
for the promotion of religious objects, pious foundations were attacked,
and either compelled or else permitted to sell their real property, but
there was considerable hesitancy about applying the same practice to
lands held in mortmain by the regular and secular clergy, although the
prevailing opinion of jurisconsults was opposed to these holdings. Some
steps were taken, however, to free these lands, as well as other
measures to hinder the giving of realty in mortmain. In the various
colonization schemes of the century it was customary to forbid the
transfer of lands to ecclesiastical institutions. A law of 1763
prohibited further conveyances to the church, and a law of 1798 called
for the alienation of lands owned by charitable institutions, even
though they might belong to the church, and some estates accordingly
were sold. The resistance of the clergy, together with a certain
repugnance to laying hands on the property of the church except in case
of extreme necessity, operated to prevent these laws from having their
full effect. It will be noticed that all of these measures were markedly
individualistic, in accord with Roman principles as opposed to those of
medieval society, and favorable to the change in ownership of landed
estates and to their division into small holdings. This spirit was
manifested even more insistently in attacking titles of a medieval
character. Thus the right of farmers to fence lands for their own use
was sustained, serving as a check upon the abuses of the _Mesta_, and
the various methods of tribute from vassals to a lord (_censos_,
_foros_, etc.) were the subject of legislation tending to relieve the
former from their burdens. To this epoch, also, belong laws requiring
the registry of titles to land. Nevertheless, the spirit of collectivism
was still alive, as expressed in doctrines favoring the condemnation of
individual property and the establishment of communal inclosures with
the drawing of lots for land, but the followers of Roman principles
were victorious in the controversy.
[Sidenote: Triumphs of Roman principles.]
[Sidenote: Decline and fall of the guilds.]
The spirit of individualism appeared, also, to give a deathblow to the
guilds, even though they actually increased in number; there were ninety
guilds in Barcelona at the close of the eighteenth century. Among the
factors contributing to the decline were the following: the continuance
of the exclusive spirit of the past, making entry into the guild a
difficult matter; the accentuation of social differences within the
guilds, such that certain elements had special privileges based on rank
in the guild,--for example, a right that their sons might enter the
institution without serving as apprentices; the failure of the guilds to
observe their own ordinances; the frequency of lawsuits between guilds,
or even between a guild and its own members; and especially the
continued intervention of the state, taking over the former municipal
control of the guilds and unifying the ordinances of each trade
throughout the country. The relation of the state to the guilds
facilitated the application of the new economic ideas which were
favorable to the freedom of labor and hostile to the guilds. Thus in
1772 foreign artisans were permitted to establish themselves, without
paying a special tax and without having to undergo examinations; in 1782
a general law introduced reforms facilitating apprenticeship, freeing
applicants for entry into a guild from the necessity of proving the
Christian faith of their ancestry (_limpieza de sangre_), permitting of
the sale of masterships, and abolishing the distinction between the sons
of masters and those of the other members; in another law of the same
year painters, sculptors, and architects were authorized to work
independently of guilds; in 1783 the _cofradías_ attached to the guilds
were suppressed, and their place was taken by benefit societies
(_montepíos_); in 1784 women were given a general permission to engage
in any trade they wished; in 1790 it was enacted that any artisan of
recognized ability could work at his trade without the need of an
examination; and in 1793 a law dissolving the guilds of the silk
manufacturers announced that it was neither necessary nor fitting that
persons should be grouped together in guilds for carrying on such an
industry. From this point it was only a step to the death of the
institution. The great name in the legislation against the guilds was
that of Campomanes.
[Sidenote: Dull routine of daily life.]
If the social customs of the two preceding eras may be said to have
represented the virile youth of the Spanish peoples, followed by a
seemingly mortal sickness resulting from a too great indulgence in “wild
oats,” this period stands for the recovery of the race (just as occurred
in other aspects of peninsula life) in a conventional, outwardly
respectable, and on the whole fairly wholesome, if also somewhat
monotonous, middle age. Simplicity, regularity, and subordination to
principles of authority (as represented by king, church, and parents,
checking initiative and making long-established custom the guiding rule
in daily life) were the dominating social characteristics. Both in the
city and in the country, people arose early; the _Consejo de Castilla_
met at seven in the morning from April to September, and at eight from
October to March. It was the custom also to go to bed early, to perform
one’s daily tasks in precisely the same way each day, to hear mass
daily, to have family prayers each day, to salute one’s parents
respectfully on the same daily recurring occasions, and to display a
like respect in the presence of official personages or of clergymen. If
people now and then indulged in gossip about their neighbors, they gave
little thought to persons or events beyond their immediate circle; they
were in no hurry to learn the news of the world, waiting tranquilly for
the arrival of the mails, which were usually infrequent and meagre.
[Sidenote: Monotony of the life at court and among the nobles.]
The kings themselves helped to make this monotonous type of life
fashionable. Philip V was domestically inclined, retiring, and
melancholy, and from the time of his marriage with Isabel Farnesio was
nearly always at the side of his wife, who even accompanied him when he
received his ministers before he had arisen from bed. His daily life was
passed in pious exercises and in hunting, with music to vary the
monotony. Ferdinand VI, also domestic, retiring, and God-fearing, was
very fond of music, with the result that the court was brightened by
frequent concerts, operas, and theatrical representations, on which vast
sums of money were expended. Charles III was a man of very simple
tastes, an enemy of the theatre and of music, but passionately devoted
to hunting. He was so methodical that every moment of the day within the
palace was regulated by royal ordinances, and the annual journeys and
changes of residence of the royal family took place each year on the
same day. In monotonous regularity of life Charles IV resembled his
illustrious predecessor, but passion for hunting amounted in his case
almost to a disease; after having breakfast and hearing mass he would
hunt until one o’clock, and would return to that sport after having
partaken of dinner. The sameness of court life in this period was broken
by various receptions and royal feast days, but even these were cold and
formal, following prescribed courses, although celebrated with great
pomp. In 1804 there were eight greater gala days and seventeen lesser
ones, besides those arising from unforeseen events, such as the
reception of a foreign ambassador. Furthermore, royal journeys
necessarily involved festivities and heavy expense. Balls, banquets, and
other diversions found no place at court, and the accession of Charles
III put an end to concerts and plays. The ordinary life of the nobles
followed that of the kings. Comparing it with that of France, a French
duke who came to Spain in the reign of Philip V said that it was
tiresome, almost unsociable, and lacking in comforts, despite the fact
that great sums of money were often spent for entertainments of a formal
nature. Toward the close of the century the more genial practices of
other European countries began to percolate into Spain. Godoy was one
who took pleasure in giving balls. Others followed his example, and the
austere simplicity of Spanish life began to yield to comforts,
diversions, and dissipation. Nevertheless, the old conventions still
ruled, especially in the country districts, where the poorer nobility
resided, occupying themselves in hunting and in local politics and
intrigues. The penurious nobles of the _hidalgo_ class continued to be
found at the capital in the train of the greater representatives of the
titled element.
[Sidenote: Simplicity of domestic life.]
Some clue to the modesty of life in general may be obtained from the
cheapness of rents and the scantiness of furniture in the houses of the
capital. The average annual rental was 1504 _reales_ ($94), and there
were many houses of an inferior type to be had for 45 _reales_ ($2.81) a
month, although, of course, money values were much greater then than
now. House decorations and furniture were poor to the point of
shabbiness. Walls did not begin to be papered until the close of the
eighteenth century. Usually they were white-washed and hung with a few
pictures of a religious character or with brass candlesticks. The floor
was of unpolished wood, covered over in winter with mats, and there was
a like simplicity in chairs. Writing-desks were often present, but were
opened only when visitors were being received. Candles were employed for
lighting, and the odorous, scantly warming brazier was the principal
resource against cold. The same sobriety manifested itself as regards
the table. The _puchero_, or _cocido_, made up primarily of chickpeas
(_garbanzos_), was the basis of the meal, and usually was the only
element. Inns were equally uninviting, and it was not until the close of
the era that the example of foreign countries prevailed upon the
Spaniards to introduce somewhat more comfortable hostelries.[61]
[Sidenote: Struggle between the French and the native styles in dress.]
The simplicity and severity of Spanish customs were not maintained in
matters of dress. There was a century-long conflict between the French
and the native styles, the former represented by the military cut of
clothing more in keeping with that of the present day, and the latter by
the slouched hat and long cape, as symbolic of the indigenous modes. On
grounds of morality and public safety the government opposed the native
type, which lent itself too easily to the facilitation of disguise, and
the methodical Charles III even considered the imposition of a national
dress which should omit the traditional features. A law of 1766 ordered
their abandonment and the adoption of a short cape or riding coat and
the three-cornered cocked hat. The decree was the occasion of riots
throughout Spain, and had to be recalled, while Squillace, the minister
who had proposed it, lost his post. Aranda, his successor, achieved the
desired end by indirect methods. He caused the slouched hat to be made
the official head-piece of the hangman, wherefore it began to lose
prestige, and the French styles were soon decisively victorious. It is
to be noted, however, that the three-cornered cocked hat and other
French styles of the Bourbon era were retained in Spain after they were
no longer in fashion in republican and imperial France. Women’s dress
was also reformed in a similar direction. Three outstanding features
characterized the well-dressed woman: the skirt of silk or velvet; the
_mantilla_, or veil, worn over the head instead of a hat; and the fan.
Fans of a most luxurious type were used, with ribs of shell,
mother-of-pearl, or ivory, and with ornaments of gold, while the
principal part was hand-painted, often by artists of note, to represent
scenes of a mythological, pastoral, or historical character. Even among
the common people, especially among the so-called _majos_, or low-class
dandies (both male and female) of Madrid, there were special types of
elegant dress. Ladies’ dress-combs of unusual size, not infrequently
half a foot or more in height above the hair, may be mentioned as one
phase of the _majo_ styles, which stood for a reaction against French
modes, though with scant knowledge or regard for ancient Spanish
customs. _Majismo_, both in dress and in customs, invaded the
aristocracy, and has been immortalized in some of the paintings of Goya.
The common people of the country were much more conservative in
maintaining the earlier styles of dress, which have survived to the
present day, although the uniformity of modern life has tended to make
them peculiarities, rather than the prevailing modes of the different
regions in which they are found.
[Sidenote: Fondness of the general Spanish public for diversion and
sport.]
The monotony of Spanish life did not prevent Spaniards from being fond
of diversions. On the contrary they seemed to welcome a chance to escape
from the narrow course of their humdrum existence. Public feast-days
were numerous and very popular; events in Christian history were the
occasion of most of them. People generally, unlike the monarchs, the
nobles, and their imitators among the wealthy bourgeoisie, were very
fond of dancing, the theatre, and bull-fighting. Dances to the
accompaniment of the guitar were held on every possible occasion; on
Sundays they took place in the public square of the city. The days of
the waltz, onestep, and other dances now in vogue in many lands (though
not in Spain) had not yet come; rather, the dances were very largely
national or regional, such as the _seguidillas_ or _boleros_, the
_fandango_, _guaracha_, _zorongo_, _arlequín_, _chacona_, _zarabanda_,
the Aragonese _jota_, the Valencian _dansetes_, and the Catalonian
_sardana_, all of which gave great play to the individual and
represented harmonious action of the entire body. Many of these dances,
or their derivatives, survive in Spain today. Professional dancing girls
were popular favorites--and not infrequently the mistresses of the great
gentlemen of the court. Charles III detested dancing, but neither he nor
his successor could check it, though they did regulate it to some
extent. In like manner the theatre continued to be a national passion,
despite the disapproval of certain great churchmen as well as of Charles
III. Three great theatres were built in Madrid in the reign of Philip V.
Governmental regulations were as unavailing in this as in the case of
dancing. The popularity of bull-fighting got to be greater than ever,
though Philip V and Charles III disliked the sport. Ferdinand VI was a
devotee, and Charles IV was not unfriendly. The repugnance felt by
Philip V had the effect of causing the withdrawal of the nobles from
taking part in the contests, with the result that a professional class
of bull-fighters developed. Charles III went so far as to prohibit the
sport in 1785, but Charles IV, in 1789, consented to its return. Godoy,
however, was opposed to bull-fighting, and procured its abolition in
1805. The period from 1789 to 1805 is a famous one in the history of
this game. Just as happens today, so then, the names of the favorite
bull-fighters were on everybody’s lips. This was a period when many of
the feats of the bull-fighters which still form a part of the contest
were invented. Possibly the most widely known name was that of Pepe
Illo, or Hillo (great bull-fighter and writer of a treatise on the
so-called art of bull-fighting), who was killed in the bull-ring at
Madrid in 1801, an event which Goya reduced to canvas in one of his
most famous paintings. Madrid, Aranjuez, Granada, and Seville were the
only cities which had bull-rings (_plazas de toros_), but fights were
held in all parts of Spain by utilizing the principal square of the
city. Certain athletic exercises were very popular, among which the
Basque game of ball, still played in Spain, is especially worthy of
mention.[62] Performances of professional acrobats, jugglers, and
magicians were frequent, as well as the playing of pantomimes.
[Sidenote: Marked advance in the care of cities.]
The policing of cities for the first time became worthy of commendation.
At the opening of the eighteenth century Madrid was ugly, extremely
dirty, without architectural monuments, driveways, or promenades, and
lacked a good water system. The great reforms of Aranda under Charles
III and of Godoy in the next reign transformed the city, resulting in
the opening of new streets, the organization of an efficient
street-cleaning system (despite opposition on the ancient ground that
the filthiness of the streets was a preventive of epidemics), the
completion of the work of paving begun in the previous era, the
development of a good water supply, the inauguration of a lighting
system, the building of noteworthy edifices, the bettering of old
promenades (_paseos_) and the opening of new ones, and the issue of
numerous ordinances intended to preserve the good order and public
health of the city. It was at this time, too, that the institution of
the _sereno_ (night-watchman in Spanish streets) was introduced from
abroad; contrary to the usual opinion the _sereno_ is not Spanish in
origin, but of foreign importation. The walk, or drive, along the great
_paseos_, just at evening before nightfall, became more popular among
all classes than ever, and has remained a Spanish custom to the present
day. Barcelona, Seville, and Cádiz were also much improved.
[Sidenote: Continuance of loose practices and bad habits.]
But the dances, masked balls, the theatre, evening parties, and
promenades furnished occasion for vicious practices. Immorality was not
so brazen and unashamed as formerly, but was very nearly as prevalent.
In vain were laws passed with a view to checking the evil. The lax
practices continued, and received a kind of sanction during the reign of
Charles IV from the example set by the queen, of which everybody except
the king seemed well aware. Gambling was also the subject of restrictive
legislation which failed of its design. In this respect the state was
morally estopped from making complaint, because it was in this period
that the national government lottery was founded. This institution,
which still exists, was established, strange to say, by Charles III, in
1763, following the example of the court of Rome. Gambling, and
especially the lottery, soon became the passion it has ever since
remained. Smoking had long before gotten to be general among the lower
classes, particularly among the already mentioned _majo_ element; but
the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie had been little inclined to the
habit. They were soon to surrender to the influence of _majismo_,
however, with the result that Spaniards and their Hispanic kinsfolk have
come to be enumerated among the most inveterate smokers in the world, so
far as the men are concerned. Drunkenness was not a very prevalent vice,
any more than it is today, although the same could not be said with
respect to the Spanish colonies.
[Sidenote: Influence of Spanish customs on the Americas.]
It only remains to add that these social practices were to be found in
much the same form in the Americas. Fondness for showy feast-days was
even greater there, and it is also to be noted that the improvements in
Spanish cities had their counterpart in the embellishment of several of
those overseas.