Question 1
Evaluate the interpretations in both of the two passages and explain which you think is more
convincing as an explanation of Philip II as the ‘most Catholic Monarch’.
Passage A
Philip II of Spain stands out as a Counter Reformation prince. He was intent upon the triumph of Catholicism, and the advancement of his political interests, goals which he tended to make explicit. He took seriously his obligation before God for the welfare, spiritual and temporal, of his subjects. He saw himself as an instrument of God’s providence* in the cause of His Church, and he undertook religious or holy wars to defend or advance its interests. Philip remained firm in his allegiance to the papacy. From his early years Philip was educated in his religion and he remained throughout his life a man of personal piety*. From his faith he drew consolation in the public and private tragedies he suffered. Contemporaries asserted that ‘there was no pope in Spain’, and it is clear to see the degree of control Philip exercised over the Church. He accepted the decrees of the Council of Trent; made determined efforts to Catholicise his subjects; Catholicism was fostered as the common bond uniting the diverse regions of the monarchy. Philip publicly supported the Inquisition in Spain, and his efforts to Christianise the native populations in the New World and the Philippines met with success. In foreign policy, he was conscious of his responsibility for the defence of Christendom.
*providence – will *piety – religious devotion
Adapted from: R. Bireley, The Refashioning of Catholicism 1450–1700, published in 1999.
Passage B
It has become a myth perpetuated over time that, whatever else Philip was, he was foremost a devout servant of the Catholic Church, all other motives being secondary – but this is a misunderstanding. Philip himself was a serious, committed Catholic in his personal faith, but this did not necessarily make him the ‘Most Catholic King’.
Philip II of Spain was not a crusader and did not let religion drive his policies as it did his private life. Philip should not be seen as some saviour of Catholicism. Domestic reform of the Church in Spain was a valuable and important exercise, but it was one that owed more to the legacy of Charles V than to his less imaginative son. Philip, it seems, was more interested in developing his own authority in religious affairs by structural and administrative reform than he was in pursuing enlightenment for Spain or the rest of Europe. Philip’s relationships with the papacy throughout his reign clearly show that he did not believe the pope to be his ‘Spiritual Father’, as he claimed to his son on his deathbed, but rather that he was essentially a politician dealing with the intrigues of European affairs. Finally, it is in Philip’s foreign policy that the strongest evidence for not seeing him as the ‘Most Catholic King’ materialises. Such a title is far too simplistic to encompass the complexities of the life of Philip II, and one that ignores the fact that, although a devout Catholic himself, he was not prepared to put blind faith in a religious policy if it went against his political interests.
Adapted from: J. Lewis, ‘Philip the II: ‘The Most Catholic King’?’, History Review, Issue 50, published in 2004.
[30]
Answer
