:: La Princesa de Éboli ::

The history of Spain, of Europe, of the World known in the 16th century is hard to understand if we don’t take Philip II in account. His government was so universal it was palpable in all fields of life in his era and practically all over the world. Throughout half a century, Phillip the Second governed the most extense empire during one of the most important historical times.
His territories covered all the planet; from the far east to the American territories, passing through the Indic ocean and the China sea, through Africa and north Europe, center and south, as well as all of the Iberian Peninsula; then it crossed the Atlantic and united at the Pacific ocean through the route of “Galeón de Manila”.
Not many times in history have territories and countries with such diverse languages, cultures, mentalities, social and political structures unite under the same sovereign. This was possible not only due to the circumstances of Philip II being heir of an empire, but also due to his personal characteristics and his practice as a Monarch. Both of these aspects – personality and power – are, possibly, the two features of this King that have brought the bigger interest and curiosity of historians and general public as well.

Philip the Second was, without a doubt, a enigmatic monarch. Fernand Braudel stated that the Spanish King was an “enigma for historians” who fought the protestants, the Islam, and the independent movements, and basically anything that could endanger unity in his empire. This obsessive fulfilment of his obligations and his destiny as head of the great House of Austria meant an irresistible historic combination that provided Phillip II with a prominent place within the most important characters in universal history; not only from a academic and scientific point of view, but from a more popular perspective as well.

Some of the greatest historians have been intrigued by this character, but because of his suggestiveness and attractiveness, he has caused curiosity and interest within the greater audience on the most anecdotic chapters of his biography – his education, his wives, his children, his likings, … - and, specially, the admiration for the Great Monastery of El Escorial, one of the greatest monuments of the world; considered, almost ever since the finalization of its construction, as the “Eighth Marvel” and today catalogued within the World Heritage.

Originally conceived as a Royal Pantheon, the El Escorial Royal Monastery represents Philip II’s great architectural dream, thus it is the result of the whole of his ideas and desires architecturally, and as a glorification to God and as defence of faith and as a symbolic expression of his right to power and sacred consciousness as sovereign..

The Monastery of El Escorial is defined by Chueca Goitia as a “citadel for faith, capital of the intangible, of the transcendental” – it’s like the mirror that reflects the plural soul of the monarch and provides us with an image of what the King would’ve liked to be seen as. As if it where a self portrait of him in stone.
Although Philip II did not want a biography written during his life, possibly to avoid adulations (even though this favoured his detractors), he was in fact worried about building a very precise image of Majesty, an image that started to gestate and manifest in the first portraits made by Antonio Moro and Tiziano, in which he is presented as a Prince of Renaissance of bigger political content. This was consolidated in further portraits, like the one made by Sofonisba Anguisola, representing a devote king, in a solemn tone and distant, culminated with the sculptures of Pompeo Leoni, where an image of dynastical, dogmatic, religious and political content is created.

Philip II was a complex and profoundly religious man. A prudent governor that risked too much, and above all, was totally convinced of his destiny as a King, and of the sacred nature of the Austria’s Dynasty to which he belonged. Because of this, the power, which he exercised; and how he contributed to conserve and maintain this status, the Royal State; Philip II acted in a determined way. It is hard to understand within actual parameters, (he has gone through history as an Absolute Monarchist) – which was common in the 16th century- hair of great power that took personal monarchy to its most stellar moment. Trusted his own judgement over the others, took difficult decisions, and was also conscious that the time and distance would distort these decisions.

He was a working king, dedicated to his work even in the most minimal details, which, in many occasions gained many critics for “loosing time” in things he could delegate on his subordinates.
Unfortunately, on the other hand, he was also considered a tough man, negative, cold, with lack of feelings. King was aware of this and wrote “I do not know what the think of me, other that I am made of steel or stone, and really they are to see I am mortal like the rest” (Madrid, 29th of November, 1578).
His enemies identified him with repression, fanatism and intolerance. Political happenings during his kingdom were very toughly criticized, plus his political rivals (one of them his earlier secretary Antonio Perez) and the protestants promoted and divulged a sinister image of the Monarch.
During his life, and after his death, Philip II has been frequently judged in a not very objective manner and specially with little knowledge of the character. We should also have in mind that in other situations, negative criticism has, other than respond to an objective analisis, been due to clichés and banal approaches. Also, the circumstances of the times (16th and 17th century) made the Spanish hegemony provoke many resentments within its contemporary witnesses.
Most of the studies about the monarch have not been made by Spaniards, which in some way has contributed to generate a unfavourable image; although fortunately there is a generation of Spanish specialists which in the last few years have been making important contributions to know and value the King in its fair measure. This is why it is fundamental that other media and forms of knowledge that can achieve much more circulation, contribute to a better knowledge, analisis and valuation of the monarch, its politics, etc…

One of the historic forms of approach is to do so through those main known facts, the most controversial of his kingdom; like what happened between his secretary, Antonio Perez, and D. Juan de Austria’s secretary, Juan de Escobedo. Conflicts that lead to murder of Escobedo.
To value, you have to know, and without knowledge, there is no possible value, this is why it is so important to contribute to the figure of the King Philip II in the social, religious and cultural context of Europe that time. The most stellar moments of his life, of his story, (which is ours as well); have to be recuperated: and for this we have to meet the man, the husband, the father, the Christian, the king… to be able to bright a new light over his personal and political life, and over his most controversial facts of his kingdom.
All these motives are more than enough to present a new vision of Philip II: more actual, more rigorous, trying to understand his politics, not only from his side, but from his compromise with his era and his dynasty. An objective and plural perspective, placing value on the historic wealthiness of the era, and on the character itself.
The more historical knowledge we get about Philip II and his era, the more legends derived from political and ideal fights will be brought down. Philip II is, without a doubt, an unrepeatable figure which left a mark wherever he went. He was, in words of J. Lynch “an imprudent king… and a realistic man” who deserves to get known better.