CHAPTER 7 Philip II as the New Solomon: The Covert Promotion of Religious Tolerance and Synergism in Post-Tridentine Spain

Kevin Ingram

This essay examines the phenomenon of Philip II as the “prudent king” or the “new Solomon.” It is usually assumed that these two epithets were references to Philip’s attention to state business and his careful mode of decision making. In fact, they were first applied to the young Philip by his Dutch subjects, hoping to move him towards a peaceful and practical statecraft, which included turn- ing a blind eye on occasion to his subjects’ religious non-conformism. I will argue that these terms were later adopted by Converso humanists at Philip’s court for similar purposes. However, for these Spanish propagandists, Solomon was not only a model for Royal wisdom, or discretion, he was also a reminder of Christianity’s links to Jewish religion and culture. In a Counter-Reformation environment in which the Old Testament was relegated to the status of a rarely perused prologue and Conversos continued to be regarded as subversives, or an enemy within, Solomon was advanced surreptitiously as a figurehead for peace, syncretism and assimilation in Spain. In this respect the Solomon phe- nomenon was similar to the Granada Lead Books fraud. Both were the works of New Christians who wished to promote concordance and assimilation within a Spanish society bent on anathematizing and marginalizing its Converso and Morisco groups.

Solomon and Dutch Non-Conformism

To understand Philip II’s “New Solomon” epithet, we need to examine it against a backdrop of a Europe in a perpetual state of conflict over religious issues. This tension was evident not only on the international stage between Protestant and Catholic forces, but also at a local level, where many men and women found themselves in conflict with the official religion of their realm. John Calvin referred to those people who observed the Protestant faith clan- destinely in Catholic lands as “Nicodemites,” after Nicodemus the Pharisee who visited Jesus in private; however, the term is equally applicable to those

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004306363_008 130 Ingram humanistic thinkers everywhere who found their religious views in variance with Confessionalism, or the adherence to a specific Christian dogma. While these people toed an official religious line in public, in private they were non- conformists, who often advocated toleration or concord. This was the case, for example, of the Dutch humanist Justus Lipsius, whose neo-stoical philosophy, based on the pragmatic politics of Tacitus, called for citizens to uphold the religion of their prince in public to avoid civil strife. However, in private they should be free to pursue their personal inclinations, with the ruler’s silent con- sent. It was a type of practical statecraft which the French had begun to label politique. This pragmatic approach to religion is evident in the Dutch burgers’ move to associate the Spanish Prince Philip with the Old Testament King Solomon during the prince’s tour of the country in 1549. The tour came at a time of social and religious unrest, with the Dutch cities protesting increased taxes and loss of civil liberties. Particularly incensed by Charles V’s recent clampdown on religious heresy, which had led to a spate of state executions, the Dutch wished to rehearse Prince Philip in his future duties to his northern subjects. They pointed out that as the warrior king David was succeeded by the prudent Solomon, so too the warrior Charles would be succeeded by his temperate son Philip, who would then rule, as the welcoming committee of the Flemish city of Tornay put it, “in peace, honor and concord.”1 This reference to Philip as the prudent, pacific Solomon was repeated in Ypres, Lille, Brussels, Arras and Ghent. It was also adopted five years later by the reform-minded Catholic bishop Reginald Pole in a speech before the English parliament, referring to the imminent marriage between Philip and Mary Tudor. Here Pole compared Charles V to King David, who “was contami- nate with Blood and War,” and thus “could not build the temple of Jerusalem, but left the finishing thereof to Solomon, which was Rex pacificus. So may it be,” Pole continued, “that the appeasing of Controversies of Religion in Christianity is not appointed to this Emperor but to his Son, who shall perform the building that the father had begun.” Like the Dutch burgers, Pole appears to have been urging Philip towards a peaceful reconciliation with Protestantism. Philip seems to have been captivated by the comparison of himself to the wise King Solomon. However, he had his own, very orthodox, interpretation­ of

1 “Reinando en Judea el Rey David por voluntad de Dios, en quien tenía su Fe, ordenó que su hijo Salomón fuese ungido por rey de Israel, y así lo hizo sin desampararlo, porque la tierra estuviese en paz, honra y concordia, por donde el pueblo hizo alegrías . . .” Diego Calvete de Estrella El felicismo viaje del muy alto y muy poderoso principe Dom Phelippe, vol. 1, Madrid, 1930, p. 422.