Erasmus University Rotterdam Master’s Thesis Early Modern Intellectual History - CH5050 Prof. dr. R. von Friedeburg Prof. dr. A. Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño Power, Politics and Propaganda The Mystification of the Revolt of Naples By Nicole S.D. Linkels, 303682 15-03-2015 Preliminary Chapter: Introduction 3 Contemporary Historiography 4 General Agreements and Differences 8 Thesis Outline 13 Chapter I – Spanish Political History and Thought 17 I.I Spain: an Agglomeration of Political Entities 18 I.II Identity within the Spanish Monarchy 25 I.III Philip IV upon the Theatrum Mundi 31 I.IV Political Theory and Debate 35 I.V Conclusion 39 Chapter II - Agitation in Spanish Naples 41 II.I The Cost of Warfare 42 II.II Legal and Social Structures of Naples 46 II.III Feudal Jurisdiction in Neapolitan Society 54 II.IV Conclusion 58 Chapter III – Giovanni Battista de Thoro on Justice and Monarchy 60 III.I Aureum compendium omnium decisionum 61 III.II Essential Virtues of the King 65 III.III Ideals of State versus Neapolitan Reality 70 III.IV Conclusion 74 Chapter IV – Protagonists in the Revolt of Naples 77 IV.I Masaniello and Don Juan 79 IV.II The Personification of People and Government 82 IV.III Conclusion 87 Chapter V – The Neapolitan Rebels against the Spanish Army 90 V.I The Hardship of War 90 V.II News as Propaganda 94 V.III Conclusion 101 Chapter VI – The Revolt of Naples in Literary Art 104 VI.I The Castilian Poem and the Dutch Play 104 VI.II History as propaganda 107 VI.III Conclusion 110 Chapter VII – Conclusion 112 Bibliography 123 Primary literature 123 Secondary literature 124 2 Preliminary Chapter: Introduction For nearly nine months, the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Naples rebelled against the government of their Spanish viceroy, the Duke of Arcos. The Revolt of Naples erupted on the 17th of July 1647, when over fifty thousand people1 were said to have taken to the streets of the city, led by the now famous common fisherman: Masaniello. The Revolt could not be quieted until the 6th of April 1648, when Don Juan of Austria led the Spanish Armada to finally crush the rebellious Neapolitans. While this much historical fact can be recognized, the Revolt of Naples has long been a debated topic in modern historiography. To date, the Revolt has most often been characterized by the ten days in which Masaniello rose and fell as the hero of the aggrieved Neapolitan people. The Kingdom of Naples had suffered the demands of the Thirty Years War by means of unbearable taxes and subsequent hunger. This hardship fell upon the least fortunate of Neapolitan society, whose already burdened shoulders could bear no more. These people, driven to madness by the deprivation of their most basic necessity, ravished the city until the recently imposed fruit taxes were lifted. This interpretation fits quite rightly in the historical context of the Revolt. The general misery of the Neapolitan population could be said to have been in line with the general crisis of the seventeenth century2 as well as the decline of Spain3 of which the Kingdom of Naples was part. Naples had not been unique in its reaction to the increasing demands of the Spanish crown. The Thirty Years War was taking its toll on the Monarchy, and Spanish provinces were rising in rebellion throughout the 1640’s.4 The people of Naples, additionally, were subjected to the abusive power of feudal barons. In such circumstances, it would be acceptable to suggest that the Revolt of Naples was a passionate reaction to the unfavorable conditions of the mid seventeenth century. Just as plausible, however, would be the interpretation of the Neapolitan Revolt as a political movement. Prior to the Revolt, the Spanish crown had been promoting plans of centralization of the Monarchy.5 This process may have been the cause of the tightening grip of the Neapolitan fiefs, which Rosario Villari coined the ‘refeudalization’ of Naples. The nobility became increasingly insistent on the maintenance of their inherited feudal powers. 6 Feudal power of the nobility rose at the cost of the royal power of the crown in the government of the Neapolitan Kingdom.7 Royal justice was waning, as local jurisdiction was granted to the nobility. Working class Neapolitans suffered the consequences of the overly powerful nobility and harbored ideas of reform. The Revolt of Naples, in this scenario, was not a spontaneous eruption of passions. Through careful consideration, the 1 Pietro Giannone, The civil history of the Kingdom of Naples, trans. by James Oglivie (London 1723) 762. 2 Geoffrey Parker & Lesley Smith, The General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century (Routledge 1997). 3 J.H. Elliott, The Revolt of the Catalans: A Study in the Decline of Spain (1598-1640); Elliot, The Count-Duke of Olivares, The Statesman in an Age of Decline. 4 Elliot, ‘Revolts in the Spanish Monarchy’, in R. Forster & J. P. Greene (eds), Preconditions of Revolution in Early Modern Europe (Baltimore 1970) 109. 5 Geoffrey Parker, Europe in Crisis (Sussex 1980) 234. 6 Rosario Villari, The Revolt of Naples, trans. by Jam es Newell (Cambridge 1993) 150. 7 Tommaso Astarita, The Continuity of Feudal Power. The Caracciolo Di Brienza in Spanish Naples (2004) 104- 105. 3 Neapolitan popolo rose towards nine months of systematic and – most significantly – justified rebellion against the Spanish government in Naples. The contemporary conflict around the interpretation of the Revolt, is therefore mostly the debate on whether it had been a rebellion of passion or politics. As both these interpretations find support in the historical framework of Naples, the aim of my thesis is to trace these contemporary controversies on the Revolt of Naples back to their original sources. By studying texts disseminated by parties that viewed the Revolt from standing at opposite political interests – Castile and the Dutch Republic – a significant difference will come to light in how printed texts portrayed different accounts of the Revolt, and created different perceptions of the Revolt’s cause and manifestation. This chapter will first consider the historiography in which the different studies of contemporary historians clash in their interpretations of the Revolt. I will then summarize the most significant points of the Revolt and compare their differences. These points will then be judged by the extent to which they agree with one another. I will also inspect the origins of these points, by looking into the primary sources on which they have been based. Hereafter I will introduce my own primary sources, and in which roles these will play my thesis. Contemporary Historiography In contemporary secondary literature, the controversy around the Revolt of Naples has already been called out by Rosario Villari with his article ‘Masaniello: Contemporary and Recent Interpretations’. 8 As the title indicated, Villari reviewed and criticized contemporary views of the Neapolitan Revolt. He asserted that the conventional view of the Revolt of Naples obscured the true history of the event. In this article Villari directly responded to the article written by Peter Burke, author of ‘The Virgin of the Carmi ne and the Revolt of Masaniello’, written two years prior. Works such as that of Burke, Villari claimed, were exactly what stood in the way of the proper understanding of the Revolt. This debate brought to the attention the significance of Masaniello in the historiography of the Revolt. The question of whether Masaniello truly had an influence on the Neapolitan Revolt, would speak volumes regarding the debate of political versus popular rebellion. For this reason, the argumentation of these two historians lay at the foundation of my thesis. The debate between Villari and Burke took the form of the publications of a number of articles, which were full of accusations of misinterpreting the Revolt’s original sources. In this debate, Burke chose to defend the viewpoint of Masaniello as a possibly national hero. Villari, in his extensive book on The Revolt of Naples, had only mentioned Masaniello once, as the book mostly discussed the decades preceding the Revolt in terms of a culmination of economic and political problems. Burke therefore took the study of the Revolt of Naples upon himself, with the aim of contributing to the historiography of the Revolt of Naples where prominent historians Rosario Villari and Michelangelo Schipa9 had fallen short. The Passionate Revolt of Naples 8 Villari, “Masaniello: Contemporary and Recent Interpretations”, Past and Present 108 (1985). 9 M.A. Schipa, ‘La Mente di Masaniello’, Archivio storico per le provincie napoletane, ix (1913); M.A. Schipa, ‘La così detta rivoluzione di Masaniello’, Archivio storico per le provincie napoletane, new seri., ii-iii (1916-17). 4 In ‘The Virgin of the Carmine’, Burke took more of a behavioral approach in studying those who he saw to have been the protagonists of the revolt. Burke asserted that popular violence – such as in the case of the Neapolitan Revolt – was most commonly seen as a most natural reaction to hunger or the expression of a people’s urge towards disorder. However, a new trending sociological view is that popular violence was indeed often organized with particular aims in mind, and also ritualized and occurred at certain times, such as during major festivals. Burke aimed to create a synthesis between these two views, and believed that a study of the Revolt of Naples would prove to be useful here. Burke proceeded to give a rather visual and heroic account of the role of Masaniello and stressed that by no means was the Revolt of Masaniello a revolt of the elite. Burke claimed not have denied Elliot’s prior study of triggers of the Revolt of Naples: dearth and taxes during the final stage of the Spanish partition in the Thirty Years War.10 Social and economic grievances were the result of the increasing demands of Neapolitan landlords, after which peasants fled to the overcrowded city of Naples.