Towards a political contract theory
State theoreticians in both realms also reflected on the role that should be given to the people, perhaps in order to soften the bitter blow of royal taxation. This lead them to the notion of “common good” which could be presented as a curb to, but could also serve as a justification of royal authority. In Castile, monarchic theories pointed out that the sovereign must take the kingdom's needs into account and not his own interests alone (Cien Capítulos, Espéculo). And so it was that utilitas or necessitas regni were often called upon – or in vernacular diplomatic sources, the pro comunal, pro de la tierra or pro del regno, that is to say the common good. The king was vested with full judiciary powers since his raison d'être was to dispense justice to all (Partidas). This in turn obliged him to specific duties – seek the happiness of his people, love his subjects, keep the peace, administer justice – which should govern his daily behaviour (Partidas). He was subject to the laws he had promulgated (Espéculo) and was forbidden to share out or alienate the kingdom. Though some authors warned of a potential drift towards tyranny, which they denounced, they still refused to legitimate the least action against the king. Meanwhile, they fully approved the repression of the rebellions against royal authority that were detrimental to the common good. In France the notion of utilitas publica (public utility/public good) was more rarely called upon to reinforce royal authority and there was no question of any consideration in return. In the Dialogue du clerc et du chevalier, it is used to justify the subjection of the church to royal power; in the Coutumes du Beauvaisis (termed “commun profit” i.e. “common benefit”), it serves to assert the sovereign's supreme authority.
In both cases, the monarchy sought to obtain the whole realm's assent to its own reinforcement. Thus the Partidas seek to enlist a kind of patriotism by explaining that the inhabitants are by nature bound to love the land where they were born, therefore the kingdom and thereby the monarchy. This reasoning also enabled the sovereign to demand, in feudal terms a form of ligesse[1] applicable to all the men in the kingdom (Partidas) and to sentence in advance any armed rebellion. In France, Philip the Fair's reign put paid to any scheme of a republican state structured by the Christian religion as devised by scholastic authors such as Thomas Aquinas[2] or Peter Olivi[3]. The new theories would summon up a centralising state, wealth-grabbing yet benefiting the people thanks to its redistributive powers. In practice the king sought to draw popular support by directing public opinion through pamphlets and the calling of diverse assemblies (as he did in 1308 to decide the fate of the Knights Templar).
Contrary to what chronology and superficial representations of both kingdoms would lead us to think, Alfonso X's Castile had developed a radically new and very ambitious theory of state under the direct control of the king. Founded in Aristotle's philosophy, which partly relied on Arab translation and commentary, or rather in Latin versions thereof, it broke free from subservience to the church by stating that the king is chosen directly by God whereby he is imbued with supreme power. One generation later the French monarchy shied short of this. In more pragmatic moves towards reinforcing monarchic power, Philip the Fair allowed, without endorsing them, the framing of all the ideas that he felt could contribute to the reinforcement of the state. Religion did however play a key part in the process leading to the affirmation of royal sovereignty.
In Castile, the development of such ideas went some way towards triggering the revolts against Alfonso X so that they were kept safely under a bushel by his successors well into the 14th century. They did however remain a reference and the Partidas legal code ended up being adopted as was in 1348 (Ordenamiento de Alcalá) to form the basis of Spanish law right into the 19th century. The king's political failure was thus owed partly to his conception of the monarchic state, which was later reclaimed, and to the decision to put it in writing. Philip the Fair ensured, through his vicarious communication strategy, the success of his political design, at least at first. The reinforcement of political power would cause after his death the troubles of the years 1314-1328 which slowed down the process. Just as political writing dried up in 14th century France, imperial thinkers would finish off the job of destroying the notion of Pontifical theocracy (Marsilius of Padua, Defensor Pacis, 1324)
