Traditionalism (Spanish: tradicionalismo) is a Spanish political doctrine formulated in the early 19th century and developed until today. It understands politics as implementing Catholic social teaching and the social kingship of Jesus Christ, with Catholicism as the state religion and Catholic religious criteria regulating public morality and every legal aspect of Spain. In practical terms it advocates a loosely organized monarchy combined with strong royal powers, with some checks and balances provided by organicist representation, and with society structured on a corporative basis. Traditionalism is an ultra-reactionary doctrine; it rejects concepts such as democracy, human rights, constitution, universal suffrage, sovereignty of the people, division of powers, religious liberty, freedom of speech, equality of individuals, and parliamentarism. The doctrine was adopted as the theoretical platform of the Carlist socio-political movement, though it appeared also in a non-Carlist incarnation. Traditionalism has never exercised major influence among the Spanish governmental strata, yet periodically it was capable of mass mobilization and at times partially filtered into the ruling practice.
History
Spanish Traditionalism is one of the oldest continuously proclaimed political doctrines in the world, its origins traced back to the late 18th century. In terms of intellectual grandeur the theory enjoyed its climax three times: in the 1840–1850s thanks to works of Jaime Balmes and Juan Donoso Cortés, in the 1890–1900s thanks to works of Enrique Gil Robles and Juan Vázquez de Mella, and in the 1950–1960s thanks to works of Francisco Elías de Tejada and Rafael Gambra. In terms of impact on real-life politics the concept exercised most visible influence during the rule of Ramón Narváez in the 1840–1850s, Miguel Primo de Rivera in the 1920s and Francisco Franco in the 1940–1950s.
Spanish Traditionalism is almost unanimously considered a doctrine born in the 19th century, though there are vastly different views as to what intellectual phenomena could be viewed as its antecedents. Apart from isolated cases of going back to pre-Christian times,[1] the most far-reaching perspective is the one which identifies the roots of Traditionalism with beginnings of Spanish political tradition,[2] the latter embodied in works of Isidore of Seville.[3] Together with works of other minor Spanish Medieval scholars[4] it reportedly enjoyed its climax in the 16th century, from Fernando de Roa[5] to Antonio de Guevara[6] to Juan de Mariana,[7] and laid foundations for Traditionalist understanding of power and politics, derived from Christian and natural order. In the 17th century it was enriched with concepts related to intermediary bodies, political representation and limitation of royal powers, all thanks to works of Juan Fernández de Madrano, Tomás Cerdán de Tallada, Agustín de Rojas Villandrando, Juan de Madariaga, Francisco de Sánchez de la Barreda, Juan de Palafox y Mendoza and especially Francisco de Quevedo.[8] Other scholars tend to be skeptical of such a far-reaching approach and suggest that it confuses Traditionalism with Spanish political tradition.[9]
According to a somewhat competitive perspective[10] antecedents of Traditionalism can be identified no sooner than in the 18th century, as their emergence was conditioned by experience of discontinuity between the past and the present.[11] The first manifestations of pre-Traditionalist thought were born – the theory goes – as opposition to modernizing Borbonic reforms imported from France and resulting in buildup of an absolute monarchy.[12] Initially the critics focused on intended homogenization of state; writers and scholars like Juan Manuel Fernández Pacheco, Narciso Feliú de la Peña and Manuel Larramendi objected to centralization efforts of Felipe V and voiced in favor of traditional local establishments.[13] In the mid-18th century the criticism shifted to technocratic mode of governing; Andrés Piquer Arrufat, Nuix de Perpiñá brothers and especially Fernando de Ceballos y Mier[14] confronted rising "despotismo ministerial", perceived as a result of arrogant Enlightenment. Indeed, some scholars emphasize the anti-Enlightenment spirit of 18th-century Traditionalists;[15] others prefer to underline rather their anti-absolutist stand.[16] In none of the above cases a concise lecture of competitive political theory was offered;[17] instead, the authors listed consciously exploited multifold differences between the new system and traditional Spanish establishments.[18]
Both the above perspectives are rejected by scholars sharing perhaps the most popular theory, namely that one can not speak of Traditionalism prior to the French Revolution. It was the 1789 events in France which triggered antecedents of Traditionalism, a theory founded on the concept of counter-revolution. Within this perspective it is the revolution, not Absolutism, that formed the key Traditionalist counterpoint of reference. The proponents listed are Lorenzo Hervás Panduro, Francisco Alvarado y Téllez, Diego José de Cádiz and Rafael de Vélez;[19] their refutations of revolutionary concepts were based on Spanish political tradition and offered first components of what would later become a Traditionalist doctrine.[20] According to some scholars Traditionalism as political option for the first time emerged represented by minority deputies at the 1812 Cortes of Cádiz;[21] a document considered by some the first political lecture of Traditionalism is the 1814 Manifiesto de los Persas,[22] the following ones to be mentioned having been the 1822 Manifiesto del Barón de Eroles[23] and the 1826 Manifiesto de los Realistas Puros.[24] However, discussing the early 19th century most scholars prefer rather to speak of "realistas",[25] "ultras", "apostólicos" or "serviles",[26] and apply the name of Traditionalists to the period starting in the 1830s.[27] Politically, the group tended to swallow their anti-absolutism when supporting Fernando VII in his anti-revolutionary zeal; it was only in the late 1820s that the king started to be viewed as wavering and unreliable, with sympathy gradually shifting to his firmly reactionary brother, Don Carlos.
The 1833 death of Fernando VII triggered dynastical crisis and a civil war, to become known as the First Carlist War. Don Carlos issued a number of manifiestos; they fell short of outlining a political vision[28] and tended to focus on advertising his succession claims,[29] though they also lambasted his opponents as masonic conspirators pitted against religion, monarchy, fueros and traditional liberties.[30] Most of the former realistas sided with Don Carlos and politically his faction immediately assumed firmly ultraconservative flavor, directed against slightest manifestations of Liberalism embraced by the opposite faction of María Cristina; in terms of popular support the rural masses were attracted to the camp of Don Carlos mostly by religious zeal and perceived threat of foreign-inspired secularization. However, most present-day scholars refer to his supporters as Carlists; cases of applying the Traditionalist denomination are rather exceptional.[31] Though some students have no doubt that political outlook of Don Carlos and his followers was founded on pre-Traditionalist realist antecedents,[32] no Carlist author of the 1830s is credited for developing a Traditionalist outlook.[33]
A fully-fledged Traditionalism is usually noted as born in the 1840s and 1850s, fathered by two independently working scholars, Jaime Balmes y Urpiá and Juan Donoso Cortés.[34] Both formulated largely overlapping theoretical systems accommodating traditional Catholicism within constitutional framework of the Isabelline monarchy.[35] Neither defined himself as Traditionalist, and the name is applied retroactively.[36] Politically Balmes sought rapprochement between the Carlists and the Isabellites;[37] due to his somewhat eclectic background and conciliatory efforts, his vision is named "tradicionalismo evolutivo".[38] "Tradicionalismo radical" is the name applied to the opus of vehemently anti-Carlist Donoso Cortés;[39] radical refers mostly to acknowledgement of a would be dictatorial regime, acceptable in case everything else fails and an apocalyptic Socialist threat is eminent, a clear echo of the 1848 events in Paris. Unlike Balmes, Donoso was read and known across Europe, including politicians like Metternich.[40] Though in the official Spanish diplomatic service, Donoso held no important state jobs, built no strictly political following and his impact on daily politics was visible but not decisive, related to co-drafting of 1845 constitution, the 1851 concordat and his friendship with Bravo Murillo.[41] Donoso was the first theorist dubbed Traditionalist, the term starting to appear in the public discourse in the early 1850s.[42]
The Carlist version of Traditionalism was developed mostly by vast array of periodicals, headed by La Esperanza and its chief, Pedro de la Hoz.[43] The first complete Carlist lecture of Traditionalism – by some considered the first complete lecture of Traditionalism at all, preceding those of Balmes and Donoso – is supposed to be the 1843 work of Magín Ferrer.[44] Other authors who ventured to offer a more systematic lecture, like Vicente Pou,[45] did not make a major impact.[46] Discussing ongoing politics Carlist Traditionalism focused on negative points of reference,[47] opposing Liberalism and its incarnations like constitutionalism, electoral system, ongoing secularization of state, desamortización and centralization.[48] Concepts attributed to the claimants and named minimalismo and montemolinismo are political strategies rather than theories;[49] the most lasting contribution to Carlist Traditionalism of the era was a so-called double legitimacy theory.[50]
In the 1860s the Isabelline and the Carlist versions of Traditionalism drew closer thanks to followers of Donoso called neocatólicos;[51] the group comprised parliamentarians like Antonio Aparisi Guijarro and Cándido Nocedal, publishers like Gabino Tejado, Eduardo González Pedroso, Antonio Vildósola and Francisco Navarro Villoslada, or academics like Juan Ortí Lara. In terms of intellectual format none of them is considered comparable to Balmes or Donoso.[52] Together they formed a group which left a clear mark on politics of the late Isabelline era, mounting a last-minute attempt to save the crumbling monarchy by reformatting it along Traditionalist, anti-Liberal lines.[53] Having seen their efforts frustrated by the early 1870s most of the Neos neared Carlism in the first ever Traditionalist organization, named Comunión Católico-Monárquica.[54] In the public discourse Traditionalism was already firmly and explicitly pitted against Liberalism.[55] At that time it was only occasionally and loosely getting associated with Carlism,[56] though "monarquía tradicional" became common reference of Carlist press and politicians.[57]
In the 1870s Traditionalism was first tested as operational political concept; during the Third Carlist War territories controlled by the Carlists witnessed emergence of their state structure, though short duration, wartime footing and limited geographical scope do not allow definite conclusions.[58] The Carlist version of Traditionalism is already considered about complete at the time, embodied in political manifestos, press propaganda, theoretical works and – last but not least – in popular sentiment, expressed as a motto which keeps defining the movement until today: "Dios – Patria – Rey".[59]
Complete amalgamation of Traditionalism and Carlism was far from accomplished, the key difference having been the legitimist and dynastic issue. It was first demonstrated by Alejandro Pidal,[60] who without renouncing his fundamentally Traditionalist outlook in the early 1880s agreed to accept Liberal constitutional realm of Restauración as a hypothesis,[61] rendered attractive by the vision of Catholic Unity;[62] the current he launched is named as Pidalismo.[63] Far more important was the late 1880s secession of the so-called Integrists, headed by Ramón Nocedal. The faction de-emphasized all non-religious threads, including the legitimist one,[64] but unlike the Pidalistas they adopted a vehemently intransigent stand towards the Restoration regime. Though there were many prolific Integrist writers active in their network of periodicals, Integrist version of Traditionalism failed to produce its systematic theoretical lecture; the closest thing was an 1884 booklet by Felix Sardá y Salvany.[65] It is also the Integrists who first started to use the term Traditionalism as their auto-definition, denying also Traditionalist credentials to the Carlists. The scheme was widely accepted in public discourse, and in the late 19th century Spanish press and politicians applied the Traditionalist denomination chiefly to the Integrists.[66] This nomenclature is at times adopted also by present-day scholars.[67]
A scholar considered by some the greatest figure of late 19th century Traditionalism is Marcelino Menéndez Pelayo,[68] who published most of his key works in the 1880s and 1890s.[69] Historian of political thought and literary critic rather than a political theorist himself, he championed Traditionalism as a cultural approach, defined as constant defense of orthodoxy based on Catholicism though embodied in vastly different locals realms of Hispanidad.[70] Erudite to the extreme politically he neared the Conservatives and briefly served as MP;[71] some scholars refer also to "menendezpelayismo político";[72] most, however, limit themselves to "menendezpelayismo". Some deny him Traditionalist credentials altogether.[73]
Until the very late 1890s political Traditionalism lacked a complete lecture comparable to works of Balmes and Donoso; authors like Luis Llauder Dalmases[74] produced general overviews of smaller scope[75] or systematically contributed minor theoretical pieces to the press.[76] This changed at the turn of the centuries thanks to two figures who renovated Traditionalist thought: Enrique Gil Robles and Juan Vázquez de Mella.[77] Both offered complete and similar political visions; the former produced it as a single lengthy treaty[78] accompanied by few minor works[79] and the latter as massive and a rather loose collection of press contributions, parliamentary addresses and booklets.[80] Some scholars consider de Mella a follower of Gil,[65] others believe that Traditionalism achieved its most-refined embodiment in the Mellista thought.[81] Gil remained a scholar with impact mostly in academic realm; following death in 1908 his work was soon eclipsed by that of de Mella, who gained high profile as deputy and politician and became sort of a celebrity. Politically Gil remained in-between Integrism and mainstream Carlism. De Mella for some 25 years was considered the key Carlist theorist until in 1919 he broke away.[82] The short-lived party he founded was named Partido Católico-Tradicionalista;[83] in popular discourse it was referred to as Mellistas or Tradicionalistas, while the Carlists of the era – still sharing the same Traditionalist outlook – were usually named Jaimistas.
Until his death in 1928 de Mella remained the undisputed highest authority on Traditionalist political thought,[84] though since the early 1920s he was withdrawing into privacy. He dismissed the Primo de Rivera dictatorship with contempt as an attempt falling dramatically short of a fundamental change needed.[85] The Jaimists cautiously welcomed the coup as a step in the right direction, but in the mid-1920 they got disillusioned and moved into opposition. It was the disciple of de Mella, de facto intellectual leader of Mellista Traditionalists and a political theorist himself, Víctor Pradera,[86] who kept supporting Primo and turned into one of his key political advisors. Perhaps never before and never afterwards stood any Traditionalist closer to the source of power than Pradera did in the mid-1920s,[87] supplying the dictator with memoranda advocating features of Traditionalist regime;[88] to some authors he became a reference point for primoderiverismo,[89] even though in the late 1920s he was increasingly disappointed with centralization and the facade quasi-party, Unión Patriótica.[90]
There is little agreement about the figure of Angel Herrera Oria, founder and the moving spirit of ACNDP. Some students consider him representative of Catholic Traditionalism rooted in Balmesian and Menendezpelayista schools.[91] Others set him on the antipodes of Traditionalism, noting that minimalist, democratic and accidentalist format of his activity should be rather associated with modern Catholic groupings.[92]Acción Española, a formation set up during the Republic years in the early 1930s, was according to different authors either an eclectic synthesis of various Traditionalist schools,[93] or political menendezpelayismo,[94] or neo-Traditionalism – especially in case of Ramiro Maeztu[95] – or a blend of Traditionalism and Maurras-inspired nationalism.[96] It remained politically competitive to re-united Carlism, which having gathered together Jaimistas, Mellistas and Integristas operated under the name of Comunión Tradicionalista. Traditionalist references are at times applied to CEDA.[97] Upon the 1935 publication of his key theoretical work Pradera emerged as the new intellectual champion of Traditionalism.[98]
Outbreak of the Civil War triggered emergence of some re-definitions of Traditionalism[99] and two major synthetic works by Luis Hernando de Larramendi[100] and Marcial Solana González-Camino.[101] The late 1930s and 1940s, however, contributed rather to general bewilderment in the Traditionalist camp. On the one hand, the emergent Francoism posed as synthesis of all genuinely Spanish political schools, including Traditionalism; the late Pradera was elevated to one of the founding fathers of the system, and some Traditionalist references were ostentatiously boasted as components of the new Spain. On the other hand, marginalized Carlism went into intra-system opposition and its leaders lambasted Francoism as incompatible with Traditionalist political outlook.[102]
The doctrine demonstrated first signs of revitalization in the late 1940s, marked by emergence of a review Arbor and works of Rafael Calvo Serer,[103] joined by Vicente Marrero and Florentino Pérez Embid.[104] Own approaches to Traditionalism were fathered by Eugenio Vegas Latapié, Leopoldo Eulogio Palacios, Eugenio d'Ors Rovira and Manuel Garcia Morente, with a spirit of neotradicionalismo in the Juanista camp championed by José María Pemán.[105] In the mid-1950s a Carlism-related breed of Traditionalist theorists entered the scene and it is they who for the third time brought Traditionalism to its highest intellectual standards. The one who stands out is Francisco Elías de Tejada, mostly a theorist of law, though also historian and theorist of political thought;[106] Rafael Gambra Ciudad is perhaps best described as an anthropologist, Juan Vallet de Goytisolo and Alvaro d'Ors Pérez-Peix made their names as jurists and philosophers[107] and Francisco Canals Vidal[108] excelled as philosopher, theologian and historian.[109] Their numerous works, some of them monumental in size, appeared mostly during the 1960s and 1970s, their scale and refined in-depth scope contrasting sharply with demise of Traditionalism as a political force.
Following the death of Franco, Traditionalism remained on the sidelines of national politics; in the late 1970s numerous Carlist grouplets remained a third-rate extra-parliamentarian force, while Traditionalism-flavored post-Francoist Unión Nacional Española of Gonzalo Fernandéz de la Mora registered few deputies and disintegrated before 1980.[110]
Most Traditionalist authors active during late Francoism remained active also after the fall of the regime; some, like Goytisolo, d'Ors or Canals, published their best known works in the late 1970s, in the 1980s or afterwards. They were joined by a new generation of authors, who started to publish in the last two decades of the 20th century, most of them scholars rather than political theorists and militants; the best known ones are a jurist and philosopher Miguel Ayuso Torres, historian Andrés Gambra Gutierrez and philosopher José Miguel Gambra Gutierrez. Their contribution is mostly about systematization of existing heritage rather than about proposing own visions of political system, though Ayuso's recent works on public power and constitutionalism form part of normative Traditionalist discourse of politics.[111] An own, detailed and holistic view of Traditionalism-based political organisation for the 21st century Spain was contributed in the late 1990s in a 3-volume opus by Ignacio Hernando de Larramendi,[112] but it made little impact even within the Traditionalist realm. A rather derogatory term "neotradicionalismo" has been coined to denote 21st century Traditionalist approach to Carlist history.[113]
The institutional Traditionalist realm itself is made of a number of institutions, periodicals and other initiatives. Politically it is headed by two groupings, Comunión Tradicionalista Carlista[114] and Comunión Tradicionalista;[115] the key differences are that the former does not admit allegiance to any claimant or dynasty while the latter supports leadership of Sixto Enrique de Borbón, and that the former remains firmly within Vatican-defined orthodoxy while the latter is highly sympathetic towards the FSSX format of Catholicism.[116] Both maintain their websites and social media profiles, issue bulletins, organize various types of public events and at times take part in elections.
Key non-political institutions more or less flavored with Traditionalism are Fundación Ignacio Larramendi,[117] Fundación Elías de Tejada,[118] Centro de Estudios Históricos y Políticos General Zumalacárregui,[119] Consejo de Estudios Hispánicos Felipe II,[120] Fundación Speiro[121] and Fundación Luis de Trelles;[122] they issue own periodicals, stage cultural events, organize scientific conferences[123] and remain active in cyberspace. Some of them maintain publishing houses and award prizes.[124] Among numerous ephemeral periodicals and mostly electronic bulletins (Tradición Viva,[125]Ahora[126]) the ones which stand out for continuity and quality are Verbo,[127]Anales de Fundación Francisco Elías de Tejada,[128]Aportes[129] and Fuego y Raya.[130] In popular public discourse Traditionalism is represented mostly by an array of electronic services, maintained by individuals, Carlist círculos, various organizations or informal groupings, and formatted as portals, fora, blogs, shared-content sites, news etc.
Doctrine
Longevity of Traditionalism poses two major problems for those willing to discuss its theoretical contents: how to define the borders and how to capture the unalterable nucleus. In case of outward-leaning scholarly approaches the theory is defined very broadly and the term "Traditionalist" could be applied generously,[131] also to personalities like Fernando VII[132] or Francisco Franco;[133] some historians see Spanish traditionalism very broadly as a general anti-liberal cultural sentiment.[134] In case of inward-leaning approaches the theory is narrowed, generally to Carlism[135] though in some cases even down to its branches.[136] Scaled down to a non-reducible minimum, Traditionalism is politics understood as implementation of social kingship of Jesus Christ; in practical terms it stands for a loosely organized confessional monarchy with strong royal power, with some checks-and-balances provided by organicist representation and with society organized on a corporative basis.
The Traditionalist doctrine starts with philosophical acknowledgement[137] that God is the beginning of all things, not only as a creator but also a lawmaker.[138] According to the theory, mankind emerged as a result of divine will and developed only when adhering to divine rules, since the truth is accessible to a man only by means of Revelation.[139] As humanity was maturing people were organizing their communities, and the question of public power emerged having been natural result of their advancement. Some Traditionalists presented the process as social structures built from the bottom until topped by institution of a monarchy, some prefer the option that people entrusted power to kings.[140] This way or another, legitimate monarchical power was presented as resulting from human and social development in line with godly spirit, natural law declared a source of royal legitimacy.[141] The original political sin of a man was defined as looking for law beyond Revelation, which led to human usurpation. Attempts to define own rules – the Traditionalist reading goes – produced emergence of illegitimate political regimes;[138] examples are despotic tyrants who claimed own legitimacy or societies, who declared themselves the ultimate source of power. At this point Carlist theorists advanced their own dynastic theory, denying legitimacy to descendants of Fernando VII.[142]
Monarchy not always has been treated in Traditionalist thought with the same emphasis. In general, the focus on royalty decreased over time; while the cornerstone of theories launched in the mid-19th century, in the mid-20th century it gave way to society as an object of primary attention. As exception there were also theorists counted among Traditionalists who remained close to adopting an accidentalist principle.[143] However, it is generally assumed that monarchism formed one of the key points of the theory, with monarchy approached as an ultimate and united social body[144] and not infrequently viewed in transcendent terms.[145] As a king[146] was supposed to top the political structure, in general sovereignty was placed exclusively with him. Most Traditionalists claimed that fragmented sovereignty – e.g. shared with a nation or its representative bodies in constitutional monarchy[147] – is not possible,[148] though some claimed that while a king enjoys political sovereignty,[149] a society enjoys a separate social sovereignty, understood as capacity to govern itself within limits traditionally developed for its components.[150]
Traditionalist concept of monarchic rule embraced a doctrine of integral and undivided public power; division into legislative,[151] executive and judicial branches was rejected.[152] In some writings this is literally referred to as "absolute" rule, which prompted some historians to conclude that Traditionalism was a branch of Absolutism;[153] many others, however, underline that the two should not be confused.[154] Neither rejection of division of powers nor the theory of unshared political sovereignty led to the doctrine of unlimited royal powers; quite to the contrary, most Traditionalists – with somewhat less focus on this issue in the first half of the 19th century – emphatically claimed that a king can rule only within strict limits.[155] They are set principally by 3 factors: natural law as defined in divine order, fundamental laws of Spain[156] and self-government[157] of groups forming the society.[158] A king who reaches beyond limits becomes not only a tyrant but also a heretic[159] and may be overthrown.[160]
The Traditionalist political doctrine is theocentrist; it stems from acknowledgement that the entire human order must be based on God as taught by the Roman Catholic Church. God – with particular emphasis on Jesus Christ – is considered the beginning, the means and the objective of politics.[161] This general concept was neared with various detail, though a widely adopted claim is that the purpose of politics is to establish a social kingship of Jesus Christ, a community strictly adhering to Christian principles.[162] An ideal political regime is supposed to be means of achieving this objective;[163] a Traditionalist monarchy is hence referred to as a katechon, the entity upholding Christianity and fighting the antichrist.[164] Such a monarchy – and the Spanish one in particular – is also supposed to be missionary, as it is focused on spread of Christianity.[165] Some Traditionalist theorists considered this feature the very nucleus of Hispanidad,[166] a metaphoric soul of Hispanic cultural tradition.[167]
In historiography there are abundant references to theocratic nature of Traditionalism, especially in its Carlist incarnation,[168] and this opinion has even made it to college textbooks,[169] though some scholars demonstrate caution[170] and some reserve the term only for certain branches of Traditionalism.[171] Scholars focusing on Spanish political thought do not confirm such a qualification,[172] pointing that a Traditionalist monarchy is to be ruled by a king and various lay intermediary bodies, not by a religious hierarchy, and that the state and the Church have to remain two distinct institutions.[173] Traditionalist theorists emphatically confirmed that a state must be based on Christian orthodoxy,[174] that politics and religion are inseparable in terms of their principles and that the Church might and should influence politics, but their prevailing opinion was that the Church should also stay clear of exercising direct political power.[175] However, in terms of praxis Traditionalists advocated a number of arrangements endorsing Church's participation in power structures, be it re-establishment of the Inquisition in the early 19th century[176] or default presence of hierarchs in bodies like Cortes or Royal Council later on.[177]
Though distinct and independent as institutions, the state and the Church are not supposed to be separate; the Traditionalist monarchy is a confessional state, with Church enjoying political, economic[178] and otherwise support of the state, and the state enjoying pastoral support of the Church. The Church is supposed to retain economic autonomy; expropriations of religious properties, carried out in mid-decades of the 19th century, were viewed as assault on fundamental laws. Certain areas of public life, especially culture and education, were approached as jointly controlled by state and Church, though visions as to specific regulations might have differed.[179] Common public orthodoxy requires that no freedom of religion or freedom of press is allowed,[180] though confessions other than Roman Catholicism are admitted if practiced in private.[181]
The Traditionalist vision of religion and Church was incompatible either with Conservative, Liberal or Christian Democratic[182] principles, lambasted as anti-Christian and revolutionary.[183] In the mid-20th century it also proved incompatible with the official Vatican outlook, and release of Dignitatis Humanae was a major blow to Spanish Traditionalism.[175] Some of its pundits remained at the verge of breaching loyalty to the popes[184] and there were even signs of Traditionalist anti-clericalism emerging.[185] Until today one of the two Traditionalist political groupings remains highly sympathetic to religious Traditionalism of FSSPX,[186] which proves that though Traditionalism at times approached Ultramontanism, they can by no means by equaled.[187] Non-Catholic Traditionalism has never taken root in Spain; though in the 1920s and 1930s some Traditionalism-leaning theorists and politicians demonstrated sympathy for Maurras-inspired concepts,[188] later on it was generally outwardly and vehemently rejected as Left-wing ideas in disguise.[189]
Unlike the questions of monarchy or society, this of a state has usually[190] been played down by Traditionalist writers; the phenomenon has even prompted one of their present-day theorists to make a reservation that Traditionalists are not enemies of the state.[191] In fact, they saw state as a structure secondary and subordinate to a society[192] and were careful to lambast all cases of reverting the order, be it "estadolatría moderna" of Hobbes and Machiavelli[193] or totalitarian 20th century regimes.[194] The state is supposed to be a lightweight superstructure over the existing social structures, sort of a society of societies;[195] it is not embodiment of sovereignty in Bodinian sense, but rather a combined function of social components making it up.[196] In most precise description available, a state can only exercise those rights which can not be effectively exercised by intermediary bodies governing various social structures,[197] typically tasks related to foreign policy, defense, money, justice etc.;[198] the state's governing principle is this of subsidiarity or devolution.[199]
According to the Traditionalists a state, and the Spanish state in particular, developed in line with natural law in course of the centuries; it is hence defined by history and tradition. Whenever they refer to a constitution, they usually mean a historical process,[200] not a documented set of agreed principles. The latter is generally deemed not only unnecessary but in fact unacceptable as embodiment of erroneous theories, chiefly this of a national sovereignty and this of a social contract.[201] A state, as a function of society, is considered not a voluntaristic and contractual being which needs to be acknowledged in a formal deal; its principles are defined by traditional Fundamental Laws which are not an agreement, but a result of development occurring in line with natural order.[202] In case of some theorists the above principles were approached somewhat flexibly; few Traditionalists tended to view constitutional document as embodiment of traditional development and contributed to their drafting.[203]
In case of Spanish Traditionalists the relationship between a state and Spain has been somewhat vague. Given their emphasis on traditional social components and local identities in particular, Spain was not necessarily identified with a Spanish state.[204] Independent political entities existing on the Iberian Peninsula in the Medieval era are deemed part of Spain, which might also be the case of Madrid-controlled territories elsewhere in Europe or Spanish possessions overseas, at times envisioned as a confederation.[205] It is fairly frequent to encounter Traditionalist references to the Spains, "Las Españas",[206] at times divided into "peninsulares" and "ultramarinas", as a principal multi-state point of reference[207] and as a fatherland,[208] though over time they became more and more of a cultural reference, pointing to tradition of Hispanidad.[209] Within this perspective the imperial dimension is ignored or rejected,[210] with focus not on conquest and subordination, but rather on community and shared values.[211] At this point Hispanic cultural tradition is combined with missionary role of the Spanish monarchy,[165] rendering one of the cornerstones of Traditionalist ideario, Patria,[212] rather vague and definitely not tantamount to a state.[213]
Society did not elicit major interest of early Traditionalist theorists, or at least their interest was not formulated in terms of society, formatted rather as a discourse on tradition forming the community; it was in the late 19th century that the question of social fabric emerged on the forefront, which it keeps occupying until today. Its understanding is founded on the concept of organicism: society is formed by a multitude of functional[214] or natural[215] communities – family being the primary and most important component[216] – and is not a set of individuals. These communities are described as joined in a multi-layer structure[217] organized by teleological principles, hierarchic and constantly interfacing with each other.[218] Individuals are first and foremost expressed as members of those communities,[219] not as their own selves,[161] as a man does not exist in isolation.[220] Traditionalists pitted their vision of society principally against the Liberal one, supposed to be based on erroneous principle of individuals and their liberties, exercised in pursuit of their own self;[221] the concept of "human rights" is dismissed.[222]
Another key difference between Traditionalist and non-Traditionalist, especially Liberal visions of society, stemmed from an idea of a social contract, a concept deemed absurd as by default subject to rejection;[223] the Traditionalist society was formed in course of historical development.[224] One more point of contention was that a Traditionalist society was united by common orthodoxy – this is, a Roman Catholic one[225] – while a Liberal society was merely a technical mechanism allowing compromise between many normative moral systems.[226] Finally, the Traditionalist ideal was a hierarchical sociedad estamental,[227] the concept initially pointing to feudal understanding of the estate system, later developed by different authors with varying degree of detail into more complex systems of social groups, dubbed strata, classes, corporations etc.; they were united either by functional role or by their specific interests.[228] This perspective emphasized hierarchy and roles as opposed to emphasizing mobility, when all individuals are equal and can theoretically fit anywhere.[229]
A theory developed in the late 19th century was that of a social sovereignty.[230] It claimed that communitarian components of the society standing between an individual and a king – named cuerpos intermedios – are fully autonomous[231] and self-governed within their own limits. Neither king nor state nor political administration were entitled to tamper with them and were restrained in their powers by those very autonomous establishments.[232] Effectively, this concept rendered Traditionalist state sort of a federation of geographical entities, professional groupings or functional associations, each of them governing itself as opposed to a society regulated by increasingly homogeneous, universal rules. In the early 19th century this resembled more of a patchy feudal structure pitted against uniformity-driven modernization projects, in the early 21st century it seems rather comparable to devolution, subsidiarity and neo-medievalism in their post-modern incarnation.[233] Social sovereignty should also not be confused with national sovereignty. In Traditionalist thought nation was a marginal concept, deemed originating from revolutionary fallacy and conveying defective theory of legitimacy built from bottom up. If used, the term "nation" stood for community united by common tradition rather than by ethnicity, as people were falling not into various nations but rather into various traditions[234] or, according to some, into various patrias.[235]
Though according to Traditionalist reading all political sovereignty rests with a king, his powers are limited and he is not considered free to declare his own understanding of these limitations at will; he is supposed to take into account the opinion of cuerpos intermedios.[236] Exact mechanism of this process was described at varying levels of granularity and at times in somewhat contradictory terms; according to some theorists representatives of the society[237] were merely to be consulted,[238] according to some their say should have been formally incorporated into the mechanism of decision making, also to the extent of suspending or blocking royal resolutions;[239] in extreme cases, they were entitled to disobedience or even rejection of an illegitimate ruler.[240] Regardless of the differences, the government was generally deemed responsible to a king rather than to any social representation[241] with monarchy vaguely "moderated"[242] by representatives of the society.[243] Such a vision did not seem necessarily compatible with the theory of unshared royal sovereignty. Traditionalist theories tried to sort out the problem by different workarounds; one of them was that society is not sharing power, but rather is represented in front of the power.[244]
In line with the prevailing Traditionalist reading, representation should be channeled by cuerpos intermedios along what is usually considered a corporative pattern; Traditionalists preferred to name it an organic representation.[245] Differently defined intermediary bodies[246] were free to find their own way of appointing their representatives along differently defined structural patterns.[247] This mechanism was pitted against representation exercised by means of individual popular suffrage, a faulty Liberal concept invented to serve either bourgeoisie[248] or "plebe",[249] exploiting atomization of individuals, unavoidably leading to corruption, partidocracía, oligarchy and caciquismo[250] while failing to represent social interests properly.[251] However, some Traditionalists embraced an idea of non-corporative elections, though usually highly limited by census requirements.[252] The bodies usually named as those gathering representatives of the society were first of all bi-cameral Cortes[253] and then Royal Council.[138]
A somewhat unclear question is this of Traditionalism and democracy. Understood in presently prevailing terms the two are clearly incompatible, as the former identified divine order and the latter the people as a source of public power.[254] Also in terms of praxis most Traditionalists generally rejected democracy as unstable and non-functional system[255] and at the level of popular public discourse Traditionalist press have usually denigrated democracy. However, some key theorists admitted that it might be operational at the lowest community level, e.g. in case of a municipio.[256] Moreover, few – at times dubbed "democrats to the core"[257] – did not reject democracy, understanding it as a principle of representation and legal recognition;[258] according to this reading, popular parliamentary elections were rejected as not genuinely democratic.[259] Similarly vague is Traditionalist approach to dictatorship. In principle fiercely hostile to tyrannical or despotic regimes exercising power beyond appropriate limits, some Traditionalist theorists acknowledged the sovereign right to coerce[260] and agreed – usually as a last resort applicable in extremis – to dictatorial rule. Some have even developed own theories of dictatorship; the one of the 1840s was resemblant of a praetorian praxis,[261] while the one of the 1920s was far closer to an authoritarian paradigm.[262]
Technically speaking territorial entities were just one out of many types of intermediary bodies making up a society; indeed in early Traditionalist writings they did not enjoy particular prominence and according to some scholars they were rather ignored.[263] Traditionalist embracement of separate local legal identities was proportional to modernizing efforts of Liberal governments, which in course of the 19th century systematically did away with feudalism-rooted territory-specific establishments which prevented homogeneity of a modern state.[264] The subject of fueros, traditional regulations specific to some if not most areas, started to feature in the 1840s in the Carlist rather than non-Carlist breed of Traditionalism; by the 1870s it grew to a prominent issue; by the late 19th century re-establishment of the fueros became one of the cornerstones of the entire theory and it remains so until today.[265] The review of Carlist position versus fueros was laid out by Eustaqio Echave-Sustaeta (1912),[266]Teodoro de Arana y Beláustegui (1921),[267] and Justo Garrán Moso (1935).[268]
In the full-blown doctrine fueros are considered primary rules constituting the state and by no means sort of a privilege, granted by central authority to specific territorial entities.[269] Fueros might be applicable to any sort of entity from a municipio to a region, though some theorists focused rather on smaller provinces[270] and some rather on larger regions.[271] According to Traditionalist reading identical set of specific regulations is not applicable across all entities forming a specific category, e.g. across all the provinces; fueros are entity-specific, which means that one province might enjoy some establishments which are not in force in another province.[272] This mechanism reflects a theory that fueros are legal embodiments of local identity which goes far beyond juridical regulations; it is composed of common history, culture and habits.
Traditionalism has always struggled to make sure that its understanding of local identity is not confused with not necessarily identical concepts. The closest one is fuerismo, a term at times adopted by the Traditionalists, similarly focused on fueros but made distinct by its limitation to Vascongadas and Navarre, by downplaying the Spanish link and by revindication of pre-1868, but not earlier laws.[273] Similarly close is regionalismo, though Traditionalists were cautious to endorse only regionalismo foralista and to dismiss regionalism based merely on geographic or economic principles.[274] Federalism is also a term accepted by many Traditionalists,[275] as even the key of them auto-defined themselves as federalists, advocated regional federalism[276] and declared Spain a federation of regions;[277] some were longing rather for a confederation.[278] Others, however, were cautious and viewed federative solutions as technocratic,[279] let alone a specific trend within Spanish Liberalism which embraced federative solutions; this is even more so in case of cantonalism, a theory advanced briefly in the mid-19th century by radical Liberal Left. Autonomous solutions were in principle rejected as reflecting the erroneous top-down logic and putting a state before a local entity; some also viewed autonomy of Catalonia or Basque Country as anti-foral because fueros were province-specific.[280] In practice Traditionalists remained highly divided; both in the 1930s and 1970s some supported and some opposed autonomous regulations discussed.[281] The 21st century Traditionalist theorists criticize current praxis of autonomy as increasingly infected with rationalist mentality and positive law.[191] Finally, separatism is mutually viewed as clearly incompatible with Traditionalism; in present-day Spain there is no greater enemy of Traditionalism than independence-minded Basque political movement, and the last Traditionalist known to have been killed was the victim of ETA.[282]
As a political doctrine the Spanish Traditionalism did not develop its own economic theory.[283] Explicit references are rare, either very general or very fragmented.[284] Wartime experience of Carlist states briefly emergent during Carlist Wars provide little guidance, be it in general economic terms or in terms of detailed questions like fiscal, monetary or trade policy.[285] Massively changing economic conditions from remnants of late feudalism of the late 18th century to the post-industrial globalization of the early 21st century at various points in time elicited comments applicable to specific conditions, but falling short of a general theory.
There are no traceable specific references to economy in early Traditionalist writings, produced during the twilight of Spanish feudalism. The first incursions into the area came upon implementation of revolutionary roots and gradual emergence of bourgeoisie. Some early Traditionalist theorists voiced in defense of certain features of historical regime, especially huge religious landholdings, subject to massive expropriation project launched by the Liberal governments.[138] In conditions of Spanish agricultural economy these landholdings were normally accessible to rural masses by means of specific and rather affordable agreements. New bourgeoisie owners reformatted usage of the plots on a purely commercial basis; the result was emergence of Traditionalist "sentimientos radicalmente anticapitalistas",[286] directed against the new "agrarismo militante".[138] Similarly unwelcome was the 1834 abolishment of guilds, bodies advocated even 100 years later.[287] Finally, opposition to doing away with feudalism-rooted local customs, fiscal exemptions or other local tariffs,[288] and popular rather than theoretical hostility to urbanization and industrialization[289] by large pitted Traditionalism against the bourgeoisie realm.[290]
Few non-Carlist Traditionalists accepted desamortización and in line with nascent capitalist order declared individual private property an inviolable foundation of a society; their efforts, typical for the mid-19th century, are summarized as attempts to fuse capitalist impulse with hierarchical structures of predominantly rural society.[291] Gradually private property got fully embraced as a cornerstone of especially the rural economy, with mid-size family holdings in Vascongadas and Navarre presented as an ideal economic milieu. However, it has never marginalized the concept of collective economy, be it in terms of ownership, usage or administration. In rural conditions it resulted in focus on commons like pastures, meadows and forests;[292] in industrial terms it evolved into an attempt to replicate rural family order in the setting of an industrial enterprise, with employers and employees united in a joint management formula.[293] With Rerum novarum accepted as a substitute for own Traditionalist socio-economic recipe,[65] in the first half of the 20th century some pundits have already declared that there was no other possible way of production than capitalism,[294] though they might have also advocated redistribution of wealth as means to solve social problems.[295] During Francoism key Carlist theorists lamented vertical sindicates as pathetic distortion of the gremial system, but it seems that apart from Juanistas, also they accepted "premisas del neocapitalismo",[104] at least in the controlled free-market ambience. Present-day Traditionalist leaders at times admit their "odio al capitalismo" and declare return to the old regime, though its designation remains highly vague;[296] an official party program demonstrates technocratic approach, pointing towards a regulated and common-good oriented free market economy.[297]
Throughout almost 200 years of history the Spanish Traditionalists have sympathised with various countries which at different points in time they considered closest to their own ideological blueprint. In the mid-19th century these were mostly states on the Apennine Peninsula; successive Carlist claimants married women from Borbon and Habsburg branches, ruling in Naples,[298]Modena[299] or Parma.[300] Their suppression of revolutionary risings in 1848–1849 was viewed as triumph over ungodly liberalism; their fall in 1859–1861 was viewed as a fatal blow to European order,[301] the blow completed with abolition of the Papal State – defended e.g. by the later claimant Alfonso Carlos[302] – in 1870.[303] At that time Traditionalists began to focus their hopes on Russia, the country which demonstrated somewhat warm feelings towards the Carlists during both civil wars[304] and which was sympathised with already during the Crimean War.[305] The claimant Carlos VII observed the Balkan campaign against Turkey as tsar's special guest;[306] in the 1890s his son Don Jaime – though he frequented the Austrian military academy[307] – joined the Russian army and he later served in combat missions;[308] at the turn of the centuries Carlist pundits like Enrique Gil-Robles hailed Russia as a bulwark of tradition against the onslaught of plutocracy, secularisation and democracy.[309]
As new lines of the European conflict were getting increasingly clear more and more Carlists began to look to Germany; its dynamic growth to power and its regime were perceived as counter-proposal to rotten, liberalism-driven, decadent French-British alliance.[310] During the First World War most Carlists sympathised with the German Empire,[311] though a sizeable minority section – including the claimant – supported France.[312] The split contributed to major crisis within the movement and its breakup in 1919.[313] In the interwar period Traditionalist press looked with hope towards emerging anti-democratic regimes, especially these of Portugal and Italy, though also in Austria and Germany. Some tentative credit given to Hitler was withdrawn following the Dolfuss assassination, but Mussolini was still viewed as an ally; in the mid-1930s some 200 Carlists received military training in Fascist Italy[314] and the Comunión political leader Rodezno signed a related quasi-political agreement.[315] During the Second World War there were both pro-Axis[316] and pro-Allies[317] currents within the organisation; eventually the non-engagement policy was enforced,[318] even though the regent-claimant was loosely involved in Resistance and he ended up in the Nazi concentration camp.[319]
The Cold War presented the Carlists with a dilemma. As intrinsically anti-revolutionary movement which fought bolshevisation of Spain during the civil war they perceived the Communist block as the arch-enemy. On the other hand, democratic, secular, liberal, left-wing, modern, casual, and initially fiercely anti-Spanish and anti-Portuguese regimes of the Western world were neither seen as a would-be ally, even though marriage of the Carlist infant with a Dutch princess caused more horror and bewilderment in the Netherlands than in Spain.[320] The apparent longing for “a third way”, which translated to sympathy for Third World countries,[321] found expression also in fascination with Yugoslavia, nurtured by some currents within Carlism.[322] Following the fall of the bi-polar world the anti-Western sentiment was again on the rise among the Traditionalists. Founded on traditional resentment towards Anglo-Americans[323] and earlier concerns about the emergent consumer society,[324] it was now fuelled also by opposition to cultural revolution marked by LGBT, feminism and woke currents. In the 21st century[325] it converted into fascination with Putin’s Russia, presented as a bulwark of traditionalism;[326] pundits like Miguel Ayuso[327] dwell upon Russia “the only Christian global power”[328] and speak against attempts “to strangulate Russia”.[329] Upon outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian war CT[330] and CTC[331] sided with Moscow[332] and their media endorse Russian perspective.[333]Don Sixto[334] has long advocated return to “Russia’s historic frontiers”.[335]
Spanish Traditionalism is a political theory with over 200 years of history; Traditionalists had to formulate their response to novelties like Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 and the European Constitution of 2004. Traditionalism co-existed with numerous political concepts, maintaining firm position towards some and adopting more erratic course towards the others. Vehement hostility towards theories and political movements deemed revolutionary – especially Liberalism[336] though also Socialism, Communism and Anarchism[337] – remained the backbone of Traditionalist principles. In case of many other doctrines the relationship is not entirely clear, subject to different opinions of competent scholars, confusion in popular discourse or conscious manipulation in partisan political or cultural debate.
There are not infrequent scholarly references to "Carlist absolutism"[338] or "absolutist Traditionalism",[339] usually applied to the early 19th century but at times even to the 1880;[340] in case closer references are provided, they usually point to Manifiesto de los Persas, dubbed "un verdadero alegato absolutista".[341] Indeed, its Article 134 contained a lengthy praise of "monarquía absoluta" and "soberano absoluto"; moreover, in the late 1820s Don Carlos by all means seemed far more vehement defender of antiguo régimen than his brother Fernando VII. However, most scholars dwelling on Traditionalism remain at least cautious when discussing its proximity to Absolutism; the prevailing opinion is that the two offered highly competitive visions. Some relate birth of Traditionalism to mounting dissatisfaction with increasingly absolutist reforms of the 18th century.[342] Some see absolutist references in the Persian Manifesto as linguistic misunderstanding,[343] since the paragraph in question is reportedly clearly aimed against absolute, unlimited monarchical power, standing rather for sovereign execution of undivided powers limited by divine law, justice and fundamental rules of the state.[344] Some note that Absolutism might have served as sort of incubus for Traditionalism, as pre-Traditionalists firmly stood by Fernando VII during his Absolutist-driven purge of afrancesados, revolutionaries and Liberals;[345] however, while both aimed to restore antiguo regimén, the Traditionalists dreamt of coming back to pre-Borbonic regime,[346] not to despotismo ministerial of the late 18th century.[347]
Through much of the 19th century and even late into the 20th century the Traditionalists kept underlining their equidistant stand towards both a Constitutional and an Absolute monarchy.[348] In terms of substance, there were three major issues which stood between the Traditionalists and the Absolutists. First, the former stood by the Spanish political tradition while the latter embraced 18th-century novelties imported from France. Second, the former rejected the principles of Enlightenment as ungodly human usurpation while the latter adopted them as theoretical foundation of absolutismo ilustrado. Third, the former considered the monarch entrusted with execution of powers, limited by natural order, tradition and divine rules, while the latter tended to see him as a source of public power.[349]
There is general and rather unanimous understanding both in historiography and in political sciences that Traditionalism is heavily related to Carlism, though exact relationship between the two might be understood in widely different terms.[350] The prevailing theory holds that Traditionalism is a theoretical political doctrine, which has been adopted by social and political movement named Carlism. The version of this theory currently accepted by the Carlists themselves is that though not exclusively forming their outlook, Traditionalism combined with a theory of dynastic legitimacy[351] and a theory of Spanish historical continuity is one of 3 theoretical pillars of Carlism.[352] In some concise definitions Traditionalism is simply presented as a doctrine of the Carlists.[353] However, in detailed scholarly discourse most students are cautious to underline that Traditionalism appears in Carlist and non-Carlist incarnations. Some of them maintain that Carlism is the essence of Traditionalism,[354] its proper case, in Aristotelian terms πρός έν or rather έφ ένός of Traditionalism.[355] Others present the opposite opinion, leaving no stone unturned in search for arguments that mainstream Traditionalism was not Carlist;[356] finally, there are many authors in-between both positions.[357] Most students – especially historians – do not go into such detail; they note that Carlists nurtured "their brand of Traditionalism"[358] and either mention "Carlist Traditionalism" or use both terms almost interchangeably.[359] Finally, there are scholars who claim that in principle Carlism and Traditionalism had little in common and one can either be a genuine Carlist or a Traditionalist; this is a theory pursued mostly by students related to Partido Carlista, who present Carlism as a movement of social protest at times infiltrated by Traditionalists.[360]
Apart from differing scholarly opinions on Traditionalism v. Carlism there is also confusion related to terminology and historical usage in popular discourse. It stems mostly from secessions which occurred within political movement and exclusive claims which various factions laid to Traditionalist credentials, though also from conscious attempts to manipulate public opinion. The former is related to 1888 and 1919 secessions from mainstream Carlism; both Nocedalista[66] and Mellista[361] breakaways were and are at times dubbed Traditionalists and pitted against Carlists, especially that the party of de Mella assumed the name of Partido Católico Tradicionalista[362] and both Nocedalistas and Mellistas claimed exclusive license for usage of the term. Manipulation is the case of Primo de Rivera and Franco dictatorships; with intention to deny existence of political groupings other than the official party, both regimes downplayed the term "Carlism" and used to replace it with "Traditionalism"; the latter was deemed more ample, capable of covering also principles of the respective regimes, and in particular deprived of the potentially harmful dynastic ingredient.[363]
In terms of real-life politics the Spanish Conservatives from the onset remained largely at odds with the Traditionalists. Doceañistas of the Fernandine period, Partido Moderado of the Isabelline era and Partido Conservador of the Restoration stayed fiercely hostile to Carlist Traditionalism, though there were periods of rapprochement with non-legitimist branches of the movement; some representatives of the two neared each other in times of Donoso Cortés, neocatólicos, Alejandro Pidal and Menéndez Pelayo, with offshoot Conservative branches like Mauristas considering even a fusion with Traditionalists. In terms of doctrinal affinity mutual relationship of the two is more ambiguous and difficult to capture.
Traditionalism is not infrequently referred to as Conservative[364] or even Ultra-conservative[365] theory. Recent multi-dimensional typological attempt presents an ambiguous picture.[366] Some detailed scholarly studies claim that Traditionalism and Conservatism are clearly distinct concepts, be it in case of Spain[367] or in general.[368] The former is based on religious principles and sourced in the Revelation, the latter – though usually respectful towards religious values – is not centered around them. The former understands politics as means of achieving missionary Catholic objectives, the latter as a technique of exercising public power. The former is founded on unalterable nucleus, the latter is in principle evolutionary.[369] The former is providential, the latter is deterministic and historicist. The former is incompatible with democracy, the latter is perfectly tailored to operate in a realm founded on sovereignty of the peoples assumption. The former is monarchist, the latter is accidentalist. The former is derived from vernacular cultural tradition, the latter is in principle universal. The former perceives society as based on presumed natural order, the latter as stemming from contractual and voluntaristic principles embodied in a constitution. The former understands society as composed of organic bodies, the latter as composed of free individuals. The former sees public power as united and integral, the latter as divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. Perhaps a good though obviously simplistic way of summarizing the difference between the two is noting that while the Conservatives usually have no problem admitting their Right-wing identity, the Traditionalists are uneasy about it,[370] pointing that their concept is rooted in pre-1789 realm, before the Right-Left paradigm had been even born.[371]
In anonymous cyberspace Traditionalism as component of the Nationalist faction during the Spanish Civil War might be referred to in catch-all terms as Fascism;[372] also some politicians at times use the term "fascist" as abuse and insult, applied to the Traditionalists.[373] In scholarly discourse such perspective is extremely rare, though not nonexistent.[374] Some scholars in case of selected authors suggested a fusion of two doctrines, referring to "traditionalist Fascism"[375] and dub selected Traditionalist authors "Fascists" or even "super-Fascists".[376] At times episodes of rapprochement between Traditionalists and Fascists or Nazis are discussed, like institutional attempt to blend Traditionalism and Fascism into Partido Nacionalista Español of Jose Albiñana,[377] generally positive treatment Mussolini and initially Hitler enjoyed in the Traditionalist press, training received by Carlist paramilitary in Italy in the mid-1930s,[378] or a spate of congratulation telegrams from Carlist politicians to Nazi embassy in Madrid following outbreak of the 1941 German-Soviet war.[379] However, no broader conclusions are drawn,[380] perhaps except that both systems shared vehement hostility towards parties, democracy, freemasonry, class war and Communism.
Detailed studies highlight differences between the two doctrines and suggest they were largely on a collision course.[381] Any cautious sympathy that Traditionalist authors might have nurtured towards Hitler evaporated following assassination of Dolfuss, and all differences in terms of outlook started to stand out. What estranged the Traditionalists was in particular: foreign origins of Fascism, considered incompatible with Spanish tradition; the Fascist statolatria, with omnipotent state controlling more and more areas of public life; marginalization of religion, especially openly pagan and anti-Christian profile of the Nazis; drive for social engineering; Fascist focus on industry and heavy industry, incompatible with rural Traditionalist outlook; nationalism, with nation and ethnicity elevated to status of secular god; racism, usually eliciting furious response of Traditionalists who used to associate it with separatist Basque ideology;[382] leadership principle, considered close to blasphemous faith in false idols; centralism[383] and homogenization, wiping out local identities and separate establishments; general modernizing crusade, including the horror of young women with bare shoulders and legs paraded in mass on sport stadiums.[384]
At a first glance the name of the Francoist state party – Falange Española Tradicionalista – might suggest that Traditionalism was firmly mounted within the Francoist theory of politics.[385] Indeed, there is almost unanimous agreement that Traditionalism has heavily contributed to the Francoist political doctrine[386] – this is, provided scholars agree there was such.[387] Some conclude that once the regime emerged from its national-syndicalist phase of the early 1940s, it was perhaps closer to Traditionalist blueprint than to any other theoretical political concept.[388] Others limit the case to the 1944–1957 period only, after de-emphasizing of falangism and before embarking on a technocratic course.[389] Former Acción Española theorists are credited for infusing Traditionalist spirit, based on its pre-war nacionalcatolicismo version, into the country institutional shape,[390] and for the 1958-adopted auto-definition of Francoist Spain as Monarquía Tradícional, Católica, Social y Representativa.[391] Key common features, apart from negative points of reference like democracy, plutocracy, Socialism, Communism, Liberalism, parliamentarism, freemasonry and so-called European values,[392] would be: organic vision of society, culture subjected to Catholic church, corporative political representation and focus on Hispanic tradition.[393]
Scholars discussing history and doctrine of Traditionalism during the Francoist era underline its paradoxical, incoherent, contradictory, fragmented and erratic stand towards the regime.[394] Thinkers related to Carlism kept claiming that the system built by Franco was entirely incompatible with Traditionalism, pitting nationalism against non-ethnic patriotism, centralism against regionalism, homogenization against diversity, hybrid caudillaje against monarchy, omnipotent state and its dirigisme against withdrawn minimalist structure, monstrous single party against doing away with all parties, Cortes based on personal appointments against Cortes based on genuine organic representation, syndicalism against gremialism and Church subservient to state against state subservient to Church, plus charges related to changes of late Francoism, especially those related to technocratic spirit and religious liberty. The result was that politically, Traditionalists failed to square the circle of forging a coherent stand versus the Franco regime; their position ranged from violence and conspiracy to non-participation, intra-system opposition, conditional co-operation, endorsement and finally amalgamation into a carlo-francoist blend.[395]
There are scholars who claim that initially clearly anti-Nationalist, in the 1870s the Carlist breed of Traditionalism started to approach Nationalism.[396] Some Traditionalist authors at times defined themselves as "españolistas";[397] some of them, especially Pradera, are fairly frequently considered champions of españolismo;[398] finally, the spirit of nacionalcatolicismo, both in its pre-war Acción Española and post-war Francoist incarnations, is at times defined as Traditionalism enveloped in Integral Nationalism. Some scholars relate Traditionalism not to the Spanish, but to the Basque Nationalism.[399] The prevailing opinion, however, is that Traditionalism has always been on collision course with Nationalism, be it in 1801 or in 2001. Early Nationalism stemmed from the French Revolution supported by its ideological toolset, with sovereignty of the peoples at the forefront, and as such it represented an all-out challenge to Traditionalist understanding of public power. Throughout most of the 19th century the European Nationalisms – German, Italian, Polish – elicited no support of the Traditionalists, who related them to Liberalism, Carbonarism or various breeds of Republicanism and cheered their defeats at hands of the Holy Alliance.
By the end of the century the emergence of Basque and Catalan movements helped to formulate Traditionalist response to modern Nationalism, the response formatted in cultural terms of Hispanidad rather than in Nationalist terms of españolismo. As it seems that Traditionalism might have served as incubus for Catalan[400] and Basque[401] Nationalisms, and in the early 20th century a number of individuals left Traditionalism to become activists of peripheral Nationalisms, they were viewed as traitors in Traditionalism camp, receiving particularly venomous and hostile welcome.[402] Emergence of Maurras-inspired integral Nationalism of the 1920s made some impact on Traditionalism,[403] but lack of transcendent component and rationalizing logic prevented major understanding.[404] Traditionalists from the Acción Española school, who neared nacionalcatolicismo of the early 1940s, were not immune to temptations of Nationalism also in its non-Integralist, ethnicity-based branch. Those related to Carlism stayed firmly within borders of Hispanidad, lamenting Francoist crackdown on Basque and Catalan culture though also firmly opposing political ambitions of the Basques and the Catalans. Nation states, dominating in Europe of the 20th century, were deemed incompatible with Traditionalism.[405]
^see e.g. references to Carlism as a concept rooted in pre-Christian theories of Aristotle and fathers of the Church in the letter of José Miguel Gambra Gutiérrez, leader of Comunión Tradicionalista Carlista, to Enrique Sixto de Borbón, dated February 21, 2010, available here
^named "los escritores tradicinalistas o pertenecientes a la escuela española", Melchor Ferrer, Domingo Tejera de Quesada, Jose Acedo, Historia del tradicionalismo español, vol. 1, Sevilla 1941, p. 8
^perhaps most bold statement on the issue was produced by Javier Herrero, who denied any continuity or identity between Traditionalism and the Spanish tradition by claiming that their reactionary vision "ni era tradición ni era española", see Javier Herrero, Los origenes del pensamiento reaccionario español, Madrid 1971, p. 24. For a sample of many very critical reviews of the book see Vladimir Lamsdorff Galagane, Los orígenes del pensamiento reaccionario español, de Javier Herrero, [in:] Revista de Estudios Políticos 183–184 (1972), pp. 391–399; see also Mariano de Santa Ana, Es preciso no confundir tradición con tradicionalismo, [in:] La Página 50 (2002), pp. 37–44
^Francisco Elías de Tejada, Rafael Gambra, Fernando Puy, ¿Qué es el carlismo?, Madrid 1971, p. 29. According to the authors, it was opposition to putting interests of Casa de Borbón over those of Spain which "es lo que da lugar al nacimiento del tradicionalismo del siglo XVIII"
^Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, Los tradicionalismos. El tradicionalismo como ideologia, [in:] Pedro Carlos González Cuevas (ed.), Historia del pensamiento político español del Renacimiento a nuestros días, Madrid 2016, ISBN9788436270051, pp. 137–158
^Jordi Canal, El carlismo, Madrid 2000, ISBN8420639478, pp. 31–32; detailed discussion in Francisco Puy, El pensamiento tradicional en el siglo XVIII, Madrid 1969. According to one theory, "Ilustrados" and "tradicionalistas" competed for power across most of the 18th century, with Traditionalists claiming that Enlightenment posed a threat to the royal rule. The ilustrados are referred to as having enjoyed most power between 1753 and 1773; after expulsion of the Jesuits the king started to lean back to traditional way, Enrique Martínez Ruiz, Enrique Giménez, José Antonio Armillas, Consuelo Maqueda, La España moderna, Madrid 1992, ISBN8470902776, p. 502
^Jacek Bartyzel, Nic bez Boga, nic wbrew tradycji, Radzymin 2015, ISBN9788360748732, pp. 57–58
^"Padre Fernando Ceballos y Mier stays at the roots of Spanish Traditionalism, himself merging liberal-conservatism, traditionalism and radical rightism", Юрий Владимирович Василенко, У истоков испанского традиционализма: случай падре Ф. Себальоса, [in:] Научный ежегодник Института философии и права Уральского отделения Российской академии наук 14 (2014), p. 77
^Estanislao Cantero, Cádiz, 1812. De mitos, tradiciones inventadas y 'husos' historiográficos, [in:] Verbo 505-506 (2012), pp. 373–426, Miguel Ayuso Torres, El pensamiento político del Manifiesto de los Persas, [in:] Aportes 30/87 (2015), pp. 6–7
^see especially the classic Vélez' work, Apología del altar y del trono (1819), a model lecture of anti-liberal and counter-revolutionary outlook of the Fernandine era, though not all scholars necessarily see it as pre-Traditionalist concept, Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, Las tradiciones ideológicas de la extrema derecha española, [in:] Hispania 49 (2001), p. 105
^see e.g. José María Benavente Barreda, Tradicionalismo, [in:] Enciclopedia de la Cultura Española, Madrid 1968, p. 456
^Alexandra Wilhelmsen, La teoría del Tradicionalismo político español (1810–1875): Realismo y Carlismo, [in:] Stanley G. Payne (ed.), Identidad y nacionalismo en la España contemporánea: el Carlismo, 1833–1975, Madrid 2001, ISBN8487863469, p. 44, Juan Rodríguez Ruiz, Tradicionalismo, [in:] Enciclopedia de la Cultura Española, Madrid 1968, p. 458
^Bartyzel 2015, p. 59, José Carlos Clemente Muñoz, El carlismo en el novecientos español (1876–1936), Madrid 1999, ISBN9788483741535, p. 20. Pointing to the Persas as antecedents of Traditionalism is the concept of present-day historians; until the 1930s the Traditionalists themselves have not referred to the Manifiesto as to their pre-history
^known also as Manifest to the Catalans, Bartyzel 2015, pp. 60–61; some scholars link the document to Absolutist rather than Traditionalist outlook, González Cuevas 2001, p. 106
^though there are serious doubts as to authenticity of the document, see Julio Aróstegui, El problema del Manifiesto de los Realistas Puros (1826), [in:] Estudios de Historia Contemporánea 1 (1976), pp. 119–185
^Wilhelmsen 2001, pp. 48–51, Alexandra Wilhemsen, El realismo en el reinado de Fernando VII, [in:] Alexandra Wilhelmsen, La formación del pensamiento político del carlismo (1810–1875), Madrid 1998, ISBN9788487863318
^Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, Tradicionalismo, [in:] Javier Fernández Sebastián (ed.), Diccionario político y social del siglo XX español, Madrid 2008, ISBN9788420687698, p. 1164. However, some claim that "traditionalism forged its basic beliefs before the dynastic problem emerged", Wilhelmsen 2001, p. 47
^"el carlismo, bajo la dirección de Carlos V, se movió, por ello, dentro de unos principios sumamente vagos, genéricos y abstractos, herederos, al menos en parte, de los planteamientos „realistas” gaditanos y de los apostólicos y „agraviados” del reinado de Fernando VII", González Cuevas 2001, p. 107
^Canal 2000, pp. 63–68, compare also Ferrer 1941, pp. 286–287, 287–288, 289–291
^e.g. in the so-called Proclama de Verástegui, see Ferrer 1941, p. 292
^Antonio Caridad Salvador, El ejército y las partidas carlistas en Valencia y Aragón (1833–1840), Valencia 2014, ISBN9788437093277, or Juan Carlos Sierra, El Madrid de Larra, Madrid 2006, ISBN9788477371717
^Wilhelmsen 1998, especially chapter III.13, Pensamiento de los prohombres carlistas: realismo o continuidad histórica; similar approach, claiming that Carlism was Traditionalism plus Legitimism, in Wilhelmsen 2001, p. 45
^and there are authors who claim that "before the middle of the nineteenth century, Carlism could lay little claim to ideological distinction" and that some Carlists "did subscribe to the kind of traditionalist reformism enshrined in the Persian Manifesto", Martin Blinkhorn, Carlism and Crisis in Spain, Cambridge 1975 [re-printed with no re-edition in 2008], p. 20
^though the two are usually bundled together as representatives of the same general outlook, upon closer inspection some scholars conclude that they had little in common: "en realidad, Balmes tiene una sola cosa en común con Donoso: la causa católica y antiliberal que defienden', compare González Cuevas 2001, p. 109. Some consider them even antithetical, see Melchot Ferrer, Historia del tradicionalismo español, vol. 20, Sevilla 1955, p. 18
^Donoso himself claimed that "Balmes y yo dijamos las mismas cosas, articulamos el mismo juicio, formulamos las mismas opiniones", but considered himself an original thinker and Balmes his follower, quoted after Ferrer 1955, p. 19
^some scholars consider their Traditionalism equivalent to "conservadurismo autoritario" or "neocatólicismo", see González Cuevas 2001, p. 106; among many other students Traditionalism and Conservatism are considered two different largely incompatible outlooks, while the term "Neo-Catholics" is reserved for late followers of Donoso, active in the 1860s and 1870s
^detailed information in Melchor Ferrer, Historia del tradicionalismo español, vol. 18, Sevilla 1951, pp. 34–53; at one point the author concludes that Balmes was in fact a Carlist
^Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, Jaime Balmes: el tradicionalismo evolutivo, [in:] Pedro Carlos González Cuevas (ed.), Historia del pensamiento político español del Renacimiento a nuestros días, Madrid 2016, ISBN9788436270051, pp. 137–158
^others label Donoso's Traditionalim "irreal" and that of Balmes "más real", Ferrer 1955, pp. 16–17
^Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, Juan Donoso Cortés: el tradicionalismo radical, [in:] Pedro Carlos González Cuevas (ed.), Historia del pensamiento político español del Renacimiento a nuestros días, Madrid 2016, ISBN9788436270051, pp. 137–158
^the terms "tradicionalismo" and "tradicionalista" were first used respectively in 1851 and 1849, Fernanda Llergo Bay, Juan Vazquez de Mella y Fanjul. La renovacion del tradicionalismo espanol [PhD thesis Universidad de Navarra], Pamplona 2016, p. 27
^Canal 2000, p. 124. Some authors count Hoz – along Magin, and Balmes – key Traditionalist thinker of Isabelline era, Juan Olabarría Agra, Opinión y publicidad en el tradicionalismo español durante la era isabelina, [in:] Historia Contemporánea 27 (2003), p. 648
^"en 1843 se publica un libro que puede ser considerado como la primera exposición sistemática de la doctrina carlista: 'Las leyes fundamentales de la monarquía española', según fueron antiguamente y según conviene que sean en la época actual", Olabarría Agra 2003, p. 648. In-depth discussion in Juan Fernando Segovia, Presentación, [in:] Fuego y Raya 4 (2012), pp. 211–226
^España en la presente crisis. Examen razonado de las causas y de los hombres que pueden salvar aquella Nación, Madrid 1842, original book was published attributed to "D.V.P.", detailed discussion in Ferrer 1951, pp. 111–117, and especially Alexandra Wilhemlsen, Vicente Pou, carlista temprano, [in:] Razón Española 55 (1992), pp. 181–190
^Las leyes fundamentales de la Monarquía española, Madrid 1843
^"el principal problema de cualquier estudioso que intente descifrar los códigos del ideario carlista estriba en el hecho de que los ideólogos de la Tradición siempre destacaban qué era lo que no querían, fracasando casi regularmente a la hora de verse obligados a formular un programa político «positivo»", Jiří Chalupa, En defensa del trono y del altar. El ideario carlista en el siglo XIX, [in:] Acta palackianae olomucensis. Romanica XIX. Philologica 93 (2007), p. 49
^according to some students, Carlism of the Isabelline "careció de toda relevancia intelectual", González Cuevas 2001, p. 107
^Canal 2000, p. 151. A canonical Carlist text which outlined the theory was Carta de Maria Teresa de Borbón y Braganza, princesa de Beira, a los españoles, probably written by de la Hoz, Olabarría Agra 2003, p. 652
^"hasta los años del Sexenio Revolucionario 1868–1872 no se hace relación al término „Tradicionalismo” para designar al conjunto de carlistas y neo-católicos", Begoña Urigüen, Orígenes y evolución de la derecha española: el neo-catolicismo, Madrid 1986, ISBN9788400061579, p. 53
^González Cuevas 2001, p. 112, González Cuevas 2008, p. 1164
^Wilhelmsen 1998, esp. chapter 4, Neocatolicismo y carlismo
^Canal 2000, pp. 158–166. Some authors claim that it was the Neos who were responsible for "providing the reviving Carlist movement of the late 1860s with a more or less systematic corps of anti-liberal thought", Blinkhorn 2008, p. 20
^see e.g. La cuestión tradicionalista, [in:] Revista de España 1872, available here
^see e.g. La Época 16.01.72, available here or also El Pensamiento Español 04.09.72, available here
^compare e.g. La Regeneración 28.01.70, available here
^Juan Montero Díaz, El Estado Carlista. Principios teóricos y práctica política (1872–1876), Madrid 1992
^Wilhelmsen 1998, esp. chapters V.27-34, Melchor Ferrer, Historia del tradicionalismo español, vol. 24, Sevilla 1958, p. 179
^Adolfo Posada, Fragmentos de mis memorias, Oviedo 1983, ISBN9788474680706, pp. 268–9
^at that time "Catholic Unity" ceased to be a militant Traditionalist battlecry aimed against religious freedom; it started to stand for a concilliatory union of Catholics of different political persuasions, effectively endorsing Liberal setup of the Restoration, including the very religious freedom
^Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, La Unión Católica: un intento de tradicionalismo alfonsino, [in:] Pedro Carlos González Cuevas (ed.), Historia del pensamiento político español del Renacimiento a nuestros días, Madrid 2016, ISBN9788436270051, pp. 183–210
^Urigüen 1986, p. 278. The Integrists denied the Carlists the name of genuine Traditionalists also accusing them of embracing Liberal threads and some social engineering, the case epitomized by the so-called Manifiesto de Morentín, Jordi Canal i Morell, Carlins i integristes a la Restauració: l'escissió de 1888, [in:] Revista de Girona 147 (1991), p. 63. The prevailing opinion is that the Manifiesto issue was a cover up, intended to disguise personal conflict, Jaime del Burgo Torres, Carlos VII y Su Tiempo: Leyenda y Realidad, Pamplona 1994, ISBN9788423513222, p. 328, Jaime Ignacio del Burgo Tajadura, El carlismo y su agónico final, [in:] Príncipe de Viana 74 (2013), p. 182
^Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, El historicismo tradicionalista de Marcelino Menéndez Pelayo, [in:] Pedro Carlos González Cuevas (ed.), Historia del pensamiento político español del Renacimiento a nuestros días, Madrid 2016, ISBN9788436270051, pp. 137–158
^some scholars seem to consider menendezpayismo the climax of Traditionalism; an appropriate chapter covering the 1880s-1890s is titled El largo verano liberal y... tradicional, see González Cuevas 2001, pp. 115–119
^by some considered "corpus de doctrina carlista", Jordi Canal, ¿En busca del precedente perdido? Tríptico sobre las complejas relaciones entre carlismo y catalanismo a fines del siglo XIX, [in:] Historia y Politica 14 (2005), p. 46
^e.g. El desenlace de la revolución españoIa (1869)
^the 1971 booklet ¿Qué es el carlismo? among contributors to "cuerpo de doctrina tradicionalista" listed also Matías Barrio y Mier and Guillermo Estrada Villaverde, two scholars of law in the late 19th century and active within Carlism as deputies; none of them earned particular distinction as a political theorist
^some scholars pursue an extreme view that until the arrival of de Mella Carlism was merely "bald dynastic fanaticism", A. J. P. Taylor, Oxford History of Modern Europe: The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1845–1918, London 1966, p. 354
^Tratado de derecho político según los principios de la filosofía y el derecho cristianos, 1899–1902
^e.g. El absolutismo y la democracia (1891), Oligarquía y caciquismo. Naturaleza. Primeras causas. Remedios. Urgencia de ellos (1901)
^when gathered and edited in the 1930s, they amounted to 31 volumes
^in Marcial Solana, El tradicionalismo político español y la ciencia hispana, Madrid 1951, Vázquez de Mella is mentioned 68 times, Gil Robles 46 times, Ramón Nocedal 25 times, Menéndez Pelayo 25 times and Aparisi Guijarro 23 times, referred after Manuel Martorell Pérez, La continuidad ideológica del carlismo tras la Guerra Civil [PhD thesis in Historia Contemporánea, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia], Valencia 2009, p. 370. In Bartyzel 2015 there are 7 rather casual references to Gil; in comparison, Vázquez de Mella is mentioned 67 times
^there was no major conflict between de Mella and the claimant related to theoretical vision of Traditionalism; the conflict resulted from the clash of personalities, issues of political strategy and questions of foreign policy, detailed discussion in Juan Ramón de Andrés Martín, El cisma mellista. Historia de una ambición política, Madrid 2000, ISBN9788487863820
^Agustín Fernández Escudero, El marqués de Cerralbo (1845–1922): biografía politica [PhD thesis], Madrid 2012, p. 511, Canal 2000, p. 276
^"caudillo del tradicionalismo español", Nuevo mundo 02.03.28, available here
^by some denied Traditionalist credentials; at times he appears as "seudotradicoinalista", Andrés Martín 2000, pp. 242–43, and his work as "magma", Manuel Martorell-Pérez, Nuevas aportaciones históricas sobre la evolución ideológica del carlismo, [in:] Gerónimo de Uztariz 16 (2000), pp. 103–104
^there were 4 Traditionalists from the Mellista-Praderista branch nominated as civil governors during the Primo regime, José Luis Gómez Navarro, El régimen de Primo de Rivera, Madrid 1991, ISBN9788437610177, p. 119
^like abolishment of political parties, corporate representation, and regionalisation, Francisco J. Carballo, Recordando a Víctor Pradera. Homenaje y crítica, [in:] Aportes 81 (2013), p 108, Ignacio Olábarri Gortázar, Víctor Pradera y el Partido Social Popular (1922–1923), [in:] Estudios de historia moderna y contemporánea, Madrid 1991, ISBN8432127485, 9788432127489, p 308, José Luis Orella Martínez, El origen del primer católicismo social español [PhD thesis UNED], Madrid 2012 p. 173
^Jesús María Fuente Langas, Los tradicionalistas navarros bajo la dictadura de Primo de Rivera (1923–1930), [in:] Príncipe de Viana 55 (1994), p. 420
^though some scholars see Traditionalist threads in the primoderiverista state party, see Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, El tradicionalismo ideológico de la Unión Patriótica, [in:] Pedro Carlos González Cuevas (ed.), Historia del pensamiento político español del Renacimiento a nuestros días, Madrid 2016, ISBN9788436270051, pp. 375–392
^"Su ideología y proyecto político eran una actualización de la tradición católica en su versión balmesiana, junto a las nuevas perspectivas abiertas por el catolicismo social", González Cuevas 2001, p. 124, also González Cuevas 2008, p. 1166–7
^like Christian Democracy or Social Catholicism, Orella Martínez 2012, p. 68, Carballo 2013, p. 97
^González Cuevas 2008, p. 1169; developed in detail in Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, Acción Española. Teologia politica y nacionalismo autoritario en España (1909–1936), Madrid 1998, ISBN8430931473. Its critical review challenging the understanding pursued in Gonzalo Fernández de la Mora, Pedro Carlos González Cuevas. Acción Española [review], [in:] Razón Española 89 (1998), p. 361
^Miguel Ayuso Torres, In memoriam. Vicente Marrero (A propósito de una polémica sobre el pensamiento tradicional y sus concreciones), [in:] Anales de la Fundación Francisco Elías de Tejada 6 (2000), p. 305
^it is, during the last years of his life, compare Jorge Novella Suárez, Tradición y reacción en la Espala del siglo XX: Del neotradicionalismo de Ramiro de Maeztu al nacionalcatolicismo, [in:] José Luis Mora García, Ramón Emilio Mandado Gutiérrez, Gemma Gordo Piñar, Marta Nogueroles Jové (eds.), La filosofía y las lenguas de la Península Ibérica, Barcelona/Santander 2010, ISBN9788493611323, pp. 71–88
^Orella Martínez 2012, p. 441, Jacek Bartyzel, Synteza doktrynalna: Vázquez de Mella, [in:] Jacek Bartyzel, Umierać ale powoli, Kraków 2002, ISBN8386225742, pp. 820–831, Jacek Bartyzel, Tradycjonalistyczno-hiszpańscy krytycy Maurrasa, [in:] Jacek Bartyzel, Prawica – nacjonalizm – monarchizm, Warszawa 2016, ISBN9788360748718, pp. 146–152
^during one of Gil-Robles' Cortes addresses of the early 1930s a Carlist deputy exclaimed: "this is Traditionalism!", to which Gil-Robles responded by stating that the Carlists did not possess exclusive rights to Traditionalism
^some consider Pradera's work Traditionalism at its best, see Gonzalo Fernández de la Mora, Los teóricos izquierdistas de la democracia orgánica, Barcelona 1985, ISBN9788401332883, p. 188. Others see it as evolution of typical Carlism, since regionalism and dynastical allegiance gave way to corporativism and organicism, Javier Ugarte Tellería, El carlismo en la guerra del 36. La formación de un cuasi-estado nacional-corporativo y foral en la zona vasco-navarra, [in:] Historia contemporánea 38 (2009), p. 68. An American scholar names El Estado Nuevo a lecture of corporative neotraditionalist monarchism, Stanley G. Payne, Fascism. Comparisons and Definitions, Madison 1980, ISBN0299080609, p. 143; in another of his works, Payne applies a more typical description of "societal corporatism", see his The Franco Regime, Madison 1987, ISBN0299110702, pp. 53–54. Rather unusual qualification is "traditionalist fascism" and "fascist project turned firmly towards the past", Dylan Riley, The Civic Foundations of Fascism in Europe: Italy, Spain, and Romania, 1870–1945, Baltimore 2010, ISBN9780801894275, pp. 19–20
^Ideario Tradicionalista by Jaime del Burgo (1937), Manifestación de los Ideales Tradicionalistas a S.E. el Generalisimo y Jefe del Estado Español (1939). A somewhat earlier brief booklet worth noting was Catecismo by Juan Maria Roma (1935)
^El sistema tradicional (1937), published in 1952 as Cristiandad, Tradición y Realeza; another work of that period was Jesús Evaristo Casariego Fernández Noriega, La verdad del Tradicionalismo: Aportaciones españolas a la realidad de Europa (1940)
^El tradicionalismo político español y la ciencia hispana, published in 1951 but completed in 1938, Antonio de los Bueis Guemes, Marcial Solana. Estudio critico, Madrid 2014, p. 34
^detailed discussion in three PhD dissertations: Francisco Javier Caspistegui Gorasurreta, El carlismo: transformación y permanencia del franquismo a la democracia (1962–1977) [PhD thesis Universidad de Navarra], Pamplona 1996, Manuel Martorell Pérez, La continuidad ideológica del carlismo tras la Guerra Civil [PhD thesis in Historia Contemporánea, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia], Valencia 2009, and Ramón María Rodón Guinjoan, Invierno, primavera y otoño del carlismo (1939–1976) [PhD thesis Universitat Abat Oliba CEU], Barcelona 2015
^Emilio Castillejo Cambra, Mito, legitimación y violencia simbólica en los manuales escolares de Historia del franquismo(1936–1975), Madrid 2008, ISBN9788436254730, pp. 100, 155, 358, 480, 482; Bartyzel 2002, p. 837
^some present him as a second-rank theorist – in a recent, 6,000-word encyclopaedic entry on Traditionalism, Elías de Tejada is treated marginally, see González Cuevas 2008; similar perspective in Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, El pensamiento político de la derecha española an el siglo XX, Madrid 2005, ISBN9788430942237: Elías de Tejada is noted 4 times, Calvo Serer is noted 8 times and Gonzalo Fernandez de la Mora is noted 18 times
^d'Ors was also as a historian, translator and theorist of law, Rafael Domingo, Alvaro d'Ors: una approximación a su obra, [in:] Revista de Derecho de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaiso 26 (2005), p. 119
^defined also as integrista, tomista and esencialista, Nelson Manuel Garrido, Luis M. Orringer, Margarita Valdés, Legado Filosófico Español e Hispanoamericano del Siglo XX, Madrid 2009, ISBN9788437625973, pp. 919–20
^Miguel A. del Río Morillas, Origen y desarrollo de la Unión Nacional Española (UNE): la experiencia de la extrema derecha neofranquista tradicionalista de Alianza Popular, available here
^e.g. Constitución. El problema y sus problemas (2016), El estado en su laberinto (2011), ¿Después del Leviathan? (1998)
^Crisis de sociedad: reflexiones para el siglo XXI (1995), Panorama para una reforma del estado (1996) and Bienestar solidario (1998)
^it was intended to underline partisan approach to history, incompatible with unbiased scientific craft of an academic historian, Jordi Canal, El carlismo en España: interpretaciones, problemas, propuestas, [in:] José Ramón Barreiro Fernández (ed.), O liberalismo nos seus contextos: un estado da cuestión, p. 44, repeated also in Canal 2000, p. 155. The thesis elicited response from a historian dubbed neotradicionalista, see Alfonso Bullón de Mendoza, La parcialidad de los historiadores españoles, [in:] John Vincent, Introducción a la Historia para gente inteligente, Madrid 2013, ISBN9788497391351, pp. 9–38
^falling short of outward hostility, in general CTC and CT tend to ignore each other and maintain sort of an armed truce. However, there are periodical outbursts of enmity. November 2016 claim of exclusive Traditionalist credentials by CTC, compare here, elicited backlash on part of CT, compare here
^compare Fundación Ignacio Larramendi website, available here
^compare Fundación Elías de Tejada website, available here
^compare Centro de Estudios Históricos y Políticos General Zumalacárregui website, available here
^compare Consejo de Estudios Hispánicos Felipe II website, available here
^perhaps the most curious case is this of Vicente Blasco Ibańez, a freemason, vehement anti-clericalist, republican and anti-Carlist, in one book counted among the Traditionalists, compare Martin Domínguez Barbera, El tradicionalismo de un republicano, vols. I-III, Sevilla 1961–1962
^compare reference to Fernando VII as "king-traditionalist" (король-традиционалист), Василенко 2014, p. 78
^compare reference to Franco as "tradicionalista profundo", Gonzalo Redondo, Historia de la Iglesia en España, 1931–1939: La Guerra Civil, 1936–1939, Madrid 1993, ISBN9788432130168, p. 574; according to some, Estado Nuevo "se convirtió en breviario político e institucional de Franco", see Eduardo Palomar Baró, Victor Pradera Larumbe (1873–1936), others claim that it was "uno de los libros que más influyó en el pensamiento político de Franco", Stanley G Payne, Navarrismo y españolismo en la política navarra bajo la Segunda República, [in:] Príncipe de Viana 166-167 (1982), p. 901
^Gonzalo Redondo, Política, cultura y sociedad en la España de Franco (1939–1975), Pamplona 1999, ISBN9788431316907; some other historians accept this proposal, see e.g. Jesús M. Zaratiegui Labiano, Alberto García Velasco, Franquismo: ¿fascista, nacional católico, tradicionalista?, [in:] Carlos Navajas Zubeldia, Diego Iturriaga Barco, (eds.), Siglo. Actas del V Congreso Internacional de Historia de Nuestro Tiempo, Logroño 2016, pp. 379-395
^approach pursued usually by the Carlists themselves. Example is Francisco Elías de Tejada, who initially (in the 1950s) applied Traditionalist denomination to Miguel de Unamuno, while later (in the 1970s) he denied that name to even to Jaime Balmes, Francisco Elías de Tejada, Balmes en la tradición política de Catalunya, [in:] Francisco Elías de Tejada (ed.), El otro Balmes, Sevilla 1974, pp. 301–344, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 104
^for the sample of Nocedalista treatment see El Correo Español 22.05.06, available here, for the sample of Mellista treatment see – El Sol 04.04.23, available here
^for detailed treatment of philosophical premises of Traditionalist political thought see José María Alsina Roca, El tradicionalismo filosófico en España. Su génesis en la generación romántica catalana, Barcelona 1985, ISBN9788486130732
^José Ferrater Mora, Diccionario de la filosofia, vol IV, Barcelona 2009, ISBN9788434487970, pp. 3554–5. Many key Traditionalist pundits, including these writing in the 21st century, based their understanding of Traditionalism on repudiation of rationalism, Miguel Ayuso Torres, El tradicionalismo de Gambra, [in:] Razón española 89 (1998), p. 305
^Raimundo de Miguel López, La Legitimitad, Palencia 1962, p. 50, Fernando Polo, ¿Quién es el Rey? Sevilla 1968 p 23, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 126
^Álvaro D'Ors, Ensayos de Teoría política, Pamplona 1979, p. 136, referred after Alvaro Rodríguez Núñez, Franquismo y tradicionalismo. La legitimación teórica del franquismo en la teória política tradicionalista [PhD thesis Universidad Santiago de Compostela], Santiago de Compostela 2013, p. 262. According to d'Ors, "por la gracia de Dios" does not stand for royal powers being divine or granted by God, but for king respecting God, Álvaro D'Ors, La legitimidad del poder, [in:] La violencia y el orden, Madrid 1987, ISBN9788492383856, p. 54, A traditional, much older approach was that royal authority is emanation of God's authority, Vicente Manteola, El espíritu carlista, Madrid 1871, pp. 197–198
^"cualquier tradicionalismo que no buscara un entronque con el carlismo, debia perecer, y de aquí el fracaso del marqués de Viluma, el fracaso de Bravo Murillo y el fracaso de Donoso Cortés", Ferrer 1951, p. 49, also Elías de Tejada, Gambra, Puy 1971, p. 10
^González Cuevas 2008, p. 1165. During periods of disorientation, e.g. during Dictablanda, also die-hard Traditionalist tribunes at times advanced non-orthodox ideas, like "República en el Municipio, República en la Región o Nación, y Monarquía en la Confederación", compare El Cruzado Espanol 28.03.30, available here
^in Traditionalist doctrine a monarch was not representative of the people (la nación), but rather both were components of the same being, Bartyzel 2015, p. 61; another approach is that a monarch is ambodiment of unity, Luis Hernando de Larramendi Ruiz, Cristiandad, Tradición, Realeza, Madrid 1951, p. 132
^at times Traditionalist understanding of political concepts assumes transcendental dimension, e.g. monarchy is named corpus mysticum, Miguel Ayuso Torres, Un aporte para el estudio de la filosofía jurídico-política en la España de la segunda mitad del siglo XX, [in:] Anales de la Fundación Francisco Elías de Tejada 5 (1999), p. 81
^a generic name which in principle could mean also a queen; other monarchical terms, like "emperor", are uncommon in Traditionalist literature
^e.g. Enrique Gil Robles distinguished between two types of constitutional monarchy: "monarquía democrática" (Spain according to the 1869 constitution; its article 32 declared sovereignty of the nation and assigned executive role to the king) and "monarquía doctrinaria" (Spain according to the 1876 constitution; its article 18 declared that powers reside jointly with Cortes and king), Manuel Alberto Montoro Ballesteros, La idea de democracia en el pensamiento de don Enrique Gil y Robles, [in:] Revista de Estudios Políticos 174 (1970), pp. 101–2
^Vincente Pou, La España en la presente crisis, Montpellier 1842-3, p.168, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 120
^Víctor Pradera, El Estado Nuevo, Madrid 1935, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 123
^this does not mean that a king was considered the source of law. More customary traditionalist approach is that a king is merely defining laws which already existed in divine order, with God being the only source of natural law
^for Balmes see e.g. González Cuevas 2016, for Gil Robles see e.g. Montoro Ballesteros 1970, pp. 96, 98
^Luis Lorente Toledo, Bandos y proclamas del Toledo decimonónico, Toledo 1996, ISBN9788487100376, p. 86; Isidoro Moreno Navarro, La antigua hermandad de los negros de Sevilla: etnicidad, poder y sociedad, Sevilla 1997, ISBN9788447203628, p 287; José Luis Ortigosa, La cuestión vasca: desde la prehistoria hasta la muerte de Sabino Arana, Madrid 2013, ISBN9788490114254, p 243; José Luis L. Aranguren, Moral y sociedad. La Moral española en el siglo XIX, Madrid 1982, ISBN9788430612123, pp. 72–73, Antonio Fernandez Benayas, Catolicismo y Politica, Madrid 2008, ISBN9781409226789, p. 176, José Antonio Vaca de Osma, Los vascos en la historia de España, Barcelona 1995, ISBN9788432130953, p 140; Antonio Jiménez-Landi, La Institución Libre de Enseñanza y su ambiente: Los orígenes de la Institución, Madrid 1987, ISBN9788430635139, p. 411, Isabel Enciso Alonso-Muñumer, Las Cortes de Cádiz, Madrid 1999, ISBN9788446008897, p. 46
^Manterola 1871, p. 198, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 122
^the fundamental laws are defined as follows: 1) absolute monarchy 2) hereditary monarchy 3) catholicism 4) government based on natural law, justice, prudence, freedom and property of inhabitants 5) seeking advice from Consejo Real and Cortes, Magín Ferrer, Las leyes fundamentales de la Monarquía española, Madrid 1843, vol. 2, pp. 92–96, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 118
^at times defined as autonomy or autarchy, Alvaro d'Ors, Autarquía y autonomía, [in:] La Ley 76 (1981), pp. 1–3, in older literature the same denomination is used by Gil Robles, José J. Albert Márquez, Hacia un estado corporativo de justicia. Fundamentos del derecho y del estado en José Pedro Galvao de Sousa, Barcelona 2010, ISBN9788415929284, p. 99
^Magin Ferrer 1843, pp. 49–50, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 119
^which in case of Carlist Traditionalism occurred in relatin to the claimant Juan III, who was forced to abdicate in the 1860s, or to Carlos Hugo, who was rejected as a monarch in the 1970s
^some key Traditionalists did not distinguish between politics and religion at all, e.g. Lluis de Llauder considered Carlism the work of divine providence and its political endavours sort of evangelization, Jordi Canal i Morell, El carlisme català dins l'Espanya de la Restauració: un assaig de modernització politica (1888–1900), Barcelona 1998, ISBN9788476022436, p. 257
^or one of its key components, constitucion historica of Spanish nation – catholic unity, monarchy and fueros, for the case of Gil Robes see González Cuevas 2008, p. 1165
^Ramiro Maeztu, Defensa de la Hispanidad, Madrid 1998, ISBN9788432131875, p. 73
^see e.g. José Álvarez-Junco, Spanish Identity in the Age of Nations, Oxford 2011, ISBN9780719075797, p. 234; the opinion is repeated also by scholars expert in Spanish history, see e.g. Raymond Carr, Modern Spain, 1875–1980, Oxford 1980, ISBN9780192801296, p. 1
^„pensamiento teocrático y antirracionalista llamado tradicionalismo", Bermejo López, María Luisa, Ana Jiménez de Garnica, Alejandro Cana Sánchez, Juan Antonio Soria Álamo, Martínez Monasterio, Miguel, Santamaría Morales, Joaquín (eds.), Historia del mundo contemporáneo, Madrid 2010, ISBN9788436949131, p. 47
^„theocratic tone of Traditionalist thought", William James Callahan, Church, Politics, and Society in Spain, 1750–1874, Harvard 1984, ISBN9780674131255, p. 81, the rule of Carlos V on conquered territories "approached the norm of theocracy", Stanley G. Payne, Spanish Catholicism, Madison 1984, ISBN9780299098049, p. 81
^especially for Integrism, William A. Christian Jr, Moving Crucifixes in Modern Spain, Princeton 2014, ISBN9781400862627, p. 4, Stanley G. Payne, Spanish Catholicism, Madison 1984, ISBN9780299098049, p. 114
^Alexandra Wilhelmsen, Carlism's Defense of the Church in Spain, 1833–1936, [in:] Faith and Reason 14 (1990), pp. 355–370
^perhaps except some Integrists, who rejected functional though not institutional dichotomy between state and church, González Cuevas 2008, pp. 1164–65
^compare a 1963 document titled El Carlismo y la Unidad Católica, addressed to Vatican and signed by José María Valiente and a number of other Carlist leaders, but probably drafted by Raimundo de Miguel López and Alberto Ruiz de Galarreta, Bartyzel 2015, p. 288
^Eusebio Fernández García, Tradición y libertades (el "Manifiesto de los Persas" y sus recuperaciones tradicionalistas), [in:] Revista de Historiografía 20 (2014), p. 144, Ayuso Torres 2015, pp. 32–33
^Mariano García Canales, La democracia y el repliegue del individuo: organicismo y corporativismo, [in:] Espacio, Tiempo y Forma 27 (2015), p. 47
^exact views might have differed. One of the Traditionalist programmatic documents demanded that the "culto y clero" section of the state budget is scrapped; the Church was supposed to be provided with sufficient own rights and means which rendered official assistance unnecessary, compare El Cruzado Espanol 23.05.30, available here
^e.g. in the early 19th century all education was supposed to be controlled by the Church; in the late 19th century some theorists, e.g. de Mella, believed that education structures should be maintained by the state (though they were by means supposed to be secular)
^for Rafael Gambra see Gabriel de Armas, Rafael Gambra y la unidad católica de España, [in:] Verbo 39 (1965), p. 553. There are slightly different views on Elías de Tejada; some claim that he was opposed to religious liberty, see Miguel Ayuso Torres, Francisco Elías de Tejada en la ciencia jurídico-política, [in:] Anales de la Fundación Francisco Elías de Tejada 3 (1997), p. 30, others maintain that he was rather opposed to equality of faiths, Jacek Bartyzel, Elías de Tejada y Spinola Francisco, [in:] legitymizm service, available here
^Gil Robles viewed first papal references to Christian democracy as "acción social benéfica", sort of Catholic social actitivity, and by no means acceptance of "the people" as a political sovereign, Ballesteros Montoro 1970, pp. 105–7. Another interpretation offered is that Gil viewed Christian Democracy as recognition that pueblo (hierarchized) shared sovereignty with a monarch, González Cuevas 2001, p. 119
^Francisco Canals Vidal, Politica española: pasado y presente, Barcelona 1977, p. 291, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 286
^compare Rafael Gambra, La declaración de libertad religiosa y la caida del regimen nacional, [in:] Boletín de la FN.FF 36 (1985), pp. I–IX; he later referred to the Council as "Los heraldos del anticristo", see Boletín de Comunión Católico-Monárquica 11–12 (1985), available here. See also Francisco Elías de Tejada, Nota sobre la libertad religiosa en España [manuscript, Sevilla 1965], referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 290
^e.g. in El Pensamiento Navarro Rafael Gambra lambasted clergymen for systematically turning sermons into subversive political lectures, apparently with no reaction on part of official ecclesiastical euthorities, referred after Mediterráneo. Prensa y radio del Movimiento 23.03.75, available here. Gambra's views on cardenal Tarancón were extremely critical and he did not refrain from mocking the head of Spanish church in public, compare an article with already abusive title La 'cana al aire' del cardenal Tarancon, [in:] Fuerza Nueva 06.08.77. See also Ayuso Torres 1999, p. 85
^see a letter from CT leader José Miguel Gambra to Sixto Enrique de Borbón (2010), available here. Compare also discussion at Hispanismo service, available here
^in case of Donoso some scholars indeed see Traditionalism formatted as "ultramontanismo": in his case it "consists of affirmation that social and historical order should be subordinated to authority of the Roman Catholic Church and be articulated in an hierarchy of divine order", José Ferrater Mora, Diccionario de la filosofia, vol IV, Barcelona 2009, ISBN9788434487970, pp. 3554–5
^in cases of Enric Prat de la Riba, Eugenio d'Ors or Antonio Goicoechea, González Cuevas 2008, p. 1166
^e.g. in opinion of Elías de Tejada, referred after Bartyzel 2015, pp. 237–68, also in opinion of Gambra, referred after González Cuevas 2008, p. 1166. Integralist traditionalism of Julius Evola made an even more negligible impact, though some Spanish Traditionalists, like de Tejada, maintained friendly relations with Evola and did not spare him words of respect, Bartyzel 2015, pp. 101–05
^some authors claim that state envisaged by Pradera was still far stronger than that envisioned by most Carlists, and "sovereignty" was reserved only for this very state, see Martorell Pérez 2009, pp. 359–60
^explicit opinion of Vazquez de Mella, see González Cuevas 2008, p. 1165; according to Gil Robles, the rise of potent state – like most European countries of the late 19th century, Spain included – was due to decomposition of the society, unable to govern itself, García Canales 2015, pp. 21–36
^Rafael Gambra (ed.), Vazquez de Mella. Textos de doctrina política, Madrid 1943, p. 21
^Martin Blinkhorn, Fascists & Conservatives. The radical Right and the establishment in twentieth-century Europe, London 2003, ISBN9781134997121, p. 126, Blinkhorn 2008, pp. 163–182, Jacek Bartyzel, Tradycjonalizm (hiszpański) wobec faszyzmu, hitleryzmu i totalitaryzmu, [in:] Pro Fide Rege et Lege 71 (2013), p. 26
^José Luis Orella Martínez, Víctor Pradera; un intelectual entre los ismos de una época, [in:] Navarra: memoria e imagen, vol. 2, Pamplona 2006, ISBN8477681791, pp. 257–268
^Juan Vallet de Goytisolo, Poderes políticos y poderes sociales, [in:] Verbo 1990, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 109
^Angel Luis Sánchez Marín, La teoría orgánica de la sociedad en el krausismo y tradicionalismo español, [in:] Eikasia 58 (2014), pp. 349–368
^Stanley G. Payne, Navarrismo y españolismo en la política navarra bajo la Segunda República, [in:] Príncipe de Viana, 166–67 (1982), p. 901
^José Fermín Garralda Arizcun, Europa y el retorno del principio de subsidiariedad, [in:] Verbo 387-388 (2000), pp. 593–630, also Rafael Gambra, Aspectos del pensamiento de Salvador Minguijon, [in:] Revista internacional de sociologia 67 (1949), p. 414, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 74
^Miguel Ayuso Torres, "Constitución" y "Nación": una relación dialéctica con la "Tradición" como clave, [in:] Anales de la Fundación Francisco Elías de Tejada 11 (2005), p. 115
^see e.g. the opinion of Balmes referred by González Cuevas 2016, pp. 137–158
^e.g. Donoso co-drafted the 1845 constitution, Aparisi drafted his own proposal in 1871, and Pradera co-drafted a primoderiverista version in 1928
^theory generally shared by most theorists, but developed fully by Elías de Tejada, Miguel Ayuso Torres, Francisco Elías de Tejada y Spínola, 30 años después, [in:] Anales de la Fundación Francisco Elías de Tejada, 14 (2008), p. 18
^in rather few cases Traditionalists embraced Iberism, see e.g. the poetry and essayistic works Martelo Paumán
^Bartyzel 2015, pp. 80–81, Traditionalists viewed the Hispanic political community as forged by will of the people forming its components, not as a result of conquest, Ayuso 1997, pp. 24–5
^see e.g. the difference drawn between the Spanish conquistadores in Latin America and the Protestant colonisers in North America, Maeztu 1998, p. 133
^for detailed discussion of the role of Patria in Traditionalist outlook see José Fermín Garralda Arizcun, La Patria en el pensamiento tradicional español (1874–1923) y el "patriotismo constitucional", [in:] Anales de la Fundación Francisco Elías de Tejada 9 (2003), pp. 35–136
^Hispanic tradition is supposed to consist of two features: Catholic vision of life combined with missionary universalist spirit pursued by a federative monarchy, Estanislao Cantero Núñez, Eugenio Vegas Latapié y Francisco Elías de Tejada y Spínola: dos pensamientos coincidentes a la sombra de Menéndez Pelayo, [in:] Verbo 337–338 (1995), pp. 129, 141
^formed by role performed by a group in a society and related to occupational structure, e.g. agriculture, trade, finance, military, academics
^formed by geography, like municipalities, comarcas, provinces, regions
^Gambra 1949, p. 414, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 74, Llergo Bay 2016, pp. 175–182
^Gil Robles distinguished between horizontal and vertical lines of division; the former are mostly territorial units, family, municipio, region, province etc, while the latter are mostly functional, like gremios, asociaciones, parties etc., García Canales 2015, pp. 26, 46
^see references to "jerarquización teleológica", Gambra 1949, p. 414, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 74
^Gil pursued a concept of dual relationship; each individual is linked 1) to groups he belongs to and 2) to the entire society, Mariano García Canales, La teoría de la representación en la España del siglo XX: (de la crisis de la restauración a 1936), Madrid 1977, ISBN9788460010531, p. 45, García Canales 2015, p. 25
^"human rights" are considered usurpation of a man; the only rights existing are those of natural law, created by God, and it is his rights which have to be complied with. Pradera considered Rousseau's vision sort of a secular heresy, another version of Pelagianism, Francisco J. Carballo, Recordando a Víctor Pradera. Homenaje y crítica, [in:] Aportes 81 (2013), p. 118. Elías de Tejada in turn juxtaposed Spanish communitarian fueros against the French individual liberties, Samuele Cecotti, Francisco Elías de Tejada. Europa, Tradizione, Libertà, [in:] Anales de la Fundación Francisco Elías de Tejada 11 (2005), p. 206
^for the case of Gil Robles see González Cuevas 2009, p. 46, González Cuevas 2008, p. 1165
^the terms used were either "autonomous" or "autarchic", in both cases standing for self-government, Alvaro d'Ors, Autarquía y autonomía, [in:] La Ley 76 (1981), pp. 1-3
^e.g. a vision of post-modern European order as a realm of shared sovereignties, exercised by different entities, partially overlapping, crossing each other and co-existing at various levels, the concept dubbed Neo-Medievalisation, Pertti Joenniemi (ed.), Neo-Nationalism or Regionality, Stockholm 1997, ISBN9789188808264
^Elías de Tejada, Gambra, Puy 1971, pp. 89–90, also Ayuso 2005, p. 116. For Elías de Tejada nation was a commonality of tradition, Estanislao Cantero Núñez, Francisco Elías de Tejada y la tradición española, [in:] Anales de la Fundación Francisco Elías de Tejada 1 (1995), p. 132
^Alvaro d'Ors, Una introducción al estudio del Derecho, Madrid 1963, p. 161, referred after Bartyzel 2015
^"gremios, hermandades, agrupaciones, cámaras, comunidades y cofradías" – Gonzalo Fernández de la Mora, Elías de Tejada, el hombre y sus libros, [in:] Francisco Elías de Tejada y Spínola (1917–1977). El hombre y la obra, Madrid 1989, p. 12, Sergio Fernández Riquelme, Sociología, corporativismo y política social en España. Las décadas del pensamiento corporativo en España: de Ramiro de Maeztu a Gonzalo Fernández de la Mora, 1877–1977 [PhD thesis Universidad de Murcia] 2008, p. 562
^this was the understanding of Magín Ferrer, see his Las leyes fundamentales de la Monarquía española, Madrid 1843, vol. 2, pp. 92–96, referred after Bartyzel 2015, pp. 118–120
^though most theorists conceded rather merely the right to legislative initiative and consultation, García Canales 2015, p. 26
^see e.g. Francisco Elías de Tejada, El derecho a la rebelióñ, [in:] Tizona 44 (1973), pp. 4–7
^counter-signatures of ministers were considered not needed as incompatible with royal sovereignty, Víctor Pradera, El estado nuevo, Madrid 1935, p. 179, referred after Bartyzel2015, p. 123, also Carlos Guinea Suárez, Víctor Pradera, Madrid 1953
^not to be confused with Partido Moderado, a pre-configuration of the Spanish Conservatives, and their political outlook
^for the Persians see e.g. Ayuso Torres 2015, p. 17
^Gambra 1949, p. 414, referred after Bartyzel 2015, pp. 60, 74
^according to de Mella there were 7 classes to be represented, Llergo Bay 2016, p. 96, according to Gil Robles there were 3, Felipe Alfonso Rojas Quintana, Enrique Gil y Robles: la respuesta de un pensadór católico a la crisis del 98, [in:] Hispania Sacra 53 (2001), p. 224, Montoro Ballesteros 1970, p. 93, according to Pradera there were 6, Orella Martínez 2006, pp. 257–68, according to Donoso there were 3, Bartzel 2015, p. 54
^González Cuevas 2009, p. 44, González Cuevas 2008, p. 1165
^for Gil Robles see Rojas Quintana 2001, pp. 213–228
^which was deemed to be dictatorship of the plebs, Montoro Ballesteros 1970, pp. 99–100
^see Gil Robles, Oligarquía y caciquismo. Naturaleza. Primeras causas. Remedios. Urgencia de ellos (1901)
^Sánchez Marín 2014, González Cuevas 2009, p. 43. Within a Traditionalist regime an individual was entitled to elect his representatives not once, as in the process of casting a ballot in parliamentary elections, but almost indefinite number of times depending upon the number of communities an individual belonged to
^dubbed "Cortes organicistas" or "Cortes corporatistas", García Canales 2015, pp. 21–36
^see e.g. La actualidad del Dios-Patria-Rey, [in:] Boletín carlista de Madrid 69 (2002), referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 124
^according to the Persians democracy was an unstable system, Fernández García 2014, p. 141
^see e.g. references to democracy in Acta de Loredan, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 123
^Gil Robles was referred to by his son as "demócrata en lo más profundo del alma", José María Gil-Robles, No fue possible la paz, Barcelona 1968, p. 20
^according to Gil Robles "llamemos, pues, democracia, al total estado jurídico del pueblo, es decir, la condición que resulta del reconocimiento, garantía y goce de todos los derechos privados, públicos y políticos que corresponden a la clase popular, la cual, si no es sonerana, es también imperante y gobernante en proporción de su valor y fuerza sociales", see his El absolutismo y la democracia (1891), p. 17. Detailed discussion of his views on democracy in Montoro Ballesteros 1970, pp. 89–112. Gambra seems to be of a similar opinion; he claimed that Gil was not that much anti-democratic as rather opposing deification of democracy, and especially the central if not exclusive position it claimed within public space, Rafael Gambra, La democracia como religión, [in:] Roma 89 (1985), referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 207
^García Canales 2015, pp. 21–36. See also the 2010 declaration of José Luis Gambra, reading "Católico, sin duda; demócrata también, pero no a la manera en que estamos acostumbrados, con elecciones de partidos obsequiosos en los programas y tiránicos en el poder, sino a la manera de las cortes, cuyos miembros son elegidos por estamentos, entre personas conocidas que, a modo de compromisarios, defienden los intereses de municipios, gremios, regiones y reinos, y no los del partido", available here
^"el derecho que corresponde a la persona superior de una sociedad para obligar a los miembros de ella a los actos conducentes al fin social, en cuanto, por naturaleza o circunstancias, sean incapaces esos miembros de ordenarse a dicho fin o bien", quoted after Montoro Ballesteros 1970, p. 95, see also Rojas 2001, p. 221, Javier Esteve Martí, El carlismo ante la reorganización de las derechas. De la Segunda Guerra Carlista a la Guerra Civil, [in:] Revista de Historia Contemporánea 13 (2014), pp. 128–9
^for the case of Donoso see González Cuevas 2016, pp. 137–58
^for the case of Pradera see González Cuevas 2009, p. 79
^the best known are those related to economy (customs or excise barriers, separate taxation rules, specific trade regulations) and military rules (draft, service). However, they might have also referred to a number of other areas, e.g. no Protestant or Jew was entitled to settle in Navarre save for specifically approved cases
^Elías de Tejada, Gambra, Puy 1971, esp. chapters 6-10, pp. 57–91
^Estudio histórico. El Partido Carlista y los Fueros. Con inserción de gran número de documentos, muchos inéditos, Pamplona 1915, available online here
^Teodoro de Arana y Beláustegui, Fraternidad Vasco-Histórica. Euskal-Kondairatar Anaitasuna, Bilbao 1921
^Justo Garrán Moso, El Sistema Foral de Navarra y Provincias Vascongadas, Pamplona 1935
^according to Pradera municipios are naturally grouped in comarcas, not provincias; actually, he did not recognise official "provincias", and when advocating "provincial" rights he meant "regiones", Carballo 2013, pp. 109–10
^the case of Vazquez de Mella, who tended to ignore provinces
^when discussing political regime of Vasco-Navarrese region during the Reconquista, Pradera pointed out that Navarre formed a militarised monarchy, Álava was almost republican, Gipuzkoa resembled constitutional monarchy and Biscay formed a señorío, see Carballo 2013, p. 149
^compare José Ignacio Fínez Garcia, Fuerismo tradicionalista y nacionalismo vasco [MA thesis University of Salamanca], Salamanca 2013, pp. 25–33. The key Traditionalist work of the late 20th century does not mention the term a single time, see Elías de Tejasa, Gambra, Puy 1971. In scholarly literature the term "fuerismo" is applied to a non-Carlist doctrine of the Vascongadas, at times its representatives divided into "fueristas transigentes" and "fueristas intransigentes", Javier Corcuera Atienza, La patria de los Vascos, Madrid 2001, ISBN9788430604456, pp. 91–108
^see e.g. Juan Vazquez de Mella, Discurso pronunciado en el Congreso de los Diputados el 19 de agosto de 1896, [in:] Rafael Gambra (ed.), Vazquez de Mella. Textos de doctrina política, Madrid 1943, vol. 1, pp 114-116. De Mella was longing for the times when decisions were made not by "king of Spain" but by "king of Leon and Castile", "king of Navarre", "senor de Vizcaya", "count of Barcelona" and so on, Bartyzel 2015, p. 139
^Pradera claimed that under the old regime Spain was in fact a confederation, Ignacio Olábarri Gortázar, Víctor Pradera y el Partido Social Popular (1922–1923), [in:] Estudios de historia moderna y contemporánea, Madrid 1991, ISBN8432127485, 9788432127489, pp. 299–310, 304
^José María Codón Fernández, Tradición y monarquía, Madrid 1961, pp. 337–339, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 141
^for the 1930s see e.g. Blinkhorn 2008, pp. 41–68, for the 1970s see e.g. José Luis de la Granja Sainz, El error de Estella del PNV en perspectiva histórica, [in:] Anales de Historia Contemporánea 16 (2000), pp. 199–207
^the last known Traditionalist killed by ETA was Alberto Toca Echeverria, assassinated in 1982. For a monograph discussing ETA war on Traditionalism see Víctor Javier Ibáñez, Una resistencia olvidada. Tradicionalistas mártires del terrorismo, s.l. 2017
^until recently there has been no monographic work on Traditionalist vision of the economy at all. The first ever work to target the issue is Gianandrea de Antonellis, Il progetto economico carlista. Un esempio di politica cattolica, [in:] Bruno Lima (ed.), I beni temporali della Chiesa e altre riflessioni storico–artistiche giuridiche ed etico–finanziarie, Canterano 2019, ISBN9788825528695, pp. 27-46
^compare e.g. a chapter dedicated to economy in one of the best-known Traditionalist documents, known as Acta de Loredan (1897), Melchor Ferrer, Historia del tradicionalismo español, vol. 28/2, Sevilla 1959, pp. 136–137
^not infrequently scholars point to high fiscalism of Carlist states both in the 1830s and 1870s, the result of pressing wartime necessities rather than practical embodiment of Traditionalist theory. For the Third Carlist War, see e.g. María Soledad Martínez Caspe, La II Guerra Carlista en Navarra (1872–1876): represión y exacciones. La cuestion foral y la guerra, [in:] Gerónimo de Uztariz 8 (1993), pp. 91–110
^González Cuevas 2016, pp. 137–158. Llauder viewed social problems as part of religious issue, results of godless Liberalism allowing shameless profiteering, brought to Spain by foreign and Jewish speculators. Spanish economy was described as feudalism of money, with Jews having been seniors and caciques their vassals, Jordi Canal i Morell, El carlisme català dins l'Espanya de la Restauració: un assaig de modernització politica (1888–1900), Barcelona 1998, ISBN9788476022436, pp. 267–227
^the Traditionalists advocated re-introduction of guilds 100 years after their 1834 abolishment, compare Erik Nörling, La Obra Nacional Corporativa. El proyecto fracasado de estructura sindical tradicionalista en el primer franquismo, 1936–1939, [in:] Aportes 22 (2007), pp. 98–117
^moving state customs post from frontier between Vascongadas and Castilla to the coastline was considered dramatic breach of traditional order, see e.g. Carlos Larrinaga Rodríguez, Comercio con América y traslado de aduanas. El nacimiento del liberalismo económico en Guipúzcoa en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, [in:] Anales de Historia Contemporánea 21 (2005), pp. 323–344. As late as in the 1950s Traditionalists petitioned Franco to restore a so-called Concierto Económico, sort of a Basque fiscal autonomy, Iker Cantabrana Morras, Lo viejo y lo nuevo: Díputación-FET de las JONS. La convulsa dinámica política de la "leal" Alava (Primera parte: 1936–1938), [in:] Sancho el Sabio 21 (2004), p. 165. In general the Traditionalists tended to high protectionism, supporting measures preventing penetration of the Spanish market by foreign products and foreign capital, including trade, railways and banking, compare Acta de Loredan, González Cuevas 2008, p. 1164, Canal 1998, p. 268. For a sample of protectionist Traditionalist propaganda see El Siglo Futuro, 3 January 1895, available here
^compare Francisco Javier Caspistegui Gorasurreta, "Esa ciudad maldita, cuna del centralismo, la burocracia y el liberalismo": la ciudad como enemigo en el tradicionalismo español, [in:] Actas del congreso internacional "Arquitectura, ciudad e ideología antiurbana, Pamplona 2002, ISBN8489713510, pp. 71–86. During the Third Carlist War some Carlist units spontenously and with no specific military purpose demolished railroad tracks, the practice condemned by the claimant, who attempted to strike a deal with the railway companies
^a theory pursued by historians related to Partido Carlista presents Carlism as a movement of social protest, fundamentally hostile to capitalism and the rule of bourgeoisie, sort of an unconscious avant la lettre pre-socialism; however, scholars from this school claim that genuine Carlism had nothing to do with Traditionalism, compare numerous works of José Carlos Clemente
^see the chapter on Balmes and "tradicionalismo evolutivo" in González Cuevas 2016, pp. 137–158
^the issue of commons underlined in Steven Henry Martin, The Commonality of Enemies: Carlism and anarchism in modern Spain, 1868–1937 [MA thesis], Peterborough 2014, pp. 26–47, MacClancy 2000, p. 38, Renato Barahona, Vizcaya on the Eve of Carlism: Politics and Society, 1800–1833, Reno 1989, ISBN0874171229, 9780874171228, p. 170
^González Cuevas 2009, pp. 81–82. However, Pradera was reluctant to accept the concept of employee stock ownership, see Orella Martínez 2012, p. 259
^economic issues as envisioned by Pradera discussed in detail by Carballo 2013, pp. 132–142; on the other hand, other Traditionalists almost explicitly opposed the redistribution of wealth principle, lambasting an idea that "Estado tiene derecho a participar de las utilidades de la riqueza y del trabajo de los ciudadanos", see El Cruzado Espanol 23.05.30, available here
^"más aún, el carlismo comulga con los anteriores [fascism, socialism] en el odio al capitalismo, nacido de la destrucción de los estamentos del antiguo régimen y fuente de innumerables males e injusticias, contra el cual propone no una revolución, sino una restauración" – letter from leader of Comunión Tradicinalista to Sixto Enrique de Borbón (2010), available here
^it declares that "economy is a science, to be discussed by experts, not by politicians", see section 15 of Programa Político of CTC
^in 1850 the claimant Carlos VI married María Carolina di Borbone-Due Sicilie from the Borbón branch ruling in the Kingdom of Two Sicilies
^in 1847 the claimant Juan III married María Beatriz de Austria-Este from the Habsburg branch ruling in the Duchy od Modena
^in 1867 the claimant Carlos VII married Margarita de Borbón-Parma from the deposed Borbón branch which ruled in the Duchy of Parma
^compare e.g. La Esperanza 04.07.60, available here. Some Carlists like José Borjes were engaged in fightings in defense of the Kingdom of Two Sicilies. For detailed discussion of the legitimist solidarity see Alfonso Bullón de Mendoza, El legitimismo europeo, [in:] Stanley G. Payne (ed.), Identidad y nacionalismo en España contemporánea: el carlismo, Madrid 2001, ISBN 8487863469, pp. 195-253
^La battaglia di Porta Pia, [in:] Emanuele Martinez, Il Museo Storico di Bersaglieri, Roma 2020, ISBN 9788849289572, pp. 28-29, also Melchor Ferrer, Historia del tradicionalismo español, vol. XXX/1, Sevilla 1979, pp. 9-10
^also long afterwards provinces which used to form the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies enjoyed particular role in the Carlist narrative, and some Carlist pundits were personally engaged. This was the case of Francisco Elías de Tejada, who spent many years in Naples and married a descandant of traditionalist Naples family, Pablo Ramírez Jerez, La biblioteca de D. Francisco Elías de Tejada, [in:] Anales de la Fundación Francisco Elías de Tejada 19 (2013), p. 205
^a Carlist envoy was petmitted to operate at the St. Petersburg court during the First Carlist War; he was also aided financially. During the Third Carlist War the tsarist administration were also tempted to aid the Carlists, but eventually they decided to follow Bismarck in a neutralist policy, see Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão, Alfonso Bullón de Mendoza, La contrarrevolución legitimista, 1688–1876, Madrid 1995, ISBN 9788489365155, pp. 236–238, Javier Rubio, La política exterior de Cánovas del Castillo: una profunda revisión, [in:] Studia historica. Historia contemporánea 13–16 (1995–1996), pp. 177–187, José Ramón de Urquijo y Goitia, El carlismo y Rusia, [in:] Hispania. Revista Española de Historia 48 (1988), pp. 599–623. For Russian perception of the First Carlist War see Andrei Andreevich Tereshchuk, La Primera Guerra Carlista a través de la prensa rusa, [in:] Aportes 37 (2022), pp. 7-32. On the other hand, some 400 Carlist exiles in France enlisted to the Foreign Legion and fought against Russia during the Crimean War in the 1850s, Javier Iborra, Carlistas contra Rusia, [in:] Diario de Navarra 15.03.22, available here
^compare the news as compiled and commented in La Esperanza 05.01.55, available here
^Francisco de Paula Oller, Album de personajes carlistas con sus biografías, s.l. 1887, pp. 54-55. The claimant was personal friend to tsar Alexander II, El Correo Español 10.03.13, available here. Some sources claim he commanded a unit in combat and was allegedly decorated, Borbón y Austria-Este (Carlos de), [in:] Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada Europeo-Americana Espasa-Calpe, Madrid 1911, vol. 11. p. 1047
^Melchor Ferrer, Historia del tradicionalismo español, vol. 29, Sevilla 1960, p. 11
^Salvador Bofarull, Un príncipe español en la Guerra Ruso-Japonesa 1904–1905, [in:] Revista de Filatelia 2006, p. 55
^in the 19th century Traditionalism has been turning gallophobic. France was viewed as the source of ungodly, subversive, liberal ideas, supported by the so-called afrancesados. As the Spanish liberals were increasingly looking to secular, centralised, republican France as the role model, the Spanish Traditionalists were increasingly turning against the northern neighbor. The Traditionalists were also getting convinced that the long-standing alliance brought nothing but decline, which triggered shift towards Germany. However, some important personalities like Francisco Melgar or Melchor Ferrer remained strongly pro-French, see e.g. Miguel Ayuso, Una visión española de la Acción Francesa, [in:] Anales de la Fundación Francisco Elías de Tejada 16 (2010), p. 77
^Robert Vallverdú i Martí, El carlisme català durant la Segona República Espanyola 1931–1936, Barcelona 2008, ISBN 9788478260805, pp. 195-198
^full story discussed in detail in Ángel Viñas, ¿Quién quiso la guerra civil? Historia de una conspiración, Madrid 2019, ISBN 9788491990994
^e.g. following the Nazi invasion on the Soviet Union in 1941 there was a spate of telegrams of support despatched by Carlist personalities to the German consulate in San Sebastián. Also, though officially Carlist authorities discouraged enlisting, there were some Carlist volunteers to Division Azul, see Xosé Manoel Núñez Seixas, An Approach to the Social Profile and the Ideological Motivations of the Spanish Volunteers of the "Blue Division", 1941–1944, [in:] Sonja Levsen, Christine Krüger (eds.), War Volunteering in Modern Times, London 2010, ISBN 978-0-230-22805-4, pp. 248-74. At the turn of the 1930s and 1940s the Navarrese Carlist mouthpiece El Pensamiento Navarro was strongly pro-Nazi, Manuel Martorell Pérez, La continuidad ideológica del carlismo tras la Guerra Civil [PhD thesis in Historia Contemporanea, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia], Valencia 2009, pp. 263-264
^e.g. there were plans to engage Requetes in pro-British espionage activities; some scholars claim they were thwarted by the national Carlist executive, which stuck to neutralist stand, Martorell Peréz 2009, p. 268-271, Manuel Martorell Pérez, Antonio Arrue, el carlista que colaboró en el relanzamiento de Euskaltzaindia, [in:] Euskaltzaindiaren lan eta agiriak 56 (2011), p. 856. There are scholars, however, who claim that Fal Conde supported the idea of forming a tercio to fight alongside the Allies against the Nazis, Josep Carles Clemente, Breve historia de las guerras carlistas, Madrid 2011, ISBN 9788499671710, p. 223, Fermín Pérez-Nievas Borderas, Contra viento y marea, Estella 1999, ISBN 8460589323, p. 146
^Josep Carles Clemente, Historia del Carlismo contemporáneo, Barcelona 1977, ISBN 9788425307591, p. 31
^the marriage of princess Irene with the Carlist infant Carlos Hugo caused constitutional crisis in the Netherlands, the country which for 20 years has been among most militant critics of Francoist Spain and which advocated its international isolation, compare Dutch are facing crisis over Irene, [in:] The New York Times 07.02.64, available here
^a typical example was total Carlist support for Argentina during the Falklands war against Britain, see e.g. the review in Malvinas a 40 años de una gesta nacional, [in:] Tradición Viva service 02.04.22, available here, or 40. aniversario Guerra de las Malvinas: la última Cruzada, [in:] Somatemps service, available here
^the Huguista faction remained skeptical of the Soviet project and were not shy to denounce it as a failure, see e.g. J. Ayape, Polonia: reflejo de un socialismo fracasado?, [in:] Montejurra 57 (1971), pp. 6-10
^general hostility towards England, stemming from the centuries-long Spanish-English rivalry across the globe, was reinforced along specifically Carlist lines, as England was deemed a hotbed of masonry, liberalism and anti-Catholic obsession. The English engagement in the First Carlist War contributed to hostility, and episodes of Carlist troops routing the English (e.g. during the battle of Andoain) have been cherished in the Traditionalist historiographic narrative. However, some Carlists remained fascinated with either the British – the case of Ignacio de Larramendi, see Ignacio Hernando de Larramendi, Así se hizo MAPFRE. Mi tiempo, Madrid 2000, ISBN 9788487863875 – or with the United States, see Luis García Guijarro, Notas americanas, Madrid 1913
^the best-known Carlist theorist who kept warning against the perils of consumer society was Rafael Gambra, see his La unidad religiosa y el derrotismo católico (1965), El silencio de dios (1967), Tradición o mimetismo (1976) and El lenguaje y los mitos (1983), detailed discussion e.g. in Julio Alvear Téllez, Drama del hombre, silencio de dios y crisis de la historia. La filosofía antimoderna de Rafael Gambra, Madrid 2020, ISBN 9788413247694
^or even earlier; in the late 20th century the Traditionalist pundit explicitly voiced hope that the lux ex oriente will shine again, see Alvaro d’Ors, La violencia y el orden, Madrid 1998
^in the Carlist cyberspace – blogs, fora, semi-official or official websites – one might fairly often find warm references to Russia, which like a rock stands in the flood of left-wing cultural terror, see e.g. a blog maintained by East Andalusian structures of Comuníon Tradicionalista Carlista, available here
^Ayuso from time to time meets representatives of various organizations from Russia, like Русский Общевоинский Союз (see semi-official FB profile of Comunión Tradicionalista, 13.12.14, available here) of Русское Имперское Движение (Делегация Русского Имперского Движения посетила Испанию, [in:] service Информационный портал Русского Имперского Движения, 27.11.15, available here[permanent dead link]). During his visit to Argentina he made numerous biting remarks about the US and referred to Spain and Russia, two supra-state cultures of strong spiritual ingredient, confronting corrupted modernity, see Entrevista a Miguel Ayuso, [in:] YouTube service 19.09.19, available here
^literally “unica potencia cristiana en la orden internacional”, see the interview with Ayuso, [in:] CarlismoGalicia service 22.06.16, available here
^a pundit particularly active when advancing the Russian narrative is the author, TV host and sort of celebrity Juan Manuel de Prada. Back in 2014 he noted that the West stole the soul of human race, and the role of Russia is to give it back, Juan Manuel de Prada, Porqué estamos con Rusia, [in:] Diario Español 10.03.14, available here. He vehemently opposes attempts to strangulate Russia with sanctions and media campaign, Juan Manuel de Prada, La misión de Rusia es devolver el alma a Occidente, [in:] Comunidad Saker Latinoamérica 23.11.16, available here.
^of two Traditionalist parties operational in Spain Comunión Tradicionalista has been particularly active when advancing the Russian narrative, see e.g. its semi-official profile on FB here; since outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian war the profile almost every day has been publishing posts which endorse Russian claims or simply re-post official Russian messages, compare April 8 (1. Russian consul in Galicia, 2. El embajador de Rusia), April 6 (Ucrania es uno de los países más permisivos), April 5 (Zelenski se intepreta), March 31 (Kiev conservaría...), March 30 (1. Embajada de Rusia en España, 2. Ucrania, un volcán), March 28 (Las alternativas del oso II), March 26 (La política de bumerán), March 25 (Per i bambini del Donbass), March 24 (Ministerio de Defensa de Rusia), March 22 (Por qué se amotinan las naciones), March 21 (Cabalgando contradiciones), March 19 (Las alternativas del oso I), March 17 (Javier Solana reconoce que...), March 12 (La agitación del miedo), March 11 (Russians in the Hispanic Kingdoms II), March 9 (Reflexiones sobre la guerra en Ucrania), March 8 (En las ultimas oras...), March 7 (Un demonio para todos y todas), March 5 (1. Con Ucrania, pero de lejos, 2. Capacidad coercitiva, 3. Quien contra Rusia?), March 4 (The Russians in Hispanic Kingdoms I), March 3 (La guerra en Ucrania), Feb 28 (La otra guerra de Ucrania), Feb 26 (Embajada de Rusia), Feb 25 (Ministerio de Defensa de Rusia), Feb 24 (1. Julia Tymosenko, 2. La operación militar...), Feb 21 (Ante el riesgo de las noticias...)
^CTC has been somewhat less explicit than CT as to the Russian-Ukrainian war, but its media when discussing the events advance arguments which happen to support the Russian cause. Its semi-official website here or its FB profile here have published a number of pro-Russian articles, often penned by respected CTC activists, see e.g. Guernika y Zelenski (Carlos Ibáñez Quintana, 11.04.22), Guerra en Ucrania (1): los lejanos orígenes en la desconocida Transnistria (Javier Barraycoa, 31.03.22), La hipocresía y las mentiras de la guerra en Ucrania (Javier María Pérez-Roldán, 03.03.22), En defensa de la neutralidad (Javier Garisoain, 02.03.22). The CTC intellectuals, like Javier Barraycoa, published in social media numerous materials which advance arguments against the Ukrainian cause, compare ¿Por qué la guerra entre Rusia y Ucrania?, [in:] YT 05.02.22, available here
^Partido Carlista, radically left-wing and anti-Traditionalist organisation, was the only grouping claiming Carlist identity which took official stand vs the Russian-Ukrainian war and which explicitly condemned Russia “imperialist aggression against the sovereign state”, [Comunicado] del Partido Carlista ante la invasión rusa de Ucrania, [in:] Partido Carlista service 28.02.22, available here
^usually the Carlist narrative begins with lamenting the US-enforced global order. Emergence of Ukraine is presented as its part, and then the discussion focuses on Ukrainian atrocities against Russian minority. The last step is to note that Russia is fully entitled to defend its people in Ukraine. This is e.g. the perspective offered by Juan Manuel de Prada, both in his FB profile or in his contributions to ABC, compare here
^dynastic head of one of Carlist branches, Sixto Enrique de Borbón, has long been presenting NATO as a criminal institution and advocated Spanish exit from the organisation, compare e.g. Regresa de Libia Don Sixto Enrique de Borbón, [in:] Carlismo service 24.06.11, available here (exit from NATO is also supported by the competitive CTC organisation, see Manifiesto de ’Desperta’: ¡Saquemos a España de la OTAN!, [in:] Ahora Información service 11.04.22, available here). He maintains personal links with Russia and Russians, e.g. the chief of security in his Lignières castle is a Russian, Francisco Manuel de las Heras y Borrero, Carlos Hugo. El Rey que no pudo ser, Madrid 2010, ISBN 9788495009999, pp. 170-171. For his comments on the Russian-Ukrainian war see e.g. his FB profile, available here
^see his interview with Monde & Vie 09.04.14, discussed at D. Sixto Enrique de Borbón: La voluntad rusa de independencia nos ayudará a reencontrar la nuestra, que está amenazada por la penetración anglosajona, [in:] Carlismo service 03.06.14, available, available here. However, the former political leader of CT, José Miguel Gambra, when meeting a group of Russian dissidents mentioned „destructive role of Putin” and “his genocidal regime”, see Movimiento Imperial Ruso, [in:] A las catacumbas blog 21.02.12, [alascatacumbas blog blocked by WP]. In late 2021 Gambra resigned as CT political leader
^in more chiliastic versions of Traditionalist thought Traditionalism was viewed as Evangelical trunk of the good tree, while Liberalism was the trunk of the bad tree, Canal 1998, p. 262
^some (like Llauder) considered Socialism a secondary enemy, sort of a by-product of Liberalism, Canal 1998, p. 260. Some (like Donoso) considered Liberalist threat dwarferd by the apocalyptic horror of Socialism; his famous 1851 prophecy read that "when the terrible day comes and all the battleground is occupied by Catholic and Socialist columns, no-one will be able to tell where the Liberals are"
^Lorente Toledo 1996, p. 86, Moreno Navarro 1997, p. 287, Ortigosa 2013, p. 243
^see, e.g., Aranguren 1982, pp. 72–73, Fernandez Benayas 2008, p. 176, Vaca de Osma 1995, p. 140
^Antonio Jiménez-Landi, La Institución Libre de Enseñanza y su ambiente: Los orígenes de la Institución, Barcelona 1996, ISBN9788489365964, p. 411
^Alonso-Muñumer 1999, p. 46. Others call it "los principios más básicos de la filosofía política de los diputados serviles y su defensa de la monarquía absoluta", Fernández García 2014, p. 145. Also some scholars expert in Right-wing thought dub the Manifesto "legitimación del absolutismo fernandino", compare González Cuevas 2001, p. 104
^Theory pursued in Elías de Tejasa, Gambra, Puy 1971, p. 29. Also non-partisan scholars note that opposition to giving precedence to interests of Casa de Borbón over those of Spain "es lo que da lugar al nacimiento del tradicionalismo del siglo XVIII", Francisca Paredes-Mendez, Mark Harpring, Jose Ballesteros, Voces de España, Boston 2013, ISBN9781285530246, p. 199
^"qui pro quo terminológico", Ayuso Torres 2015, p. 20
^Federico Suarez, La formación de la doctrina politica del Carlismo, Madrid 1946, pp. 50–60, Francisco José Fernandez de la Cigoña, El manifiesto de los persas, [in:] Verbo 141-2 (1976), pp. 179–258, Wilhelmsen 1998, pp. 79–95, Gabriel Alférez, La travesía del desierto, [in:] Gabriel Alférez, Historia del Carlismo, Madrid 1995, ISBN8487863396, pp. 26–28
^according to Elías de Tejada Hispanidad was born in the Middle Ages, climaxed during the early España de los Austrias and declined due to centralist French tradition imported by the Borbones, Cecotti 2005, p. 205
^compare numerous references in Elías de Tejasa, Gambra, Puy 1971
^also genetically it is not clear what is older: Traditionalism or Carlism. The birth date of Carlism as a militant political movement is fairly clear: October 2, 1833, around 7 PM, when a post official in Talavera de la Reina, Manuel María Gonzalez, gathered his armed men on the main town square and raised the "Viva Don Carlos" cry. Some scholars refer to Traditionalism already in the late 18th century (Ferrer), some point to the Persas Manifesto as its birth date (Bartyzel) or conclude that Traditionalism was born before the dynastic issue occurred (Wilhelmsen), some consider Balmes and Donoso – both writing in the 1840s – the fathers of Traditionalism (González Cuevas), and some prefer safe conclusions that the nascent era fell on the period "between the reign of Carlos III and the liberal-bourgeoisie revolution" ("от правления Карлоса III (1759–1788) до либерально-буржуазной революции 1868–1874"), Василенко 2014, p. 77
^according to some legitimism was not another – apart from Traditionalism – component of Carlism, but a component of Traditionalism itself, "el tradicionalismo fue una fuerza importante en España, pero la obediencia dinástica la marginaba de la vida pública", Orella Martínez 2012, p. 184
^Gambra 1949, p. 414, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 76. According to a canonic 1971 text, Traditionalism is "doctrina jurídico-política" and one of 3 pillars of Carlism (the other two are legitimism and historical continuity of Spain), Elías de Tejada, Gambra, Puy 1971, p. 10
^Diccionario Enciclopédico U.T.E.H.A., vol. X, Mexico 1953, p. 246. In the very text Traditionalism is presented as a doctrine of a vague "Carlist party", a simplification acceptable in the 1950s but misleading since the 1970s. Today "Carlist party" intuitively points to Partido Carlista, a political organization claiming Carlist identity and fiercely denying any Traditionalist links
^this opinion is of course maintained also by the Carlists themselves; they might recognize that Traditionalism exists also beyond the Carlism realm, but add that "cualquier tradicionalismo que no buscara un entronque con el carlismo, debia perecer, y de aquí el fracaso del marqués de Viluma, el fracaso de Bravo Murillo y el fracaso de Donoso Cortés", Ferrer 1951, p. 49
^Bartyzel 2015, p. 108. The author views Carlism as most complete embodiment of Traditionalism, its foundation being two concepts: theocentricism – the legitimate order must necessarily follow teachings of Jesus Christ, and sort of communitarianism (the term not used by the author) – a human is best expressed as member of a community and common interests should take precedence over those of an individual, Bartyzel 2015, p. 14
^a typical example is González Cuevas. He claims up-front that reportedly Traditionalism is wrongly identified with Carlism, but later on his discourse goes much further, suggesting that Traditionalism is not only not tantamount to Carlism, but that Carlism was a non-mainstream breed of Traditionalism; when discussing Traditionalist authors, he systematically focuses on non-Carlist theorists and downplays the Carlist ones, González Cuevas 2008, p. 1163 and onwards
^Francisco Colom González, La imaginación política del tradicionalismo español, [in:] "Por Dios, por la Patria y el Rey": las ideas del carlismo, Pamplona 2011, ISBN9788423532759, pp. 179–198
^Karheinz Barck, Essays zur spanischen und französischen Literatur- und Ideologiegeschichte, Berlin 1997, ISBN9783110801552, p. 490
^Carlism is compared to Conservatism on at least 6 different layers, combining methodological proposals of Carlos Seco Serrano, Jose María Clemente, Federico Suarez Verdaguer and the theory of П. Ю. Рахшмир & А. А. Галкин, see Юрий Владимирович Василенко, Генезис карлизма и проблемы типологии испанского консерватизма, [in:] Научный ежегодник Института философии и права Уральского отделения Российской академии наук 1/16 (2016), pp. 92–111, especially the table p. 104
^"the term 'political conservative' does not fit the Carlists and other self-styled Traditionalists. ... The Carlist and Traditionalist ideal is best described, as it is in Spain, as 'traditionalist', but some may prefer 'reactionary' or 'restorationist'", R. A. H. Robinson, Political conservatism: The Spanish Case, 1875–1977, [in:] Journal of Contemporary History 14/4 (1979), p. 575
^Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, Tradicionalismo y conservadurismo, [in:] Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, Ana Martínez Arancón (eds.), Ideas y formas políticas: del triunfo del Absolutismo a la Posmodernidad, Madrid 2010, ISBN9788436261097, pp. 149–182
^according to the Traditionalist reading offered by de Mella, tradition and progress are compatible. Tradition is all in the past which has contributed to building of a godly order (all in the past which has not contributed is not tradition). Progress is the value added by following generations to heritage received from their forefathers, referred after Bartyzel 2015, pp. 70–72
^see e.g. a 1953 article of Francisco Canals, El „derechismo” y su inevitable deriva izquierdista, available e.g. here
^though there are isolated attempts to present even 18th-century thinkers like Ceballos against the Fascist setting, claiming that it helps to understand emergence of radical conservatism and then right-wing radicalism in all countries which developed Fascist regimes (Italy, Germany, Eastern Europe). The logic is that Traditionalism was initially consensual, but having failed to find an ally among the Conservatives it got increasingly radical and vehement, Василенко 2014, p. 90
^recent example is the case of a PSOE politician Santos Cerdán, who in 2019 referred to the Traditionalist commemorative session in Leitza as "fascismo en el que dos parlamentarios de Navarra Suma, Iñaki Iriarte y Patxi Pérez, fueron a un acto de exaltación del franquismo", Cerdán llama "fascista" a Iriarte (Navarra Suma), [in:] Diario de Navarra 21.10.19, available here. The MPs lambasted by Cerdán responded with filing a lawsuit, currently in course
^see e.g. the comments on Paul Preston: "sin duda, el historiador británico no ha leído ni a Enrique Gil Robles, ni a Juan Vázquez de Mella, ni a Víctor Pradera; y tiende, con su habitual ignorancia, a presentar el carlismo como una especie de remedo del fascismo, sin tener en cuenta el antiestatismo y antitotalitarismo characterísticos del tradicionalismo carlista", Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, En torno a la obra del hispanista Paul Preston, [in:] Catoblepas 91 (2009), available here
^e.g. in case of Pradera, his doctrine classified as "fascist project turned firmly towards the past", see Riley 2010, pp. 19–20. Elías de Tejada has been named „superfascista”
^Anna Caballé, Arcadi Espada, Entrevista a Alonso de los Ríos, [in:] Boletín de la Unidad de Estudios Biográficos 3 (1998), p. 78; this opinion has also filtered out to popular discourse abroad, compare "Übereinstimmend mit ihren faschistischen Vorbildern, herrschte auch in der Falange das Führerprinzip. Die Partei verkörperte den Willen des Volkes, Franco brachte ihn zum Ausdruck. Seine Entscheidungen waren als "Quell der Souveränität" und "Wurzel irdischer Macht" unanfechtbar, wie der Rechtsphilosoph Francisco Elías de Tejada 1939 pathetisch ausführte", Carlos Collado Seidel, Der General, der Krieg und die Kirche, [in:] Die Zeit 27.08.13
^at the turn of 1936 and 1937 Italian envoys to Spain, like Pedrazzi or Danzi, suggested to Rome that Italy should support not Falange but the Carlists, especially that "they have proven to be faithful and loyal friends of Italy", Mercedes Peñalba-Sotorrío, Cultural Intervention in the Spanish Civil War: A Comparative Analysis of Nazi and Fascist Propaganda, [in:] Journal of Contemporary History 58/1 (2023), p. 31. However, nothing is known of any would-be contacts between the Carlist executive and Fascist envoys in Spain at the time
^Xosé-Manoel Nuñez-Seixas, An Approach to the Social Profile and the Ideological Motivations of the Spanish Volunteers of the "Blue Division", 1941–1944, [in:] Sonja Levsen, Christine Krüger (eds.), War Volunteering in Modern Times, London 2010, ISBN9780230228054, p. 251
^many authors invoke Pradera against the fascist background, indicate similarities, and apply fascistoid qualifications, but stop just short of naming him fascist, see Enrique Moradiellos, Evangelios fascistas, [in:] Revista de Libros 12 (2014), p. 30, Olabarri Gortázar 1988, p. 323, Ernesto Mila, Renovación Española y Acción Española, la "derecha fascista española", [in:] Revista de Historia del Fascismo, 2 (2011), María Cruz Mina Apat, Elecciones y partidos políticos en Navarra (1891–1923), [in:] J. L. García-Delgado (ed.), La España de la Restauración: política, economía, legislación y cultura), Madrid 1985, ISBN8432305111, 9788432305115, pp. 120–121, S. Fernandez Viguera, Ideologia de Raimundo Garcia 'Garcilaso' en torno al tema foral, [in:] Principe de Viana 47 (1986), pp. 511–531
^detailed discussion in Orella Martínez 2006, pp. 257–268, Fernando del Rey Reguillo, Manuel Álvarez Tardío, The Spanish Second Republic Revisited: From Democratic Hopes to the Civil War (1931–1936), Madrid 2012, ISBN9781845194598, pp. 250–251, Carballo 2013, pp. 126–131, Jacek Bartyzel, Tradycjonalizm (hiszpański) wobec faszyzmu, hitleryzmu i totalitaryzmu, [in:] Pro Fide Rege et Lege 71 (2013), p. 26. The author who studied relations between Carlism and Fascism most extensively is Martin Blinkhorn, see his Fascists & Conservatives. The radical Right and the establishment in twentieth-century Europe, London 2003, ISBN9781134997121, also his Right-wing utopianism and harsh reality: Carlism, the Republic and the 'Crusade, [in:] Martin Blinkhorn (ed.), Spain in Conflict, 1931–1939. Democracy and Its Enemies, London 1986, pp. 183-205, also his Martin Blinkhorn, Conservatism, traditionalism and fascism in Spain, 1898–1937, [in:] Martin Blinkhorn (ed.), Fascists and Conservatives: The Radical Right and the Establishment in Twentieth-Century Europe, London 2003, ISBN9781134997121, pp. 118-137, also his Carlism and fascism, [in:] Martin Blinkhorn, Carlism and crisis in Spain 1931–1939, London 2008, ISBN9780521207294, pp. 183-206
^though anti-Semitism has never been a major thread of Traditionalist thought or propaganda, at times it surfaced in Traditionalist popular discourse, compare e.g. Jordi Canal i Morell, El carlisme català dins l'Espanya de la Restauració: un assaig de modernització politica (1888–1900), Barcelona 1998, ISBN9788476022436, pp. 288, 270–271. However, it has been fuelled by religious and not racist considerations. Also in popular discourse leading Traditionalist pundits explicitly spoke against racism, their elaborates again stemming from religious principles, compare an article by Fabio (Emilio Ruiz Muñoz) in El Siglo Futuro 06.01.35, available here
^however, in expert scholarly literature there is one and entirely exceptional reference to "neocentralist traditionalism of Carlism"; no further explanation is provided, Stanley G. Payne, Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977, Madison 1999, ISBN9780299165642, p. 48
^Blinkhorn 2008, pp. 169–182, Bartyzel 2013, pp. 13–32
^the name reflected rather the fact that two organizations, Falange Española and Comunion Tradicionalista, were the key ones providing volunteers to the Nationalist ranks
^see e.g. González Cuevas 2008, pp. 1170–1171, Rodríguez Núñez 2013, Heleno Saña, Historia de la filosófia española, Madrid 2007, ISBN9788496710986, p. 255 and onwards, in popular discourse Pradera is "one of the icons and pilars of Francoism", see ABC 25.10.04, available here
^many tend to see Francoism as political practice rather than a coherent political theory; within this perspective, elements from various concepts were first accommodated and then dumped according to needs of the moment. Franco regime used cultural Traditionalism of menendezpelayano sort when looking for its historical legitimization, see e.g. Stanley G. Payne, Postfascist survivals: Spain and Portugal, [in:] Stanley G. Payne, Fascism, Madison 1980, ISBN0299080609, pp. 139–160
^Gonzalo Redondo Galvez, Política, cultura y sociedad en la España de Franco, 1939–1975, vol. 1, Pamplona 1999, ISBN8431317132; according to the author, "el authoritarismo franquista no fue de signo fascista sino tradicionalista", according to another, "el authoritarismo franquista no fue de signo fascista sino tradicionalista", see Juan María Sanchez-Prieto, Lo que fué y lo que no fué Franco, [in:] Nueva Revista de Política, Cultura y Arte 69 (2000), pp. 30–38
^Rodríguez Núñez 2013, p. 268; similar view in González Cuevas 2009, p. 202
^"franquismo neotradicionalista" – Jorge Novella, El pensamiento reaccionario español, 1812–1975: tradición y contrarrevolución en España, Madrid 2007, ISBN9788497425483, pp. 248–9, see esp. the chapter El franquismo tradicionalista: Elías de Tejada y Fernández de la Mora
^for Elías de Tejada see e.g. Ayuso Torres 1997, p. 25, Cecotti 2005, p. 205, for Gambra see e.g. Bartyzel 2015, p. 89. Both considered "European thought" a euphemism denoting a militant, anti-Christian ideology
^in-depth analysis of Traditionalism versus Francoism, definitely the best work available so far, is Rodríguez Núñez 2014, see esp. chapters V and VI, pp. 247–391
^"during the nineteenth century the only political group that expressed anything approaching a kind of nationalism was that of the Carlist traditionalists", Stanley G. Payne, Nationalism, Regionalism and Micronationalism in Spain, [in:] Journal of Contemporary History 3-4 (1991), p. 481. On the following pages author notes, however, that in the early 20th century Carlism had already nothing to do with nationalism. The same authot notes that "llegó a afirmarse en la época de la segunda guerra [Third Carlist War] como el único verdadero nacionalismo español, acuñado por primera vez la frase de 'glorioso movimiento nacional', mucho más tarde recogida por los nacionales en la guerra de 1936", Stanley G. Payne, Prólogo, [in:] Mercedes Vázquez de Prada, El final de una ilusión. Auge y declive del tradicionalismo carlista (1957–1967), Madrid 2016, ISBN9788416558407, p. 16. Traditionalism indeed posed as 'glorioso movimiento nacional' in at least one article of the Carlist newspaper La Reconquista on January 16th 1873, Vicente Garmendia, Carlismo y nacionalismo (s) en la época de la última guerra carlista, [in:] Las Guerras Carlistas, Madrid 1993, ISBN8487863159, p. 104.
^Donald Weinstein, Júlia Benavent i Benavent, José Domingo Corbató, La figura de Jerónimo Savonarola O. P. y su influencia en España y Europa, Madrid 2004, ISBN9788884501165, p. 226
^see e.g. Pradera's entry at Auñamendi Eusko Entziklopedia, available here
^at times the term traditionalism is even used to denote early Basque Nationalism, Luis Castells Arteche, El desarrollo de la clase obrera en Azcoitia y el sindicalismo católico (1900–1923), [in:] Estudios de historia social 42-43 (1987), p. 1155
^Catalanism "tenía sus antecedentes, no solo en la Renaixença, sino en la escuela tradicionalista de los apologistas catalanes y posteriormente en la obra del obispo Torras y Bagès", González Cuevas 2001, p. 121
^Pradera is sometimes considered one of the founding fathers of navarrismo, see Juan María Sánchez-Prieto, Garcia-Sanz, Iriarte, Mikelarena, Historia del navarrismo (1841–1936) [review], [in:] Revista Internacional de Estudios Vascos 48 (2003), p. 732. Another author claims that Pradera is fundamental to change in Navarrese perception of their enemies: before him it was the Spanish state, after him it was the Basque Nationalism; Roldán Jimeno Aranguren, Los derechos históricos en la renovación del régimen autonómico de Navarra (2004–2006), [in:] Revista interdisciplinar de estudios histórico-jurídicos 15/8 (2007), p. 344
^perhaps the most evident case of fascination with integral nationalism was the early thought of Melchor Ferrer, who strove to modernise Traditionalism by re-defining the role of a nation and a state in its framework. Compare his El valor positivo del tradicionalismo español,
[in:] España 02.03.19, available here
^Action Francaise was positvist, paganist, determinist and nationalistic, while Acción Española was iusnaturalist, Catholic, providentialist and Hispanic – opinion of Gonzalez Fernandez de la Mora, referred after Bartyzel 2016, p. 149
^opinion of Gambra, referred after Bartyzel 2015, p. 139; for Elías de Tejada see Cecotti 2005, p. 208. Both despised nation-states as born out of Nationalism, a concept not rooted in tradition, Ayuso Torres 2008, pp. 17–18, 23
^probably the most widely accepted generic categorization of Traditionalism. It is generally considered to be – in terms of genealogy, doctrinal outlook, public mobilization – a counter-revolutionary concept, or even – as in case of Carlism – a "classic form of counter-revolution", Blinkorn 2008, pp. 1–40
^"reactionary" or "ultra-reactionary" are labels fairly frequently attached to Traditionalism, in public discourse often intended as abuse or insult, compare e.g. Alfonso Valencia, Teniente coronel Miguel Ayuso, [in:] Sociopolitica service, 26.09.13, available here. Also a scholarly discourse might be formatted as an onslaught rather than as an analysis, see Herrero 1971. On the other hand, opinion of Traditionalism having been born as a reaction to discontinuity of the Spanish tradition – triggered either by France-imported Absolutist of revolutionary thought – remains rather undisputed in the scholarly realm
^in a recent attempt to produce a global typology of the Right, among 5 of its generic sub-sections Spanish Traditionalism is classified in the Extreme Rightist Right, Bartyzel 2016, p. 40. The same author notes, however, that some refused to accept the Right-wing label; they claim that the entire Right-Left paradigm, born during the French Revolution, is revolutionary, Nicolas Gómez Dávila, Escolios en un texto implícito, Bogota 2001, ISBN9789588160023, p. 24, referred after Bartyzel 2016, p. 25
^frequently considered one of the streams which merged in Carlism, compare Roman Oyarzun, Historia del carlismo, Madrid 1944, p. 8
^for best detailed discussion available, see Urigüen 1986
^there are fairly frequent references to "ultramontanismo carlista", see e.g. Julio de la Cueva Merino, Clericales y anticlericales: el conflicto entre confesionalidad y secularización en Cantabria (1875–1923), Santander 1994, ISBN9788481020724, p. 85, though expert scholars vehemently deny that Carlism was ultramontanist, e.g. when discussing Traditionalist opposition to Vatican-endorsed malmenorismo – see e.g. Rosa Ana Gutiérrez Lloret, ¡A las urnas. En defensa de la Fe! La movilización política Católica en la España de comienzos del siglo XX, [in:] Pasado y Memoria. Revista de Historia Contemporánea 7 (2008), p. 249 – or to Vaticanum II, labelled "Los heraldos del anticristo", see Boletin de Comunion Catolico-Monarquica 11-12 (1985), available here
^for a scholarly discourse referring to the 1970s see Juan Manuel González Sáez, El catolicismo tradicional español ante el „caso Lefebvre” (1976–1978), [in:] Hispania Sacra 46 (2014), pp. 489–513
^see Joan Bonet, Casimir Martí, L'integrisme a Catalunya. Les grans polémiques: 1881–1888, Barcelona 1990, ISBN, 9788431628000, Jordi Canal i Morell, Carlins i integristes a la Restauració: l'escissió de 1888, [in:] Revista de Girona 147 (1991), pp. 59–68, Jordi Canal i Morell, Las "muertes" y las "resurrecciones" del carlismo. Reflexiones sobre la escisión integrista de 1888, [in:] Ayer 38 (2000), pp. 115–136, Antonio Elorza, Los integrismos, Madrid 1995, ISBN8476792719, Juan María Laboa, El integrismo, un talante limitado y excluyente, Madrid 1985, ISBN9788427706910, Antonio Moliner Prada, Félix Sardá i Salvany y el integrismo en la Restauración, Barcelona 2000, ISBN9788449018541, Feliciano Montero García, El peso del integrismo en la Iglesia y el catolicismo español del siglo XX, [in:] Mélanges de la Casa de Velázquez 44/1 (2014), pp. 131–156, John N. Schumacher, Integrism. A Study in XIXth Century Spanish politico-religious Thought, [in:] Catholic Historical Review, 48/3 (1962), pp. 343–64
^see e.g. references to Traditionalist clericalism in Coro Rubio Pobes, José Luis de la Granja, Santiago de Pablo, Breve historia de Euskadi: De los fueros a la autonomía, Madrid 2011, ISBN9788499920399, available here
^semi-official doctrine adopted in the 1940s by the Francoist regime. There are vastly different views as to its relation to Traditionalism, e.g. some scholars consider National-Catholicism and Traditionalism one and the same thing, compare Carlos Moreno Hernández, En torno a Castilla, Sevilla 2009, ISBN9781409259923, p. 223; a fairly popular if not indeed dominating view is that nacionalcatolicismo was a blend of Traditionalism and other doctrines, see Josefa Dolores Ruiz Resa, Los derechos de los trabajadores en el franquismo, Madrid 2015, ISBN9788490852064, p. 65; some view the two as competitive doctrines; some see Traditionalism, and especially its Carlist branch, competitive if not hostile to nacional-catolicismo, see Bartyzel 2015, pp. 237–238
^on competition between Traditionalism and nascent Spanish Christian Democracy see e.g. Feliciano Montero García, El movimiento católico en la España del siglo XX. Entre el integrismo y el posibilismo, [in:] María Dolores de la Calle Velasco, Manuel Redero San Román (eds.), Movimientos sociales en la España del siglo XX, Madrid 2008, ISBN9788478003143, pp. 173–192
^apart from "federalismo regionalista" of classical Traditionalist authors like de Mella, see e.g. González Cuevas 2009, p. 47, there were also non-orthodox versions of Traditionalist federalism, e.g. the one represented by Francesc Romaní i Puigdengolas, see e.g. Andreu Navarra Ordoño, La región sospechosa. La dialéctica hispanocatalana entre 1875 y 1939, Barcelona 2012, ISBN9788449033353, p. 53
^apart from frequent Traditionalist references to regional traditions of Vascongadas, Navarre and Catalonia, a one which deserves notice is also Galician "regionalismo tradicionalista", developed by its key theorist, Alfredo Brañas, see Laura Lara Martinez, Naciones, estados y nacionalismos en Europa desde 1871 hasta 1914, ISBN9788498220261, p. 17
^for a sample of references to "foralismo tradicionalista" see e.g. Alfred Balcells (ed.), Cataluña contemporánea, vol. 1, Madrid 1977, ISBN9788432302565, p. 72
^there are frequent historiographic references to "tradicionalismo fuerista", see e.g. Luis Castells Arteche, Arturo Cajal Valero, La autonomía vasca en la España contemporánea (1808–2008), Madrid 2009, ISBN9788496467897, p. 294, and some scholars consider Fuerismo one of two (another one was Carlism) paths leading to Basque nationalism, see e.g. Corduera Atienza 2001
^Traditionalist supporters of Basque foral regulations known as Ley Paccionada and set up in 1841, Jesús María Fuente Langas, Los tradicionalistas navarros bajo la dictadura de Primo de Rivera (1923–1930), [in:] Príncipe de Viana 55 (1994), pp. 417–426
^Traditionalist supporters of Basque pre-1839 foral regime, Fuente Langas 1994, p. 419
^there are numerous references to "autonomismo" in relation to Traditionalism, set in a wide timeframe between the late 19th and the late 20th century, see e.g. Jordi Canal i Morell, Banderas blancas, boinas rojas: una historia política del carlismo, 1876–1939, Madrid 2006, ISBN9788496467347, p. 226
^there are abundant works on Traditionalism as incubus of Basque nationalism, written from Carlists, nationalist of scholarly perspectives. For example of the latter, see Corcuera Atienza 2001
^on relations between Traditionalism and Catalanism see numerous works of Canal, e.g. Jordi Canal, Carlisme i catalanisme a la fi del segle XIX. Notes sobre unes relacions complexes, [in:] Le discours sur la nation en Catalogne aux XIXe et XXe siècles. Hommage à Antoni M. Badia i Margarit, Paris 1995, pp. 211–230, Jordi Canal, ¿En busca del precedente perdido? Tríptico sobre las complejas relaciones entre carlismo y catalanismo a fines del siglo XIX, [in:] Historia y Politica 14 (2005), p. 45-84, Jordi Canal, Marian Vayreda, entre el carlisme i el catalanisme, [in:] Revista de Girona 225 (2004), pp. 41–46
^compare "provincionalismo tradicionalista" in José Andrés-Gallego, Historia General de España y América: Revolución y Restauración: (1868–1931), vol. XVI/2, Madrid 1991, ISBN9788432121142, p. 129
^compare anti-urban agrarism discussed in Caspistegui Gorasurreta 2002
^see e.g. references to "ruralismo tradicionalista", Jorge Luis Marzo, Lo moderno como antimoderno, [in:] Antonio Casaseca Casaseca, Francisco Javier Panera Cuevas, El poder de la imagen, Salamanca 2014, ISBN9788490124031, p. 209
^the term rather rarely paired with Traditionalism, usually against the background of Hispanidad, compare Enver Joel Torregroza, Pauline Ochoa, Formas de hispanidad, Rosario 2010, ISBN9789587381207, p. 127
^some Traditionalists nurtered a vision of an Iberic confederation, see Carballo 2013, p. 107
^applied mostly during the First World War and related to Traditionalist perception of German and Austro-Hungarian state model, pitted against the British and French state models
^related to long-standing Spanish and English competition overseas, Gibraltar, and incompatibility of Traditionalist model and the British model, by Traditionalists usually – though with some exceptions, e.g. this of Ignacio Hernando de Larramendi – considered a hotbed of greed, plutocracy, freemasonry, Liberalism and capitalism
^as "European values" are deemed a disguise for militant anti-Christian secularism, Ayuso Torres 1997, p. 25, Cecotti 2005, p. 205, Bartyzel 2015, p. 89
^applied mostly to Carlist branch of Traditionalism
^by some considered pre-Carlism of the 1810s and 1820s
^French legitimists claiming that after 1883 the legitimate rights to the French throne passed to the Spanish Carlist Borbón branch
^the term has never been used by Traditionalist theorists, but this is how some scholars view the Traditionalist vision of a society, see e.g. very interesting mappings in Walter Actis, Miguel Angel Prada, Carlos Pereda, Extraños, distintos, iguales a las paradojas de la alteridad, [in:] Revista de Educación 307 (1995), p. 43
^references to "Traditionalist authoritarism" are not infrequent in Spanish literature, compare Gonzalo Redondo, Historia de la Iglesia en España, 1931–1939: La Segunda República, 1931–1936, Madrid 1993, ISBN9788432129841, p. 561
^a concept of society and its organization, fairly frequently applied to mid- and late Traditionalism, compare Josefa Dolores Ruiz Resa, Los derechos de los trabajadores en el franquismo, Madrid 2015, ISBN9788490852064, p. 160
^a concept of political representation, fairly frequently applied to mid- and late Traditionalism, compare Gonzalo Álvarez Chillida, José María Pemán: pensamiento y trayectoria de un monárquico (1897–1941), Madrid 1996, ISBN9788477863052, p. 136
^within Traditionalist realm applied mostly to Partido Social Popular and Salvador Minguijón
^a concept of society developed by Vazquez de Mella
^term applied in a number of ways; may denote e.g. Maeztu-related vision, or cultural approach fathered by Menéndez, or a school in historiography, or many other ideas
^later supporters of the 1812 constitution, considered pre-configuration of Moderates and Conservatives
^or agraviados, combatants of Catalan insurgenty of the late 1820s, a movement aimed against reforms introduced by Fernando VII
^Carlist supporters refraining from openly joining the Carlist troops in the 1830s
^rural banditry partially of post-Carlist origin, active in Catalonia in the 1830s and 1840s
^political strategy adopted by Carlos de Borbón y Braganza, Conde de Mondemolín, name applied in the 1840s
^combatants of Catalan insurgency of the 1840s, a movement aimed against the Isabelline order
^conciliatory political strategy adopted by Traditionalists towards the Isabelline and Restoration regimes
^political strategy adopted by Cándido Nocedal and cultivated by his son Ramón, name applied in the 1870s and 1880s
^political strategy adopted by Enrique Aguilera y Gamboa as head of mainstream Carlism in the 1880s and 1890s
^political strategy adopted by Victor Pradera and his followers in the early 20th century, also a theoretical outlook adopted by Salvador Minguijón and some of associated socially-minded Traditionalists
^political strategy adopted by die-hard Francoist followers during late Francoism and early Transition
^outlook adopted by Hugocarlistas and Partido Carlista
^followers of Alejandro Pidal, name used in the 1870s and 1880s
^followers of Marcelino Menéndez de Pelayo, name applied in the 1890s and more loosely throughout most of the 20th century, in general denoting an erudite cultural format of Traditionalism
^followers of Juan Vazquez de Mella, name applied in the 1910s and 1920s
^followers of Ramón Nocedal (though might be also applied to followers of Cándido Nocedal), name applied between the 1880s and 1890s
^followers of Jaime de Borbón y Borbón-Parma, name applied between the 1910s and 1930s, though might have been used to denote rebels conspiring against Carlos VII in favor of his son in the 1900s
^followers of dynastical reading pursued by a daily El Cruzado Español, name applied in the 1930s
^followers of Manuel Fal Conde, in the 1940s and 1950s interchanging with „javieristas”
^followers of Maurici de Sivatte and a Carlist branch organized as RENACE
^followers of Carlos Pío de Habsburgo-Lorena y de Borbón and his descendants
^followers of Juan de Borbón y Battenberg, name applied in the 1950s and 1960s, in the 1950s interchanging with "rodeznistas" or "estorilos"
^followers of Tomás Domínguez Arévalo, 7th Count of Rodezno, name applied between the 1930s and 1950, in the 1950s interchanging with "juanistas" and „"estorilos"
^signatories of a so-called Acto de Estoril (1957), followers of Juan de Borbón y Battenberg, name applied in the 1950s and 1960s, in the 1950s interchanging with "juanistas"
^followers of Javier de Borbón-Parma, name applied usually between the 1940s and 1960s
^also "huguistas", "carlo-huguistas", followers of Carlos Hugo de Borbón-Parma, name applied usually between the 1960s and 1980s
^followers of Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón-Dos Sicilias, name applied usually between 1960s and 1970s
^followers of Sixto Enrique de Borbón-Parma, name applied currently
^followers of Carlos Javier de Borbón-Parma, name applied currently
^a branch of Carlism which does not point to any individual as to a legitimate king of Spain and which claims that the throne of Spain is currently vacant
^Manifiesto de los Persas is the reference commonly used in literature. The original title of the document was Representación y manifiesto que algunos diputados a las Cortes ordinarias firmaron en los mayores apuros de su opresión en Madrid
^presumed to be the key author among a number of individuals possibly contributing
^full title Apología del altar y del trono ó Historia de las reformas hechas en España en tiempo de las llamadas Cortes, é impugnacion de algunas doctrinas publicadas en la Constitucion, diarios y otros escritos contra la religion y el Estado
^the claimant signed the document; actual author of the text is not clear
^full title La España en la presente crisis. Examen razonado de la causa y de los hombres que pueden salvar aquella nación
^signed by de Cerralbo, de Mella is presumed to have been the author
^date the first volume appeared, the second on appeared in 1902
^full title Tratado de derecho político según los principios de la filosofía y el derecho cristianos
^full title Las Cortes de Cádiz (con motivo de su primer centenario): su origen, su constitución, sus hechos y sus consecuencias
^lecture at Teatro Goya in Barcelona, June 5, 1921
^full title Verdadera doctrina sobre acatamiento, obediencia y adhesión a los poderes constituidos, y sobre la licitud de la resistencia a los poderes ilegítimos y de hecho. La política tradicionalista
^full title Corporativismo gremial. La organización social en la nueva España
^full title Manifestación de los ideales tradicionalistas al generalisimo y jefe del estado español
^full title ¿Quién es el Rey? La actual sucesión dinástica en la Monarquía española
^signed by 20-odd leaders of Comunión Tradicionalista, presumed authors are Raimundo de Miguel López and Alberto Ruiz de Galarreta
^full title Consideraciones sobre la democracia : discurso leído en el acto de su recepción
^authors signed are Francisco Elías de Tejada, Rafael Gambra Ciudad and Francisco Puy Muñoz, though at times Elías de Tejada is considered the key author
^full title El estado en su laberinto. Las transformaciones de la política contemporánea
^full title Programa político. Comunión Tradicionalista Carlista. XII Congreso
^José Miguel Gambra Gutiérrez, La sociedad tradicional y sus enemigos, Madrid 2019, ISBN9788417134693
Further reading
Miguel Ayuso, Historia del tradicionalismo reciente, [in:] Razón española: Revista bimestral de pensamiento 32 (1988), pp. 347–351
Miguel Ayuso, Qué es el Carlismo. Una introducción al tradicionalismo hispánico, Buenos Aires 2005
Jacek Bartyzel, Nic bez Boga, nic wbrew tradycji, Radzymin 2015, ISBN9788360748732
Jacek Bartyzel, Tradycjonalizm, sensy terminu i kręgi odniesienia, [in:] Sensus historiae XXXIII (2018), pp. 17–31
Jacek Bartyzel, Umierać ale powoli, Kraków 2002, ISBN8386225742
José María Beneyto Pérez, La época de las revoluciones y la gnosis política del tradicionalismo, [in:] José Luis Villacañas Berlanga (ed.), La filosofía del siglo XIX, Madrid 2001, ISBN8481644730, pp. 201–236
Javier Barraycoa, Catolicismo político tradicional, liberalismo, socialismo y radicalismo en la España contemporánea, [in:] Miguel Ayuso (ed.), La res publica christiana como problema político, pp. 93–133, Madrid 2014, ISBN9788493126513
Francisco Colom González, La imaginación política del tradicionalismo español, [in:] "Por Dios, por la Patria y el Rey": las ideas del carlismo, Madrid 2011, ISBN9788423532759, pp. 179–198
Melchor Ferrer, Historia del tradicionalismo español, vols. 1-30, Sevilla-Madrid 1941–1979
Pedro Carlos González Cuevas (ed.), Historia del pensamiento político español del Renacimiento a nuestros días, Madrid 2016, ISBN9788436270051
Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, Tradicionalismo, [in:] Javier Fernández Sebastián (ed.), Diccionario político y social del siglo XX español, Madrid 2008, ISBN9788420687698, p. 1163-1173
Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, El pensamiento político de la derecha española en el siglo XX, Madrid 2005, ISBN9788430942237
Андрей Андреевич Терещук, За Бога, Родину и Короля: военно-политическая история раннего карлизма, Москва 2023, ISBN9785604787038
Jorge Novella Suárez, El pensamiento reaccionario español, 1812–1975: tradición y contrarrevolución en España, Madrid 2007, ISBN9788497425483
Alvaro Rodríguez Núñez, Tradicionalismo, Carlismo y Catolicismo, [in:] Razón española: Revista bimestral de pensamiento 170 (2011), pp. 311–332
Юрий Владимирович Василенко, Генезис карлизма и проблемы типологии испанского консерватизма, [in:] Научный ежегодник Института философии и права Уральского отделения Российской академии наук 1/16 (2016), pp. 92–111
Alexandra Wilhelmsen, La formación del pensamiento político del carlismo (1810–1875), Madrid 1998, ISBN9788487863318
Alexandra Wilhelmsen, La teoría del Tradicionalismo político español (1810–1875): Realismo y Carlismo, [in:] Stanley G. Payne (ed.), Identidad y nacionalismo en la España contemporánea: el Carlismo, 1833–1975, Madrid 2001, ISBN8487863469, pp. 33–54
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
_2.jpg)
.svg)
