Maravall’s assertion that “este libro presente una nueva manera de ver la historia de España” (I, 5) is only partially correct. Much of his massive work is quite familiar. There are discussions “afirmando una conexión histórica entre forma estatal de la política y forma dineraria de la economía” (II, 89) and others of “una mentalidad de inspiración racionalista” (e.g., II, 521). There is little new in the thesis that "la política estatal de los siglos xv a xvii es la política de ciudad ampliada sobre extensos territorios” (I, 90). What is novel is Maravall’s peculiar vision, his definition of his subject and his approach to it. His desire is to write “una Historia social de la mentalidad española” (I, 6), which will concern itself with both hechos e ideas.

The hecho is the estado moderno in the Renaissance. This choice of subject necessarily affects Maravall’s treatment of it. Because the modern state did not fully emerge until the nineteenth century (II, 318), earlier developments are viewed as anticipatory. Thus, the “sentimiento de comunidad política” is characterized as “protonacional” (II, 549) and the absolutist state, because of its great armies, is viewed as having a “cierto carácter democrático” (II, 556). The emphasis on the estado moderno leads Maravall to pay little attention to medieval antecedents and to neglect developments within his period. Much of what he says about the state is provocative. His discussion of “la función del derecho privado y de la propiedad como límite del poder del Estado” (I, 345-56) is particularly suggestive. Nevertheless, he is less interested in hechos than in ideas about them.

The idea is mentalidad social, particularly “una mentalidad caracterizada como burguesa” (II, 134). Here, Maravall is at his best and offers fascinating insights, such as his discussion of seguridad and igualidad (II, 215-38). But often ideas are used not only to explain hechos, but even in place of them. For example, (II, 258-61), writers from Sánchez de Arévalo to Sancho de Moncada may have emphasized the teaching of “ciencia política”; one may conclude that these writers desired a “función pública” to education, but not necessarily that "la relación entre educación y Estado diríase va solidificándose.” Pragmáticas, which may or may not have been enforced, do not demonstrate by themselves “la ampliación de la actividad estatal sobre las esferas educativas.”

It is precisely in the relationship between hecho and idea, between estado moderno and mentalidad social, that Maravall is weakest. While he asserts that “el Estado es ante todo producto de la evolución de las fuerzas sociales internas” (I, 207), he analyzes neither the fuerzas nor the estado. Nor is he interested in the forces behind the appearance of “un espíritu burgués” (II, 134) in the Renaissance. Most importantly, he is unclear on the causal relationship between estado and mentalidad. “La Historia social no puede hacerse sin la Historia del pensamiento” (II, 355). The converse is equally true.