El virreinato del marqués de Castelfuerte, 1724-1736

Viceroy José de Armendáriz y Perurena (1670–1740), the marquis of Castelfuerte, arrived in Lima in 1724 to govern Peru. By the time he departed in 1736, Castel-fuerte had carried out the first Bourbon attempt to reform the Andean viceroyalty, according to this welcome new analysis of his administration. Spanish historian Moreno Cebrián is the author of several other important works on colonial Peru, including El corregidor de indios y la economía peruana del siglo XVIII: Los repartos for-zosos de mercancias (1977); and Túpac Amaru: El cacique inca que rebeló los Andes (1988). He also edited Relación y documentos de gobierno del virrey del Perú, José A. Manso de Velasco, conde de Superunda (1745–1761) (1983).When named viceroy of Peru, Armendáriz already had a long record of service to Philip V, both as a military officer during the War of the Spanish Succession (for which he received the title of marquis) and as governor of Guipúzcoa. He thus enjoyed the crown’s confidence as he attempted to assert royal authority in South America, no easy task because Spain’s control over its Peruvian colony had waned during the moribund final years of Charles II and the tumultuous transition to Bourbon rule under Philip V. Castelfuerte displayed boldness, inflexibility when his authority was challenged, and extreme religiosity in matters of public morality. Viewing the indigenous population as primitive, he had little interest in missions established to convert them and considered mestizos and other people of mixed racial ancestry as dangers to public order and security.Although Moreno Cebrián describes Castelfuerte’s governorship as the first attempt to reform Peru, that claim is somewhat misleading. The viceroy did little to challenge the established social and economic structures of the viceroyalty. Mining maintained its preponderant role in the colonial Andean economy. Interestingly, the prince of Santo Buono (viceroy 1716–20) had attempted the radical reform of closing the Huancavelica mercury mines and abolishing the mita. Castelfuerte tried nothing as extreme and even defended the mita against free labor. Consequently, the state continued to round up mita workers for Potosí and Huancavelica, despite humanitarian misgivings about such forced labor. Meanwhile, the Lima merchant guild retained its monopolistic hold over trade with Spain. Smuggling by Spain’s European rivals still siphoned off sizeable quantities of silver, although Castelfuerte cracked down on contraband. Governors continued to exploit their indigenous subjects by compelling them to purchase high-priced and often unwanted merchandise through the repartos de mercancías.What changed to some extent under Castelfuerte, however, was the viceroy’s, and therefore the crown’s, control of the colony. Castelfuerte faced real challenges to royal authority. Particularly vexatious to him was the church and Lima’s archbishop, Diego Morcillo Rubio de Auñón, who served as interim viceroy of Peru from 1720 to 1724, when he reluctantly surrendered power to Castelfuerte. Afterwards the two officials frequently struggled against each to assert authority and status, which conflicts the marquis won with backing from the crown. Castelfuerte also confronted the Inquisition, refusing to accord it precedence at the expense of royal power. The most serious threat to royal authority, however, was the rebellion in Paraguay, headed by José de Antequera y Castro. It erupted in 1720, long before Castelfuerte’s arrival. His predecessor, the archbishop, failed to suppress the tumult and the monarchy probably selected a military man like Armendáriz to govern Peru, at least in part, to deal with Paraguay. Castelfuerte’s Peru also endured a number of indigenous riots, several resulting in the death of the local governor. Much of the turmoil arose from the great Andean epidemics of 1719, which devastated the indigenous population and led to intensified exploitation of the survivors by the colonial system.Besides his own analysis of Armendáriz, whose length of tenure was the second longest of all Peruvian viceroys, Moreno Cebrián includes transcriptions of the viceroy’s memorials to his successor, both the public Relación written by Pedro de Peralta y Barnuevo, and Castelfuerte’s reservada (secret report). The basic format of the Relación, divided into sections on ecclesiastical, economic, political, and military government, provides the framework for Moreno Cebrián’s own study of Castelfuerte. This breaks up the narrative and hinders the author from emphasizing truly significant matters. Moreno Cebrián starts by describing in detail Castel-fuerte’s efforts to control the Peruvian clergy, not because this was the most important aspect of his rule but because viceroys traditionally began their relaciones by discussing ecclesiastical matters. The book has no conclusion to tie together the various themes that support Castelfuerte as an important cog in the machinery of Bourbon imperial reform.These caveats aside, Moreno Cebrián highlights an important juncture in colonial Peru, when the Bourbon monarchy was sufficiently secure at home to begin reasserting control over the Andes. This hefty, richly documented study provides a useful overview of the transitional period. It offers rewarding reading to Peruvianists and anyone interested in the process of Bourbon imperial reform. Furthermore, the documentary appendix by itself makes the book a valuable acquisition

Art · Humanities · Political science · Population · Sociology · Demography · Historical Studies in Latin America · Historical Studies on Spain · History · Latin American history and culture