I prepared this article while holding an IAS-Santander Early Career Fellowship at the Institute of Advanced Study at the University of Warwick. I would like to thank Anthony McFarlane, Guy Thomson, Deborah Toner, and Ainara Vázquez Várela for their valuable comments on previous incarnations of this material and the editors and reviewers at The Americas for their helpful suggestions.

1. María, José Sáenz, Rcstrepo, Biografìas de los mandatarios y ministros de la Real Audiencia (1671–1819) (Bogota: Editorial Cromos, 1952), p. 63,Google Scholar quoted in Elias Ortiz, Sergio, Nuevo reino de Granada. El virreynato. Tomo I (1719–1753), Historia Extensa de Colombia, Vol. 3 (Bogota: Academia Colombiana de Historia, 1970), p. 61.Google Scholar

2. In the language of the time the Nueva Planta, or new organization, referred to the reorganized structures introduced by Felipe V and his ministers to the political institutions of the Spanish monarchy or its provinces. Most commonly, it refers to the political institutions imposed on the kingdoms of Valencia, Aragon, Catalonia, and Majorca following their occupation by Bourbon forces in the later stages of the War of Succession and the derogation of their traditional constitutions and privileges.

3. Didier Ozanam with collaboration from Quatrefages, René, Los capitanes y comandantes generales de provincias en la España del siglo XVIII (Cordoba: Universidad de Córdoba/Caja Sur, 2008), pp. 186–187.Google Scholar Here he is identified as Antonio Manso y Teruel.

4. Elias Ortiz, Nuevo reino de Granada, p. 62.

5. Little is known about the career of this officer other than that he fought in Valencia during the War of Succession and later became corregidor and military governor of Alicante. He died shortly after arriving in Cartagena de Indias, and by 1725 field marshal Juan José de Andía, marquis of Villahermosa, had arrived to replace him. See Giménez López, Enrique, Gobernar con una misma ley. Sobre la Nueva Piatita borbónica en Valencia (Alicante: Universidad de Alicante, 1999), p. 227, n. 122;Google Scholar and Dionisio de Alsedo y Herrera, “Aviso histórico, político, geográfico con las noticias más particulares del Perii, Tierra Firme, Chile y Nuevo Reino de Granada en la relación de los sucesos de 205 años, por la cronología de los adelantados, presidentes, gobernadores y virreyes de aquel reino meridional, desde el año de 1535 hasta el de 1740 y razón de todo lo obrado por los ingleses en aquellos reinos por las costas de los mares del norte y del sur sin diferencias entre los tiempos de la paz y de la guerra desde el año de 1507 hasta el de 1739,” in Piraterías y agresiones de los ingleses de otros pueblos de Europa en la América española desde el siglo XVI al XVIII deducidas de las obras de D. Dionisio Alsedo y Herrera, ed. Zaragoza, Justo (Seville: Editorial Renacimiento, 2005), p. 273, n.166.Google Scholar

6. Of Manuel Alderete y Franco we know only that he was born in Zamora in 1673, that he obtained a knighthood in the Order of Santiago, and that he served in the Spanish royal guards. See Alós, Fernandoy Merry, del Val and García-Menacho, Eduardoy Osset, , “Los Mangiano,” Anales de la Real Academia Matritense de Heráldica y Genealogía 9: 2005–2006 (2006), p. 41.Google Scholar

7. Moreno Cebrián, Alfredo, El virreinato del marqués de Castelfuerte, 1724–1736. El primer intento borbónico por reformar el Perú (Madrid: Editorial Catriel, 2000), p. 32.Google Scholar

8. On Castelfuerte, the viceroy of Peru, see Cebrián, Moreno, El virreinato del marqués; and Adrian John Pearce, “Early Bourbon Government in the Viceroyalty of Peru, 1700–1759,” Ph.D. diss., University of Liverpool, 1998.Google Scholar On Casafuerte, the viceroy of New Spain, see Ignacio, José Mañé, Rubio, El virreinato I. Orígenes y jurisdicciones, y dinámica social de los virreyes, 2nd ed. [first edition title: Introducción al estudio de los virreyes] (Mexico City: UNAM/Fondo de Cultura Econòmica, 2006 [1955]), pp. 266–270;Google Scholar and Warren Jones, Kenneth, “New Spain and the Viceregency of the Marqués de Casafuerte, 1722–1734,” Ph.D. diss., University of California,1971.Google Scholar

9. See, for example, Maniré, Eduardo, “La militarización de la monarquía borbónica (;Una monarquía militar?),” in Congreso Internacional. El gobierno de un mundo. Virreinatos y audiencias en la América Hispana, ed. Barrios Pintado, Feliciano (Cuenca: Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha/Fundación del Pino, 2004), pp. 453, 463–469.Google Scholar

10. Cañeque, Alejandro, The King’s Living Image. The Culture and Politics of Viceregal Power in Colonial Mexico (New York: Routledge, 2004), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

11. While there exist a number of works that present biographies or biographical sketches of Mexican or Peruvian viceroys in chronological succession, few go beyond the strictly descriptive presentation of details of each individual's life that Cañeque criticized. A notable exception is the work already cited by Rubio Mané, El virreinato I, which attempts to analyze systematically the social origins of the viceroys appointed to New Spain from 1535 up to the mid-eighteenth century.

12. Few exceptions exist beyond the works of Jaime Vicens Vives and Alfonso Garcia Gallo, produced during their debates of the 1940s, concerning the origins of the viceregal institutions introduced in Spanish America in the sixteenth century. For an extensive review and bibliography of such debates, see Belenguer, Ernest, “De virreinatos indianos a virreinatos mediterráneos. Una comparación contrastada,” in Congreso Internacional. El gobierno de un mundo, pp. 321–324;Google Scholar and, in the same volume, Bcrmúdez, Agustín, “La implantación del régimen virreinal en Indias,” pp. 256–262.Google Scholar Unique for its insightful analysis of the evolution of viceregal rule in the Indies from a richly informed comparative perspective is Lalinde Abadía, Jesús, “El régimen virreino-senatorial en Indias,” Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español (1967), pp. 5–244;Google Scholar a more limited comparison of viceregal rule in New Spain and Sicily is Ciaramitaro, Fernando, “El virrey y su gobierno en Nueva España y Sicilia. Analogías y diferencias entre periferias del Imperio Hispánico, Estudios de Historia Novohispana 39 (2008), pp. 117–154.Google Scholar For a thought-provoking comparison of the political dynamics of viceregal rule in sixteenth-century Italy and the crown of Aragon, see José, Carlos Sánches, Hernando , “‘Estar en nuestro lugar, representando nuestra propia persona.’ El gobierno virreinal en Italia y la Corona de Aragón bajo Felipe II,” in Felipe IIy el Mediterráneo, Vol. 3, La monarquía y los reinos (I), ed. Belenguer Cebriá, Ernest (Madrid: Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoración de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V, 1999), pp. 215–338.Google Scholar

13. See, among many others, Andújar Castillo, Francisco, “La corte y los militares en el siglo XVII,” Anales. Real Sociedad Económica de Amigos del País. Valencia, 2001–2002 (2003), pp. 211–238,Google Scholar and “Capitanes generales y capitanías generales en el siglo XVIII,” Revista de Historia Moderna 22 (2004), pp. 7–78; Giménez López, Enrique , Militares en Valencia (1707–1808). Los instrumentos del poder borbónico entre la Nueva Planta y la crisis del Antiguo Régimen (Alicante: Instituto de Cultura Juan Gil-Albert/Diputación de Alicante, 1990);Google Scholar “El debate civilismo-militarismo y el régimen de Nueva Planta en la España del siglo XVIII,” Cuadernos de Historia Moderna 15 (1994), pp. 41–75; and Ozanam, Los capitanes y comandantes.

14. The historiography is too extensive to cite here in detail. See, as an example, Pierre Dedicu, Jean, “La Nueva Planta en su contexto. Las reformas del aparato del estado en el reinado de Felipe V,” Manuscrits. Revista de Historia Moderna 18 (2000), pp. 113–139.Google Scholar

15. Historians have tended to restrict use of the term “Bourbon Spanish America” to the period after 1750, and even more often to the period after 1763. See, for example, Brading, David A., Miners and Merchants in Bourbon Mexico, 1763–1808 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973);Google Scholar Fisher, John R., Bourbon Peru, 1750–1824 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2003);Google Scholar and Barbier, Jacques A., Reform and Politics in Bourbon Chile 1755–1796 (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1980).Google Scholar

16. Fernández Albaladejo, Pablo, “La monarquía de los Borbones,” Fragmentos de monarquía: trabajos de historia política (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1992), pp. 375-409.Google Scholar These concepts and their implications are presented in more detail in Francisco A. Eissa-Barroso, , “Politics, Political Culture and Policy Making: The Reform of Viceregal Rule in the Spanish World under Philip V ( 1700–1746),” Ph.D. diss., University of Warwick, 2010, pp. 84–96.Google Scholar

17. Rubio Mañé, El virreinato I, p. 267.

18. “Pruebas para la concesión del título de caballero de la Orden de Santiago de Juan de Acuña y Bejarano, natural de Lima,” Archivo Histórico Nacional-Madrid (hereafter AHN), OM-Santiago, Exp. 40.

19. Rubio Mañé, El virreinato I, pp. 267–268; Jones, “New Spain and the Viceregency,” p. 12.

20. Pearce, “Early Bourbon Government,” p. 15; Mendiburu, Manuel de, Diccionario histórico-biográ-fico del Perú, Vol. 1 (Lima: Imprenta de J. Francisco Solis, 1874) p. 346.Google Scholar

21. “Pruebas para la concesión del título de caballero de la Orden de Santiago de José de Armendáriz y Perurena, natural de Pamplona, Maestre de Campo de Dragones,” AHN, OM-Santiago, Exp. 624, f. 4r.

22. Ozanam, Los capitanes y comandantes, p. 264; Jones, “New Spain and the Viceregency,” p. 13; and Rubio Mañé, El virreinato I, p. 268.

23. “Pruebas para la concesión … de la Orden de Santiago de Juan de Acuña”, AHN, OM-Santiago, Exp. 40.

24. Ozanam, Los capitanes y comandantes, p. 264.

25. Jones, “New Spain and the Viceregency,” p. 13.

26. “Real despacho a nombre de don Juan de Acuña, concediéndole el título de Marqués de Casa Fuerte,” AHN, Consejos, 8976, A.1709, Exp. 202.

27. Cebrián, Moreno, El virreinato del marqués, p. 22;Google Scholar Mendiburu, , Diccionario histérico-biográfico. Vol 1, p. 346.Google Scholar

28. Ibid., incorrectly gives his rank as maestre de capitán; Cebrián, Moreno, El virreinato del marqués, p. 22.Google Scholar

29. “Pruebas para … Caballero de … Santiago de José de Armendáriz,” AHN, OM-Santiago, Exp. 624.

30. Cebrián, Moreno, El virreinato del marqués, pp. 22–23.Google Scholar

31. Ibid., p. 24, suggests incorrectly that Armendáriz was “sargento mayor in the Guardias de Corps.” Some of the documents given to Armendáriz upon his appointment as viceroy of Peru clearly identify him as “lieutenant-colonel of the regiment of Spanish infantry guards,” an altogether different branch of the armed forces charged with protecting the king. See “Ynstrucción reservada de lo que el Marqués de Castelfuerte ha de ejecutar en el Perú luego que tome posesión de aquel virreinato,“ Archivo General de Indias-Seville (hereafter AGI), Indiferente, 513, L.6, f. 86r.

32. Cebrián, Moreno, El virreinato del marqués, pp. 23–24.Google Scholar

33. “Real despacho a nombre de don José de Armendáriz concediéndole el título de Marqués de Castel-Rierte, título de Navarra,” AHN, Consejos, 8976, A.1711, Exp. 219.

34. Jones, , “New Spain and the Viceregency,” p. 13; Ozanam, Los capitanes y comandantes, p. 264.Google Scholar

35. Ozanam, , Los capitanes y comandantes, p. 71.Google Scholar

36. Ángel, Miguel Aguilera, Alonso, La conquista y el dominio español de Cerdcña (1717–1720). Introducción a la política española en el Mediterráneo posterior a la Paz de Utrecht (Valladolid: Universidad de Val-ladolid/Secretariado de Publicaciones, 1977), pp. 115–116;Google Scholar Maqueda Abreu, Consuelo, “En torno al decreto de Nueva Planta de Cerdeña, 1717–1720,” Revista de Derecho UNED 1 (2006), p. 447.Google Scholar

37. Cebrián, Moreno, El virreinato del marqués, p. 26.Google Scholar Between his evacuation from Sicily during the summer of 1720 and his appointment to Guipúzcoa, Armendáriz y Pcrurena participated in the flash campaign which broke the siege of Ceuta during the winter of 1720–1721. His performance in battle earned him a special commendation. On the Spanish expedition to Ceuta, see Kamen, Henry, Philip V of Spain: The King Who Reigned Twice (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2001), pp. 129–130.Google Scholar

38. New regulations issued on April 10, 1702, defined the upper ranks of the Spanish army by establishing the ranks of field marshal and lieutenant-general. See Sánchez Marcos, Fernando, “Los oficiales generales de Felipe V,” Cuadernos de Investigación Histórica 6 (1982), p. 242;Google Scholar Andújar Castillo, Francisco, “Las elites de poder militar en la España borbónica. Introducción a su estudio prosopográfico,” in Sociedad, administración y poder en la España del Antiguo Régimen, ed. Juan Luis Castellano (Granada: Universidad de Granada/Diputación Provincial de Granada, 1996), p. 218, n. 18;Google Scholar and Castillo, Andújar, “La corte y los mil-itares en el siglo XVIII,” p. 223.Google Scholar

39. As Castillo, Andújar in “Las elites de poder militar … introducción,” p. 214,Google Scholar has pointed out, “the ‘noble’ service of the arms would ennoble those who practiced it while increasing the privileges of those who had started a military career having already proven their social condition. Professional promotions without honors would have distorted the fundamental essence of the nobility."”

40. Ibid., p. 218.

41. The old Habsburg guard comprised three corps of halberdiers: the Flemish archeros de la cuchilla, the Spanish halberdiers, and the Tudesque guard. Early in Felipe’s reign they were replaced by the infantry guard and the guardia de corps, created in 1704, and a company of halberdiers reformed in 1707. For more detail, see Dedieu, , “La Nueva Planta en su contexto,” pp. 126–127;Google Scholar and Castillo, Andújar, “Élites de poder militar: las guardias reales en el siglo XVIII,” in La pluma, la mitra y la espada. Estudios de historia institucional en la edad moderna, eds. Luis Castellano, Juan, Pierre Dedieu, Jean , and Ma. López-Cordón, Victoria (Madrid: Marcial Pons/Universidad de Burdeos, 2000), p. 66.Google Scholar

42. Castillo, Andújar, “La corte y los militares,” p. 213.Google Scholar

43. Ibid., pp. 214–220; Dedieu, , “La Nueva Planta,” pp. 127–129 Google Scholar. In particular, four characteristics distinguished the royal guards: 1) they were completely autonomous from the rest of the army, placed directly under the command of the king without the intervention of the secretary for war, the directors-general, or the inspectors of the armed forces; 2) they enjoyed an exclusive and privileged fuero, which meant that all matters of civil and criminal justice involving members of the guard would be dealt with by the commanding officers of the guard with appeals going directly to the king and not to the council of war; 3) their officers had their own promotional ladder and their rankings had particularly high equivalents in the regular army; and 4) given their status as a corps intended for the higher nobility, the social rank and status of their officers were subject to a more rigorous scrutiny before appointment.

44. Meneses, Diego Manuel y Toledo, , Lucero de origen, honores, privilegios y exempeiones de reales guardias de corps y su principal obligación (Madrid: 1738), p. 16,Google Scholar quoted in Castillo, Andújar, “Élites de poder militar… guardias,” p. 67.Google Scholar

45. Dedieu, , “La Nueva Planta,” pp. 129–130.Google Scholar

46. From its inception, members of the royal guard of the Bourbon kings had enjoyed a number of privileges that initially offended the grandees and upset the structure and hierarchy of the royal household. On these matters see, for instance, Gómez-Centurión, Carlos Jiménez, , “Etiqueta y ceremonial palatino durante el reinado de Felipe V: el reglamento de entradas de 1709 y el acceso a la persona del rey,” Hispania 56/3:194 (1996), pp. 986–990;Google Scholar and Castillo, Andújar, “La corte y los militares,” pp. 220–222.Google Scholar

47. Castillo, Andújar, “Élites de poder militar … guardias,” p. 88.Google Scholar

48. Castillo, Andújar, “Las elites de poder militar… introducción,” pp. 225–228.Google Scholar

49. It was Iñigo de Acuña who requested on behalf of his half-brother the knighthood in the Order of Santiago that Acuña y Bejarano received in 1679, and it was he who sorted out the documents requested during the investigation of Juan de Acuña’s lineage. See “Pruebas … de Juan de Acuña,” AHN, OM-Santiago, Exp. 40. Although we know very little about Iñigo de Acuña’s career, there is no doubt that, at least until the ascension of the Bourbon dynasty, he had a fair degree of influence at court. He had secured for his son an appointment as a page in Carlos II’s household, as well as a second knighthood, and was himself made first marquis of Escalona in 1679. See Mañé, Rubio, El virreinato I, p. 268;Google Scholar and Jones, , “New Spain and the Viceregency,” p. 248.Google Scholar

50. According to Castillo, Andújar, “La corte y los militares,” p. 223,Google Scholar only 70 men reached the rank of captain-general of the royal armies between 1700 and 1808.

51. Castillo, Andújar, “Las dites de poder militar … introducción,” pp. 233–234.Google Scholar

52. During the War of Succession, most, if not all the corregimientos located near the border with France and Portugal or along the coast were transformed into politico-military governorships. In Andalusia, for instance, this was the case in Almería, Matril, Malaga, Puerto de Santa Maria, Sanlucar, and Cadiz. At the same time, important settlements such as Granada, Jaén, Ronda, Antequera, and Ecija retained their cor-regimientos simply because they were further away from the coast and could not be so easily attacked. See Castillo, Andújar, “Capitanes generales y capitanías generales en el siglo XVIII,” p. 16.Google Scholar

53. Jones, , “New Spain and the Viceregency,” p. 13.Google Scholar

54. Mendiburu, , Diccionario histérico-biográfico, Vol. 1, p. 347.Google Scholar

55. The one exception to this rule was the captaincy-general of the Canary Islands, which was often served by mere field marshals. See Castillo, Andújar, “Capitanes generales y capitanías,” pp. 19, 31–32.Google Scholar

56. According to Andujar Castillo in the aforementioned work, p. 20, these two captaincies-general were never governed by a captain-general of the royal armies, something that happened at least once in all the others and almost uninterruptedly in Catalonia and Valencia. Moreover, the captaincies-general of Extremadura and Andalucía, along with those of Old Castile and Costa de Granada were the only ones in which the captain-general did not serve jointly as president of the audiencia.

57. Nominally, all the provincial captains-general earned the same salary. Higher pay was offered by diplomatic appointments and some positions at court. Ibid., pp. 16–17, 26.

58. See Eissa-Barroso, , “Politics, Political Culture and Policy Making,” pp. 63–117;Google Scholar and Castillo, Andujar, “Capitanes generales y capitanías,” pp. 41–56.Google Scholar

59. Casafuerte was responsible for encouraging the nobility to join the detachment of dragoons of Majorca, so that it could become a regiment. See Castillo, Andújar, El sonido del dinero. Monarquía, ejército y venalidad en la España del siglo XVIII (Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2004), pp. 81, 83–84.Google Scholar

60. Abreu, Maqueda, “En tomo al decreto,” p. 447.Google Scholar

61. Kamen, , Philip V of Spain, pp. 124–125.Google Scholar Indeed, the Basques had even proposed to recognize French sovereignty over the three provinces if they were given guarantees that their fueros and liberties would be preserved, although nothing seems to have come of it.

62. Miguel, José Turina, Morán, La imagen del rey: Felipe V y el arte (Madrid: Nerca, 1990), p. 19.Google Scholar

63. de Saavedra Fajardo, Diego, Idea de un principe politico christiano: representada en cien empresas. Va enmendada en esta sexta impresión de todos los yerros que avia en las otras (Valencia: Francisco Cipres, 1675).Google Scholar After the first edition of 1640, Spanish reprints appeared in 1642, 1648, 1656, 1658, 1659, 1660, 1664, 1665, 1666, 1675, 1677, 1678, 1684, 1695, and 1724, with a few others in the later eighteenth century. Latin translations of the Spanish original were printed in 1649, 1650, 1651, 1659, 1660, 1669, 1686, 1748, and 1759. There were also several German editions and an English one in 1700.

64. Turina, Moran, La imagen del rey, pp. 24–25.Google Scholar

65. For a contemporary example of these arguments see “Representación a Carlos II del Obispo de Sol-sona, 5 de octubre de 1694,” Biblioteca Nacional de España-Madrid (hereafter BNE), Manuscritos, Ms/10.695, ff. 107–121.

66. Turina, Morán, La imagen del rey, p. 17.Google Scholar

67. Ibid., p. 48.

68. See Portocarrero, Pedroy Guzmán, , Teatro monárquico de España, ed. Sanz Ayán, Carmen (Madrid: Boletín Oficial del Estado/Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 1998 [1700]).Google Scholar

69. Novísima recopilación de las leyes de España. Dividida en Xll libros en que se reforma la recopilación publicada por el Señor Don Felipe H en el año de 1567, reimpresa últimamente en elde 1775: y se incorporan las pragmáticas, cédulas, decretos, órdenes y resoluciones reales, y otras providencias no recopiladas, y expedidas hasta el de 1804. Mandada formar por el Señor Don Carlos IV. Vol. II (Madrid: 1805), pp. 405–09: 1st law, 9th title, 5th book.

70. Ibid., p. 14: 2nd law, 3rd title, 3rd book.

71. Turina, Morán, La imagen del rey, p. 66.Google Scholar

72. Ibid., p. 18.

73. Quoted in Cárceles de Gea, Beatriz, “Juicio y debate del régimen polisinodal en las campañas políticas del reinado de Carlos II,” Pedralbes. Revista d'Història Moderna 7 (1987), p. 117.Google Scholar

74. María, Luis García-Badell, Arias, “;Felipe V, la nobleza española y el Consejo de Castilla. La ‘Explicación jurídica e histórica de la consulta que hizo el Real Consejo de Castilla’ atribuida a Macanaz,” Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho 12 (2005), pp. 141–142.Google Scholar

75. Quoted in ibid., p. 142.

76. Ibid., pp. 138–145.

77. On the characteristics of the letrados and their position at the heart of the legal system of ancien régime Spain, see Pierre Dedieu, Jean, “La muerte del letrado,” Hyper Article en Ligne-Sciences de l’Homme et de Ια Société [halshs-00004670 - version 1] (2005), pp. 1–3.Google Scholar

78. Gonzalez Alonso, Benjamin, “El fortalecimiento del estado borbónico y las reformas administrativas,” in Carlos III y Ια Ilustración, Vol. 1 (Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura/Comisión Nacional Organizadora del Bicentenario, 1988), p. 88.Google Scholar

79. Dedieu, , “La muerte del letrado,” pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

80. These arguments would find some of their strongest proponents among future ministers of Felipe V, like José del Campillo and the marquis of La Ensenada. See Alonso, González, “El fortalecimiento del estado,” pp. 88–91.Google Scholar

81. Domat, Jean, “The publick law,” in Tlie Civil Law in its Natural Order: Together with the Publick Law. Written in French by Monsieur Domat, The late French King’s Advocate in the Presidiai Court of Clermont in France, And Translated into English by William Strahan, LL.D. Advocate in Doctors Commons. With Additional Remarks on some Material Differences between the Civil Law and the Law of England, 2nd ed., Vol. 2 (London: Printed for D. Midwinter, A. Bettesworth and C. Hitch, G. Strahan, J. and J. Pemberton, R. Ware, C. Rivington, F. Clay, J. Batley and J. Wood, A. Ward, J. and P. Knapton, T. Longman, and R. Hett, 1737), pp. 419–420.Google Scholar

82. Ibid., p. 420.

83. Ibid.

84. Ibid., p. 421.

85. “Representación a Carlos II del Obispo de Solsona,” BNE, Manuscritos, Ms/10.695, f. 113v.

86. Ibid., f. 114r.

87. Kamen, Henry, “Melchor de Macanaz and the Foundations of Bourbon Power in Spain,” English Historical Review 80:317 (1964), p. 6.Google Scholar

88. Ibid.

89. Ramírez Barragán, Pedro, “Idea de político gobierno,” in Gobernar en Extremadura. Un proyecto de gobierno en el siglo XVIII, eds. Rodríguez Sánchez, Angel, Rodríguez Cacho, Miguel, Luis Pereira Iglesias, José, and Testón Núñez, Isabel (Caceres: Asamblea de Extremadura, 1986), p. 160,Google Scholar quoted in Giménez López, Enrique, “El debate civilismo-militarismo y el régimen de Nueva Planta en la España del siglo XVIII,” Cuadernos de Historia Moderna 15 (1994). p. 71.Google Scholar Ramírez Barragán’s text dates from 1769.

90. See “Yndice de los despachos de SM que se entregan al Exmo. Sr. Marques de Valero, a qn ha hecho mrd del virreynato de Na. Spaña para que en su vrd le pueda servir, todos con fecha de 22 de noviembre de 1715,” AGI, Indiferente, 515, L.3, ff. 133r-134r. On the margin off. 134r. a note indicates that “On 22 April 1722 the same dispatches contained in this index were issued so that the marquis of Casafuerte could serve as viceroy of New Spain.”

91. According to the records in AGI, Indiferente, 515, L.3, Casafuerte received the same instructions as the marquis of Valero (f. 134r), Valero received the same ones as the duke of Linares (f. 133r) and Linares received (f. 129v) a copy of the ones issued without a name on April 22, 1709, apparently in an updated pliego lie mortaja (instructions for the appointment of an interim viceroy in case of the incumbent’s death) for Albur-querque. The instructions of 1709 (ff. 68v-l 19r), comprising 63 chapters, were only marginally different from those given to Alburqucrque in 1702 (ff. 20v-57r).

92. Nonetheless, we cannot tell for sure. The records of viceregal titles and dispatches kept by the secretary for New Spain in the council of the Indies during the first half of the eighteenth century (AGI, Indiferente, 515, L.3) are much less precise than those kept by the secretary for Peru (AGI, Indiferente, 513, L.4). Moreover, while the General Archive of the Indies contains a legajo with all the titles and instructions issued by the secretaries of state without the intervention of the Council of the Indies for the viceroys of Peru between 1718 and 1744 (AGI, Indiferente, 513, L.6); no equivalent exists for New Spain.

93. “Despachos que se dieron por el Virreynato del Peru a Don Joseph de Armendáriz Marqs. de Castelfuerte,” AGI, Indiferente, 513, L.4, ff. 329r–482v.

94. Castelfuerte’s instructions (AGI, Indiferente, 513, L.4, ff. 392v-464r) are slightly different from those given to his predecessors, the prince of Santo Buono and marquis of Castelldosrius. Castelfuerte’s comprised 73 chapters, while the ones issued to Santo Buono and Castelldosrius comprised 76. The differences, however, are very minor. See “Instruzon. al Conde de Canillas a qn. V.M. ha proveydo pr Virrey, Govr. y Capitan Geni de las Provas. del Peru en Ynterim,” AGI, Indiferente, 513, L.4, ff. 147r–210r).

95. See “Ynstruccion reservada de lo que el Marques de Castelfuerte ha de egecutar en el Peru luego de que tome posesión de aquel Virreynato,” AGI, Indiferente, 513, L.6, ff. 86r-91v. José Gutiérrez de Grimaldo, first marquis of Grimaldo, was one of Felipe V's most trusted ministers, a secretary of state from 1705 to 1726 and the leading figure of government between 1709 and 1710 and again from 1720 to 1724. See Concepción, de Castro, A la sombra de Felipe V. José de Grimaldo, ministro responsable (1703–1726) (Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2004);Google Scholar and Eissa-Barroso, , “Politics, Political Culture and Policy Making,” pp. 356–360.Google Scholar

96. “Título Virrey y Govor, de las Provas. del Perú pa. Don Joseph Armendáriz Marques de Castelfuerte,” AGI, Indiferente, 513, L.4, f. 329r.

97. “Título de Don Antonio de Mendoza, como Visorrey,” in Instrucciones y memorias de los virreyes novohispanos, ed. de la Torre Villar, Ernesto , comp. and index by de Anda, Ramiro Navarro, Vol. 1 (Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa, 1991), p. 76;Google Scholar “Instrucción secreta a Antonio de Mendoza, 17 de abril de 1535,” in the same work, p. 90; and “Ampliación de la instrucción a Antonio de Mendoza, 14 de julio de 1536,” also in the same work, p. 97.

98. “Título de Virrey, Govor, y Capn. Geni. de las Provas. del Peru pa. Dn. Nicolas Caracholo, Principe de Santo Bueno y Duque de Castel da Sangro en lugar del Marques de Castelldosrius,” AGI, Indiferente, 513, L.4, f. 259v.

99. See for example “Título de Virrey y Govor, de las Provas. del Peru para el Conde de Cañete del Pinar en lugar del Conde de la Monetava,” AGI, Indiferente, 513, L.3, ff. lr-2v. The lack of any references to the count’s personal qualities is probably explained by the fact that Cañete’s appointment is usually cited as the most cynical instance of the sale of a viceregency. See, for instance, Castillo, Andiijar, Necesidad y venalidad, pp. 279–280.Google Scholar

100. “Ynstruccion reservada de … el Marques de Castelfuerte,” AGI, Indiferente, 513, L.6, ff. 86v-87r. It should be noted, however, that the use of these expressions is not altogether unique and that essentially the same phrases were used to describe the third marquis of Villagarcia in the secret instructions he received upon his appointment as Castelfuerte’s replacement. See, “Ynstruccion [reservada] de lo que a de observebar el Marques dc Villa Garzia electo Virrey del Peru,” AGI, Indiferente, 513, L.6, ff. 91v-145r.

101. “Ynstruccion reservada de … el Marques de Castelfuerte,” AGI, Indiferente, 513, L.6, ff. 87r-v.

102. Ibid., f. 87r.

103. As did all other Peruvian viceroys, Castelfuerte received a specific instruction to visit and examine both the fortresses and the garrisons of Tierra Firme and Cartagena on his way to Lima (“Sobre q Dn Joseph de Armendáriz Marqs de Castelfuerte visite y reconozca los castillos y fuerzas de Tierra Firme y Cartagena,” AGI, Indiferente, 513, L.4, ff. 367v-369r), but no additional or unique instructions were given in this or any other military matter. Of course, since both Castelfuerte and Casafuerte were appointed captains-general for the territories of their viceroyaltics—as were all other viceroys—they were involved in some ventures of strictly military nature. Casafuerte, in New Spain, dealt with the organization of expeditions to complete the conquest of Nayarit and expel the English from Belize, and he also showed particular interest in reforming the lives of soldiers in the chain of outposts or presidios that garrisoned the northern frontier of his viceroyalty. See Jones, , “New Spain and the Viceregency,” pp. 30–57, 132–155 and 161–71.Google Scholar Castelfuerte, in turn, was involved in organizing the expeditions sent to suppress the rebellions in Paraguay and had to deal with the defense and pacification of the southern borders in Chile and Tucumán as well as with Portuguese encroachments near Montevideo. See Cebrián, Moreno, El virreinato del marqués, pp. 287–322.Google Scholar

104. This included matters of economic and political government as well as issues described as “de policía.” For more detail see García-Gallo, Alfonso, “La capitanía general como institución de gobierno político en España e Indias en el siglo XVIII,” in Memoria del tercer congreso venezolano de historia del 26 de septiembre al 1 de octubre de 1977, Vol. 1 (Caracas: Academia Nacional de la Historia, 1979), pp. 543–544.Google Scholar

105. Ibid., p. 545.

106. Ibid.

107. “Ynstruccion reservada de … el Marques de Castelfuerte,” AGI, Indiferente, 513, L.6, ff. 86r-v.

108. Ibid., f. 87r.

109. Ibid., f. 86v.

110. Ibid., ff. 87r-v.

111. Ibid., f. 87v.

112. Ibid., ff. 88r-v, 90r-91r.

113. Ibid., f. 88v.

114. Jones, , “New Spain and the Viceregency,” p. 14,Google Scholar refers to the letters of appointment issued to Casafuerte on April 22, 1722, which apparently made reference to “his many services to the crown, including the new viceroy’s position in the council of war and his commanding status in the royal armies.” I have been unable to access these documents, which are presumably located in AGI, Mexico, 1217.

115. Every biography of Casafuerte and every description of his tenure as viceroy of New Spain contains at least one phrase that indicates “he enjoyed great favor and the outmost trust of Felipe V”; the quote here is in Alcázar Molina, Cayetano, Los virreinatos en el siglo XVIII (Barcelona: Salvat Editores, 1945), p. 20.Google Scholar

116. “VMgd. prorroga al Marqs. de Casa Fuerte el virreynato de la Na. Espa. pr. tres años mas en aten-zion a su calidad méritos y servicios,” AGI, Indiferente, 515, L.3, f. 174v.

117. One often-quoted anecdote has Felipe V exclaiming, in reply to those who urged him to appoint a new viceroy to replace an aging Casafuerte, that “If Casafuerte lives, his talents and virtues give him the vigor required of a good minister.” See Cavo, Andrés, Los tres siglos de México durante el gobierno español, hasta la entrada del ejército trigarante, obra escrita en Roma por el Padre Andres Cavo de la Compañía de Jesus. Publícala con notas y suplemento, el Lic. Carlos María de Bustamante, Vol. 2 (Mexico City: Imprenta de Luis Aba-diano y Valdés, 1836), p. 135.Google Scholar

118. Gómez Gómez, Amalia , Las visitas de la Real Hacienda novohispana en el reinado de Felipe V (1710-1733) (Seville: Publicaciones de la Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Aniericanos de Sevilla, 1979), pp. 189–212,Google Scholar has demonstrated convincingly that despite repeated attempts at organizing a visita of New Spain’s royal exchequer under Felipe V, the only significant steps toward overhauling the fiscal administration of the viceroyalty were undertaken between 1722 and 1733 through the collaboration between Casafuerte and Prudencio Antonio de Palacios, a former unsuccessful visitador (1716) who was then serving as fiscal in Mexico City’s audiencia.

119. See, among many others, Archivo General de la Nación-México City, Reales Cédulas Originales, Vol. 44, Exps. 6, 17, 19, 28, 41, 64, 72, 83 and 86; and Vol. 45, Exps. 8, 19, 27, 36, 39, 58, 63, 65, 88, 96, 97, 126, 129, 134, etc.

120. Gómez Gómez, Las visitas de la Real Hacienda, p. 197.

121. “Ynstruccion reservada de … el Marques de Castelfuerte,” AGI, Indiferente, 513, L.6, ff. 87r-v.

122. “VMgd. prorroga al Marqs. de Casa Fuerte,” AGI, Indiferente, 515, L.3, f. 174v.

123. Antonio Lorenzana, Francisco, “Gobierno político de la Nueva-España, y Virreinato, que compre-hende a el Arzobispado de México, Diócesis de Puebla, Oaxaca, Provincia de Tabasco, y Michoacan, y también las de Guadalaxara, y Durango, cuyo distrito pertenece a la Real Audiencia de Guadalaxara,” in Historia de Nueva España, escrita por su esclarecido conquistador Hernán Cortes, aumentada con otros documentos y notas por el Ilustrissimo señor don Francisco Antonio Lorenzana, Arzobispo de Mexico (Mexico City: Imprenta del Superior Gobierno, 1770), p. 31.Google Scholar

124. Cavo, Los tres siglos de Mexico, p. 135. Moreover, according to Cavo, Casafucrte’s “disinterested demeanor which he maintained for over twelve years … earned him not only the veneration and appreciation of everyone but also the many tears which were shed at his funeral.” Cavo’s work, originally titled “History of Mexico” or “Annals of Mexico City,” was written between 1791 and 1798, although it remained unpublished until Bustamante edited it in 1836.

125. Ibid., p. 123.

126. Juan, Jorgeand de Ulloa, Antonio, Noticias secretas de America, sobre el estado naval, militar y politico de los reynos del Peru y provincias de Quito, costas de Nueva Granada y Chile; gobierno y regimen particular de los pueblos de indios; cruel opresión y extorsiones de sus corregidores y curas; abusos escandalosos introducidos entre estos habitantes por los misioneros; causas de su origen y motivos de su continuación por el espacio de tres siglos (London: Imprenta de R. Taylor, 1826), pp. 397–398.Google Scholar

127. Ibid., p. 315.

128. This is certainly the opinion of Jones, “New Spain and the Viceregency” ,p.87, according to whom Casafuerte “sought impartiality in his actions so that benefits from increased efficiency [in government] would accrue not only to the Peninsula, but also to the colony.”

129. Undeniably, both viceroys produced significant improvements in the royal exchequers of their respective provinces. Both men reported having found the coffers empty and revenue insufficient to meet ordinary costs. By the end of their tenures, through programs of intensive savings and cuts, collection of amounts outstanding, projects carefully crafted to increase revenue, and tighter supervision of royal officials, they could each report significant improvements in the situation of the royal arks. See Jones, , “New Spain and the Viceregency,” pp. 63–69, 85–88, 209–214; and Moreno Cebrián, El virreinato del marquis, pp. 155–248.Google Scholar It is more difficult to judge the viceroys’ successes in dealing with contraband—a matter in which Jones, for instance, judged Casafuerte “no more successful than other officials before him” (p. 259). On the recommendations put forward by Casafuerte’s junta de medios (an adhoc committee charged with advising the viceroy on principles of fiscal governance) and his policies on illicit trade, see Jones, , “New Spain and the Viceregency,” pp. 69–73, 77–82, and 120–125. On Castelfuerte’s efforts to fight illicit trade see Moreno Cebrián, El virreinato del marques, pp. 208–228.Google Scholar

130. Casafuerte fell ill in February 1734 and soon thereafter was so weak as to be unable to leave his bed. On the morning of March 17, 1734, he passed away in the viceregal palace of Mexico City at the age of 76. See Jones, “New Spain and the Viceregency,” pp. 246–247.

131. On Casafuerte’s residencia, see ibid., pp. 254-258; on Castelfuerte’s, see Moreno Cebrián, El virreinato del marqués, pp. 36-48, and the same author’s “ Acumulación y blanqueo de capitales del Marqués de Castelfuerte (1723–1763),” in El ‘Premio’ de ser virrey. Los intereses públicos y privados del gobierno virreinal en el Peru de Felipe V, eds. Moreno Cebrián, Alfredo and Sala i Vila, Nuria (Madrid: CSIC-Instituto de Historia, 2004), pp. 159–160.Google Scholar

132. de México, Gazcta, No. 101 (April 1736), quoted and translated in Jones, “New Spain and the Viceregency,” pp. 257–258.Google Scholar

133. Moreno Cebrián, El virreinato del marqués, p. 34, and “Acumulación y blanqueo,” p. 156, η. 16.

134. Moreno Cebrián, El virreinato del marqués, pp. 34–35.

135. Ibid., p. 35.

136. Ibid., p. 49. The king himself presented Castelfuerte with the necklace of the order on April 24, 1738.

137. Moreno Cebrián, “Acumulación y blanqueo.”

138. On the size of his fortune and the method by which it was amassed, see ibid. On the foundation of mayorazgos see Moreno Cebrián, El virreinato del marqués, pp. 48–57.

139. Nuria Sala i Vila, “Una corona bien vale un virreinato: el marqués de Castelldosrius, primer virrey borbónico del Perú (1707–1710),” in El ‘premio’ de ser virrey, p. 111 ; sec Moreno Cebrián, “Acumulación y blanqueo,” p. 275, n. 294, for a comparison with the fortune raised by another viceroy of Peru, Manuel de Amat.

140. Rubio Mañé, El virreinato I, p. 269. Other viceregal representatives of these new “middle classes” included, according to Rubio Mañe, the two counts of Rcvillagigedo, the marquises of Amarillas and Cruil-las, Matías Gálvcz and his son the count of Gálvez, and Manuel Antonio de Flores (pp. 269–270). The claim would perhaps be more accurate if we were to read “minor nobility” in place of “middle classes.”

141. Pearce, “Early Bourbon Government,” pp. 15–20.

142. Altamira, Rafael, A History of Spain from the Beginnings to the Present Day, trans. Lee, Muna (Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1949). p. 474.Google Scholar

143. Ibid., pp. 473–474.

144. Two of the notable exceptions occurred in the reign of Felipe V: the third marquis of Villagarcia, immediate successor of Castelfuerte, and the fifth count of Fuenclara, viceroy of New Spain from 1742 to 1746. Very little is known of the former; the latter was a diplomat who had played a key role in securing the marriage of the future Carlos III and was himself married to José Patiño’s niece.

145. Ozanam, Los capitanes y comandantes.