Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:15:05.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bourbon manoeuvres in the plaza: shifting urban models in late colonial Lima

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

GABRIEL RAMÓN
GABRIEL RAMÓN*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Humanidades, Sección Historia, Pontificia Universidad Catόlica del Perú PUCP, Lima, Perú
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Most colonial Hispanic American cities were originally planned around a main plaza, which was a multifunctional square crucial for urban life. This spatial model for the whole city based on a main square is termed the Plaza Mayor model. Bourbon reforms of the second half of the eighteenth century aimed at transforming this model according to a Plaza de Armas organization. Here, these two models (Plaza Mayor and Plaza de Armas) are characterized, and their contradictions in terms of political projects and quotidian city life are analysed. For late colonial Lima, Bourbon efforts to introduce the Plaza de Armas are shown to have affected both the main function of the central square and the entire urban system.

Type
Dyos Prize winner 2017
Information
Urban History , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , November 2017 , pp. 622 - 646
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hereafter the words central (or main) esplanade, plaza or square will be used interchangeably to refer to the space occupied by the Plaza Mayor and Plaza de Armas. For the minor public spaces in front of some churches the term plazuela will be used.

2 For a historical distinction between both concepts it is convenient to start with: Covarrubias, S., Tesoro de la lengua castellana o española [1539–1613] (Madrid, 2006)Google Scholar; and Diccionario de Autoridades [1726–39] (Madrid, 1963). On the many names of the plaza, see Novick, A. and Favelukes, G., ‘Plaza’, in Topalov, C., Bresciani, S., Coudroy, L. and Riviere, H. (eds.), A aventura das palavras da cidade, através dos tempos, das línguas e das sociedades (São Paulo, 2014), 498–509 Google Scholar.

3 On the relation between urban types and kinds of centralities, see the classic discussion in Lefebvre, H., Le droit à la ville (Paris, 1968), 147–50Google Scholar, passim. I share his typological impulse, but do not necessarily agree with the types he identifies as needing to be expanded and refined through historical explorations like the one proposed here.

4 Paquette, G., ‘The dissolution of the Spanish Atlantic monarchy’, Historical Journal, 52 (2009), 184–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 On this revisionist historiography, see Eissa-Barroso, F. and Vázquez, A. (eds.), Early Bourbon Spanish America Politics and Society in a Forgotten Era (1700–1759) (Leiden, 2013)Google Scholar.

6 My perspective on the Bourbon project and Hispanic American cities combines: Brading, D., ‘The city in Bourbon Spanish America: elite and masses’, Comparative Urban Research, 8 (1980), 71–85 Google Scholar; Clement, J.P., ‘El nacimiento de la higiene urbana en la América española del siglo XVIII’, Revista de Indias, 43 (1983), 77–95 Google Scholar; Dávalos, M., Basura e ilustración (Mexico, 1997)Google Scholar; Estenssoro, J.C., ‘Modernismo, estética, música y fiesta: elites y cambio de actitud frente a la cultura popular, Perú 1750–1850’, in Urbano, H. (ed.), Tradición y modernidad en los Andes (Cuzco, 1992), 181–94Google Scholar; idem, ‘La plebe ilustrada: el pueblo en las fronteras de la razón’, in Walker, C. (ed.), Entre la retórica y la insurgencia: las ideas y los movimientos sociales en los Andes, siglo XVIII (Cuzco, 1996), 33–66 Google Scholar; Navarro, L., ‘Carlos III y América’, in La América Española en la Época de Carlos III (Seville, 1985), 9–16 Google Scholar; Ramón, G., ‘Urbe y orden: evidencias del reformismo borbónico en el tejido limeño’, in O'Phelan, S. (ed.), El Perú en el siglo XVIII (Lima, 1999), 295–324 Google Scholar; idem, ‘La política borbónica del espacio urbano y el cementerio general (Lima 1760–1820)', Histórica, 28 (2004), 111–13; idem, ‘Ilustrar la urbe: planos de Lima borbónica’, Illapa, 7 (2010), 62–79; Vega, J., ‘Las reformas borbónicas y la ciudad americana’, in de Terán, F. and Aguilera, J. (eds.), La ciudad hispanoamericana. El sueño de un orden (Madrid, 1989), 240–4Google Scholar; Viqueira, J., ¿Relajados o reprimidos? Diversiones públicas y vida social en la ciudad de México durante el Siglo de las Luces (Mexico, 1987)Google Scholar; Voekel, P., ‘Peeing on the palace: bodily resistance to the Bourbon reforms in Mexico City’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 5 (1992), 183–208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walker, C., ‘Civilize or control? The lingering impact of the Bourbon urban reforms’, in Jacobsen, N. and Aljovín, C. (eds.), Political Cultures in the Andes 1750–1950 (Urbana–Champaign, 2005), 75–87 Google Scholar.

7 For a comparative discussion of the cycles of construction of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Lima, see Ramón, G., ‘El guión de la cirugía urbana: Lima 1850–1940’, in Ensayos en Ciencias Sociales (Lima, 2004), 9–33 Google Scholar.

8 Gade, D., ‘Latin American central plaza as a functional space’, in Tata, R. (ed.), Latin America: search for geographic explanations (Chapel Hill, 1978), 16–23 Google Scholar; Hardoy, J. and Hardoy, A., ‘Las plazas coloniales en América Latina’, DANA, 15 (1983), 93–118 Google Scholar; Ricard, R., ‘La Plaza Mayor en Espagne et en Amérique espagnole’, Annales ESC, 4 (1947), 433–8Google Scholar; Rojas, M., La Plaza Mayor. El urbanismo, instrumento de dominación colonial (Barcelona, 1978)Google Scholar. See Gutierrez, R.’s critiques of Rojas, ‘Bibliografia’, DANA, 9 (1980), 117–19Google Scholar.

9 On this narrative genre: Mônnet, J., ‘¿Poesía o urbanismo? Utopías urbanas y crónicas de la ciudad de México (siglos XVI a XX)’, Historia Mexicana, 39 (1990), 727–66Google Scholar.

10 Acosta, R., Fiestas coloniales urbanas (Lima-Cuzco-Potosí) (Lima, 1997)Google Scholar; J.C. Estenssoro, ‘Música, discurso y poder en el régimen colonial’, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú MA thesis, 1990, 365–94; Ortemberg, P., Rituels du pouvoir à Lima. De la Monarchie à la République (1735–1828) (Paris, 2012)Google Scholar; Osorio, A., Inventing Lima: Baroque Modernity in Peru's South Sea Metropolis (New York, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Valenzuela, J., Las liturgias del poder: celebraciones públicas y estrategias persuasivas en Chile colonial (1609–1709) (Santiago, 2001)Google Scholar.

11 Iwasaki, F., ‘Ambulantes y comercio colonial: iniciativas mercantiles en el virreinato peruano’, Jahrbuch für Geschichte Lateinamerikas, 24 (1987), 179–211 Google Scholar; Mera, A., ‘Regatones en la ciudad de Los Reyes, 1763–1820’, Revista del Archivo General de la Nación, 28 (2013), 111–40Google Scholar; Olvera, J., ‘La disputa por el espacio público: los comerciantes y vendedores de la Plaza Mayor’, in Aguirre, C., Dávalos, M. and Ross, M. (eds.), Los espacios públicos de la ciudad. Siglos XVIII y XIX (Mexico, 2002), 84–97 Google Scholar; and idem, Los mercados de la Plaza Mayor de la ciudad de México (Mexico, 2007); Konove, A., ‘On the cheap: the Baratillo marketplace and the shadow economy of eighteenth-century Mexico City’, The Americas, 72 (2015), 249–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 On contingency and structure, see Anderson, P., Tras las huellas del materialismo histórico (Mexico, 1986), 34–65 Google Scholar. Recent studies with an integrative approach on plazas include: Escobar, J., The Plaza Mayor and the Shaping of Baroque Madrid (Cambridge, 2003)Google Scholar; Olvera, Los mercados.

13 Regarding the historiography of Lima, at least two important studies of the late colonial period use these terms without considering that they correspond to different models. Flores Galindo, While A., Aristocracia y plebe, Lima 1760–1830: estructura de clases y sociedad colonial (Lima, 1983), 148 Google Scholar, 157, 173, basically employed them as synonyms, Ortemberg, Rituels du pouvoir, noticed a shift (116–17) but did not fully incorporate this change into the narrative (90, Fig. 7, 92, 121, 151, 162, 196, passim). For Santiago de Chile, Valenzuela, Las liturgias del poder, also employed both terms as synonyms (65, 66, 78, 99, 253, 464). A similar mix-up is found in Musset, A., Ciudades nómadas del Nuevo Mundo (Mexico, 2011), 44Google Scholar, 61, 62, 65, passim.

14 This list of attributes is based on general and specific studies. General: Álvarez, L. et al., ‘Plazas’ et sociabilité en Europe et Amérique latine (Paris, 1982)Google Scholar; Chevalier, F. et al., Forum et Plaza Mayor dans le monde hispanique (Paris, 1978)Google Scholar; Durston, A., ‘Un régimen urbanístico en la América hispana colonial: el trazado en damero durante los siglos XVI y XVII, Historia, 28 (1994), 59–115 Google Scholar; Fraser, V., The Architecture of Conquest (Cambridge, 1989)Google Scholar; Gutiérrez, R., Arquitectura y urbanismo en Iberoamérica (Madrid, 1983)Google Scholar; idem, ‘La Plaza Mayor en América’, in de Solano, F. (ed.), La ciudad Iberoamericana hasta 1573 (Madrid, 1987), 281–303 Google Scholar; Novick and Favelukes, ‘Plaza’; de Solano, F., Ciudades hispanoamericanas y pueblos de indios (Seville, 1990)Google Scholar, and the texts in nn. 8, 9, 10 and 11. Specific: G. Cáceres, ‘Plaza Mayor/Plaza de Armas’, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile BA thesis, 1994; Favelukes, G., ‘La Plaza, articulador urbano (Buenos Aires 1810–1870)’, Seminario de Crítica, 48 (1994), 29–44 Google Scholar; Hernández, R., ‘Ideología, proyectos y urbanización en la ciudad de México, 1760–1850’, in Hernández, R. (ed.), La ciudad de México en la primera mitad del siglo XIX (Mexico, 1994), 149–52Google Scholar; Huertas, L., ‘Introducción al estudio de la Plaza Mayor de Lima’, Historia y Cultura, 23 (1999), 281–336 Google Scholar; Luján, L., La Plaza Mayor de Santiago de Guatemala hacia 1678 (Guatemala, 1969)Google Scholar; Mesa, J. and Gisbert, T., ‘La paz en el siglo XVIII’, Boletín del Centro de Investigaciones Históricas y Estéticas, 20 (1975), 73–5Google Scholar; J. Olvera, ‘La disputa por el espacio’; idem, Los mercados, inter alia.

15 Archivo Histórico Municipal de Lima (AHML) Obras Públicas, d. 4, 24 Nov. 1798.

16 The documentary database used in this article includes: the Libro de Cabildos de Lima (LCL) (from 1707 to 1821); the official drafts (Borradores) of the LCL (from 1786 to 1808) and the Libro de Cédulas y Provisiones (LCP) (from 1730 to 1800), all held in the collections of the AHML. Lima's historical urban nomenclature is drawn from J. Bromley, Las viejas calles de Lima (Lima, 2005). Previous works on Lima's plaza include: T. Abad and S. Cárdenas, ‘Evolución histórica del espacio urbano de la Plaza Mayor de Lima’, Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería BA thesis, 1975; M. Durán, Lima en el siglo XVII (Seville, 1994), 181–95; Huertas, ‘Introducción al estudio’; Marco Dorta, E., ‘La Plaza Mayor de Lima en 1680’, Mercurio Peruano, 451/2 (1964), 37–50 Google Scholar; G. Ramón, ‘El umbral de la urbe: usos de la Plaza Mayor de Lima (XVIII–XIX)’, in Aguirre, Dávalos and Ross (eds.), Los espacios públicos de la ciudad, 84–97, inter alia.

17 A. Bonet, ‘Le concept de Plaza Mayor en Espagne depuis le XVIe siècle’, in Chevalier et al., Forum et Plaza Mayor, 80.

18 Estenssoro, ‘Modernismo, estética’, 182–4.

19 A detailed description in L. Lowry, ‘Forging an Indian nation’, University of California Ph.D. thesis, 1991, 75–8, and Ramón, ‘El umbral de la urbe’. On the rollo: AHML/LCL, 23 Dec. 1562. On late public punishments: Flores Galindo, Aristocracia y plebe, 149; Fuentes, M., Memorias de los Virreyes, 6 vols. (Lima, 1859)Google Scholar, vol. IV, 95; AHML/LCP XXIV:162r, 7 Apr. 1780; LCP XXX:267r, 23 Feb. 1788; Diario de Lima, 5 Apr. 1791:2; LCP XXIX:336r, 12 Oct. 1797; LCP XXVII, 2 Aug. 1798; LCP XXX:350r, 10 Dec. 1799. On bullfights: Ortemberg, Rituels du pouvoir, 116–17, passim.

20 Ramón, G., La Muralla y los Callejones (Lima, 1999), 54 Google Scholar n. 73.

21 Carrió, A., El lazarillo de ciegos caminantes, 2 vols. (Lima, 1974), vol. II Google Scholar, 61.

22 While we can speculate that the asentista system was in place from the earliest days of the central square market, we only have clear data of its functioning from 1730. In Mexico City, the concession was called ‘asiento de los puestos y mesillas de la Plaza Mayor’, it was also obtained via auction, and the asentista, Francisco Cameras, remained from 1692 to 1747 (Olvera, Los mercados, 127–49).

23 AHML/LCL, 22 Feb., 14 Apr. 1742, and J. Moore, The Cabildo in Peru under the Bourbons (Durham, NC, 1966), 115 n. 41, based on a document from 1774 on J.D. Tarón.

24 Archivo General de la Nación (AGN) Cabildo (CAGC) 1 c. 15 d. 14; AHML/LCL, 23 Dec. 1756.

25 AGN/CAGC 1 c. 15 d. 27, c. 17 d. 84 (1772); c. 20 d. 208 (1804), CAGC 4 c. 30 d. 59.

26 AHML/LCL, 4 Aug. 1818.

27 Moore, The Cabildo in Peru, 88–105; AHML/LCP XXIV, 238r/239r, 17 Nov. 1784. On the ceremonies in the plaza during eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, see Ortemberg, Rituels du pouvoir, 43–166.

28 Cobo, B., Historia del Nuevo Mundo, 2 vols. (Madrid, 1956), vol. II, 309–10Google Scholar; and Salinas y Córdova, B., Memorial de las historias del Nuevo Mundo Piru (Lima, 1957), 252–3Google Scholar. On the anonymous painting: Marco Dorta, ‘La Plaza Mayor’.

29 All the mentioned characters appear in the documentation analysed in the following pages. On street names, see Bromley, Las viejas calles, 135, 166, 274–6, passim.

30 On the Cabildo’s social composition: Lohmann, G., Los regidores perpetuos del Cabildo de Lima (1535–1821) (Seville, 1983)Google Scholar. On the ownership of the main square: AHML/LCP XXII, 301, 3 Aug. 1748.

31 Biblioteca Nacional del Perú (BNP), Volantes c417, 1789; V c181, 1798, LCL, 5 Jun. 1818; Flores Galindo, Aristocracia y plebe, 153. On this commercial circuit: Cosamalón, J., Indios detrás de la Muralla (Lima, 1999), 45 Google Scholar. On the functions of the Wall, see also Lohmann, G., Las defensas militares de Lima y Callao (Seville, 1964), 205–9Google Scholar; and Juan, J. and de Ulloa, A., Relación Histόrica, 2 vols. (Madrid, 1748)Google Scholar, vol. II/1, 41.

32 AHML/LCP XXII:221v, 1 Nov. 1746, AHML/LCP XXIII:212r–213r, 11 Sep. 1765/24 Feb. 1774; LCP XXVI:125r–126r, 13 Nov. 1789; LCL 28 Nov. 1806, 5 Jan. 1813, 22 Jan. 1813, 27 May 1814, 23 Aug. 1814, 22 Apr. 1817, 14 May 1818. On regatones: Mera, ‘Regatones en la ciudad’.

33 The information on this reorganization of the market is indirect, that is, it comes from a source from the 1750s (AGN/CAGC 1 c. 15 d. 14). No reference to the reorganization is found in the LCL. In general, the information about the central square in the first half of the eighteenth century is minimal in comparison with the second half.

34 AGN/CA GC1 c. 21 d. 282 (1814) with the Cédula from 3 Aug. 1748; AHML/LCP XXII:301r.

35 AGN/CAGC 1 c. 15, d. 16:7r.

36 Fuentes, Memorias, vol. IV, 117–18; AGN/CAGC 1 c. 15 d. 12. On the celebrations of 1747, see Ortemberg, Rituals du pouvoir, 79–94.

37 AHML/LCP XXVIII:212r–213r, 11 Sep. 1765.

38 AHML/LCP XXIII:243r–244r, 7–8 Jul. 1772; BNP 1793, c3234.

39 AGN/Libro de Juntas del Real Tribunal del Consulado, 1770–88 H-3, 907:343r/v, 18 Dec. 1787. On this same case: Flores Galindo, Aristocracia y plebe, 156–7; and Iwasaki, ‘Ambulantes y comercio’, 208.

40 Later information on the same issue suggests that ‘low-status castes’ were black peddlers, see: AGI, Audiencia de Lima 1547, 4 Apr. 1789, in Konetzke, R., Colección de documentos para la historia de la formación social de Hispanoamérica 1493–1810, 3 vols. (Madrid, 1962), vol. III/2, 639–41Google Scholar.

41 Baratillo comes from barato, cheap. It is not clear if Lima's Baratillo was a specialized market like the one from Mexico discussed by Olvera, Los mercados, 73–99.

42 Lowry, ‘Forging an Indian nation’, 39–51; Flores, J., ‘Hechicería e idolatría en Lima colonial (siglo XVII)’, in Urbano, H. (ed.), Poder y violencia en los Andes (Cuzco, 1991), 55 Google Scholar.

43 Puntual relación de las operaciones executadas en la Plaza Mayor de la Ciudad de los Reyes,. . .en el sitio, ataque, defensa y rendición de una fortaleza, construida en su centro; con arreglo, y proporciones á la architectura militar (Lima, c. 1773).

44 AGN/CAGC 1 c. 15 d. 27, fol. 9r, 1774, emphasis added.

45 Ibid ., fol. 9v.

46 AGN/CAGC 1 c. 16 d. 37, fol. 7r.

47 G. Lohmann published a critical edition of the Drama as Un tríptico del Perú virreinal (Chapel Hill, 1976). Hereafter it will be referred as Drama. The attribution to Ruiz Cano was made by R. Porras (Estenssoro, ‘Modernismo, estética’, 186) and Lohmann, Drama, 18. On Amat's parade, Drama, 171–4. On the censorship, BNP 1777, c1494.

48 Drama, 160–2, 164–6, passim.

49 Ibid ., 162. ‘Hizo Plaza de Armas la que antes era Armas de Plaza, que eran los patacones que corrían en ella en sus Comercios, que no hay hoy con los comercios de ellas.’ This is the first explicit use of the term (Plaza de Armas) in a colonial text to refer to the situation of the central square of Lima.

50 Ruiz Cano, F., Júbilos de Lima en la dedicación de su santa iglesia cathedral. . . (Lima, 1755)Google Scholar.

51 Macera, P., ‘Lenguaje y modernismo Peruano del siglo XVIII’, in Trabajos de historia (Lima, 1977), 2, 9–77 Google Scholar; Kusunoki, R., ‘De Ruiz Cano a Unanue: arte y reivindicación criolla en Lima (1755–1806)’, Dieciocho, 29 (2006), 107–20Google Scholar; Wuffarden, E., ‘Avatares del “bello ideal”. Modernismo clasicista versus tradiciones barrocas en Lima, 1750–1825’, in Mujica, R. (ed.), Visión y símbolos: del virreinato criollo a la república peruana (Lima, 2006), 112–59Google Scholar.

52 On the importance of considering social uses before formal aspects to understand urban change, see Lefebvre, H., Espace et politique (Paris, 1972), 47–8Google Scholar, passim. The paradigm of a ’neoclassical city’ ( Kusunoki, R., ‘Entre Roma clásica y Jerusalén santa: utopías urbanas en Lima ilustrada (1790–1815)’, Semata, 24 (2012), 259 Google Scholar) is not limited to stylistic change, or we must assume a wider definition of style that includes urbanism. Further explorations of the (dis)similarities in the introduction of neoclassical architecture and neoclassical urbanism in Hispanic America are needed.

53 AGN/CAGC c. 16 d. 37, d. 38 (1776’s contract), c. 18 d. 116 (Intendencias), c. 17 d. 111 (La Merced).

54 J. Escobedo, División de quarteles y barrios e instrucción para el establecimiento de alcaldes de barrio en la capital de Lima, and Nuevo reglamento de policía, agregado a la instrucción de alcaldes de barrio, AHML; Ramón, ‘Urbe y orden’, 302–6; idem, ‘Ilustrar la urbe’, 71–6.

55 Clement, ‘El nacimiento de la higiene’, 87–92; Ramón ‘Urbe y orden’, 316–24; idem, ‘La política borbónica’, 111–13; and idem, ‘El guión de la cirugía’, 13.

56 Plaza Real (from Place Royal) is a kind of plaza popularized in France in the early seventeenth century that normally included the king's statue ( Chartier, R., ‘La ville chantier’, in Roy Ladourie, E. Le et al., La ville des temps modernes (Paris, 1998), 136 Google Scholar.

57 Even if during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the ceremonies in the central plaza included representations of the king, they were ephemeral, Osorio, Inventing Lima, 81–102. On the equestrian statue, Statsny, F., ‘From fountain to bridge: baroque projects and Hispanism in Lima’, in Millon, H. (ed.), Circa 1700: Architecture in Europe and the Americas (Washington, 2005), 207–24Google Scholar.

58 AHML/LCP XXX: 421r/422r, 21 Mar. 1799, emphasis added.

59 Konove, ‘On the cheap’, 227; Olvera, ‘La disputa por el espacio’, Viqueira, ¿Relajados o reprimidos?, 238–41; Sánchez, E., Los dueños de la calle (Mexico, 1997), 185–93Google Scholar. This continental synchrony was accompanied by the circulation of documentation between Mexico City, Lima and Buenos Aires. See AHML/Cabildo, Superior Gobierno (CSG) d.123, 1808; LCL, 8 Oct. 1793, 8 Jan., 19 Feb., 16 Nov. 1790, 15 Mar. 1791.

60 AHML/LCL, 27 Mar. 1799.

61 Ibid .

62 Ibid . Ramón, La muralla, 54 n. 73.

63 AHML/LCL, 27 Mar. 1799.

64 Ibid .

65 Ibid .

66 AHML/LCL, 5 Apr. 1799.

67 AHML/LCP XXIX:348r, Apr. 1799.

68 AGN/CAGC 1 c. 20 d. 208, emphasis added.

69 AGN/CAGC 4 c. 30 d. 59, 1804, emphasis added.

70 AHML/LCL, 17 Feb. 1807.

71 AHML/CSG c. 2 d. 110, 24 Nov. 1808.

72 Ramón, ‘La política borbόnica’, 111–13.

73 BNP 1808, d389, 5r/v.

74 Ibid .; AHML/LCL, 25 Nov. 1808.

75 AHML/LCL, 28 Jul. 1812; AHML/CSG d. 195, 2 Sep. 1813.

76 AHML/LCL, 7 Mar., 25 Apr. 1815; 25 Feb., 28 Feb., 4 Mar., 29 Aug., 5 Sep., 30 Sep., 19 Nov. 1817; 13 Jan., 13 Feb., 6–13 Mar., 10 Apr. 1818; AHML/CSG d. 322, 1 Mar. 1817.

77 AHML/LCL 28 Jan., 18 Feb. 1814.

78 AHML/LCL 7 Apr., 30 Apr., 26 May, 9 Jun. 1818; AHML/CSG c. 4 d. 346, 23 Jun. 1818.

79 AHML/LCL 4, 10 and 13 Jul., 4 Sep. 1818, 9 Sep. 1823.

80 One of the earliest representations of the empty/militarized plaza is Plaza Mayor de la Ciudad de Lima included in MS 400/123, 1775, Biblioteca de Catalunya (reproduced in Drama, 99). See also Vista de la Plaza y Catedral de Lima, c. 1825–40, Museo de Arte de Lima (MALI), Fondo Alcira Lastres de la Torre, 2000.4.1.

81 A similar process can be observed in Mexico, comparing works like Cristóbal de Villalpando, La Plaza Mayor de México, 1695, in de la Maza, F., El pintor Cristóbal de Villalpando (Mexico, 1964), 159 Google Scholar, and Vista de la Plaza Mayor de México reformada y hermoseada por disposición del Excelentisimo Señor Virrey Conde de Revillagigedo en el año de 1793, Archivo General de Indias, MP, México, 446. This graphic transformation runs in parallel to the discursive change already identified by Mônnet, ‘Poesía o urbanismo’, 740–9; and Viqueira, ¿Relajados o reprimidos?, 15–32.

82 Dávalos, Basura e ilustración, 146–7; Majluf, N., Escultura y espacio público (Lima, 1994), 13 Google Scholar; Walker, ‘Civilize or control?’, 75, 87–91.

83 Gaceta del Gobierno de Lima Independiente, 19 Apr. 1822; AHML/LCL, 4 Oct. 1823.

84 Ramón, ‘El guión de la cirugía’, 14–18.