(No) “solo Madrid es Corte?”: the head that governs an empire of Courts

The greatness and magnificence of cities

Giovanni Botero was an important political thinker whose writings, as Xavier Gil has noted, shaped a “generation who read” his works (Gil-Pujol, 2004Gil-Pujol, F. X. (2004) “La fuerza del Rey: la generación que leyó a Botero.” In: J. J. Ruíz Ibañez; M. Rizzo; G. Sabatini, coords., Le forze del principe: recursos, instrumentos y límites en la práctica del poder soberano en los territorios de la monarquía hispánica: actas del Seminario Internacional, Pavia, 22-24 septiembre del 2000. Murcia: Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de Murcia, vol. II, pp. 969-1022.). Widely cited by new and old world writers alike, Botero’s works had a wider resonance than did the writings by other widely referenced Renaissance architectural and urban planners, such as Leon Batista Alberti or Antonio di Pietro Averlino, known as Filarete, as they spoke of politics, populations, geography, and cultures well beyond the confines of Europe.⁸ See, for example, Pearson, 2011. In his three books on the greatness and magnificence of cities, Botero detailed a complex series of variables that needed to be present for a city to enjoy greatness and magnificence. He underscored the importance of population, location, and economy, but also of political life (Gil-Pujol, 2004, p. 975Gil-Pujol, F. X. (2004) “La fuerza del Rey: la generación que leyó a Botero.” In: J. J. Ruíz Ibañez; M. Rizzo; G. Sabatini, coords., Le forze del principe: recursos, instrumentos y límites en la práctica del poder soberano en los territorios de la monarquía hispánica: actas del Seminario Internacional, Pavia, 22-24 septiembre del 2000. Murcia: Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de Murcia, vol. II, pp. 969-1022.). In very broad terms, these variables were related to the quality and status of its population, as a great city needed to enjoy a large and diverse population that included both nobles and common peoples from a wide variety of geographical areas; its territorial/spatial location since these cities needed to be located near navigable waters and be conducive to commerce, as well as depositories of its goods, enjoy healthy air and be surrounded by fertile lands that could feed its populations; its economy needed to be diversified, productive, and conducive to the transit and exchange of merchandize and wealth. All which was intermixed to generate greatness and magnificence, further reflected in, among others, imposing and splendid palaces, monumental churches, and other large buildings, in the luxurious dress of its inhabitants, and in the high-ranking individuals among its populations.

For Botero these factors were, to an extent, susceptible to manipulation by man, provided that certain basic conditions were met. The population of a city, for example, did not need to be “populous” by “nature.” As he argued, man was naturally attracted to good air, beauty and all the magnificent things that delighted and fed “the eyes of the people with admiration and wonder,” and since business and its many benefices were reasons to set down roots, the great city provided an impulse to settle (Botero, 1956, p. 232Botero, G. (1956) The Greatness of Cities (1606). Translated by R. Peterson. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.; Osorio, 2008, pp. 4 and ss.Osorio, A. B. (2008) Inventing Lima. Baroque Modernity in Peru’s South Sea Metropolis. New York: Palgrave.). A great city, therefore, was one that created and offered the conditions for the largest number of people to visit while also luring them to settle there. The most visited cities in Europe for “pleasures and delights” were Rome and Venice. Venice for its location by the sea, its arsenal, ships, traffic, and passage, and its tower, large churches, magnificent palaces, beautiful streets, diversity of arts, ordered government, and beauty of the sexes, which together dazzled and amazed the eyes of the beholder (Botero, 1956, pp. 232-233Botero, G. (1956) The Greatness of Cities (1606). Translated by R. Peterson. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.). A populous city, furthermore, possessed a large and diverse economy, as men were kept in place by “profit and commodity.” For a large and diverse economy to develop, however, the site of the city was of great importance, as not all cities were commodious, and for Botero, most cities simply served as passages of goods and peoples. Such transient cities could never become great. Genoa and Venice, for example, were great not only because of the passage of goods and peoples, but also because they were sites “for store-houses, cellarage and warehouses of merchandise, most plentifully brought unto them” (Botero, 1956, pp. 232-235Botero, G. (1956) The Greatness of Cities (1606). Translated by R. Peterson. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.). The great city also needed to be commodious for “other countries that are borders, or near unto it.” The great city should enjoy “fruitfulness of the soil,” by which Botero did not mean that a city needed to be located in fertile and productive lands, but rather that even when built on poor soil, as in the case of Paris, the great city should be surrounded by extensive areas that provided it with all the necessary elements to satisfy its inhabitants’ material needs in order to prevent their migration to more auspicious sites (Botero, 1956. p. 236Botero, G. (1956) The Greatness of Cities (1606). Translated by R. Peterson. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.). A great city also needed “conduct” in the Latin sense of “bringing together,” condition that was partly dependent upon the land and partly upon its proximity to water. The ideal terrain for a great city was flat to facilitate the movement of all sorts of merchandise and goods, via carts, horses, mules, and other beasts of burden, as well as men. Proximity to water was also important to ease the flow of these goods and peoples, and if by the sea, a large and safe port “to ride into” was necessary (Botero, 1956, pp. 236-237Botero, G. (1956) The Greatness of Cities (1606). Translated by R. Peterson. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.).

Beyond economic incentives and secured resources, laws and freedoms were also needed, as was the development of an elaborate and busy public ceremonial life, which would draw people, as it had in Rome, making it “perpetually full of strangers and foreign people” (Botero, 1956, pp. 245-246Botero, G. (1956) The Greatness of Cities (1606). Translated by R. Peterson. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.). Religion and the worship of God were also essential, as they not only drew great numbers of people together, but also caused commerce to grow among them, and cities that excelled in this flourished “in authority and reputation above all others,” as well as in “power and glory” (Botero, 1956, p. 247Botero, G. (1956) The Greatness of Cities (1606). Translated by R. Peterson. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.). A great city should also have a “royal audience, senators, parliaments or other sorts and kinds of courts of justice.” This presence of a court would draw those seeking justice and those in charge of processing and executing the law, but it would also bring gold, thereby increasing the city’s greatness as gold would allow men to acquire more goods and commodities” (Botero, 1956, pp. 253-254Botero, G. (1956) The Greatness of Cities (1606). Translated by R. Peterson. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.). Great cities were exempt from taxes and levies favored by people, and always have “some good store of vendible merchandise” which came from the land or the sea near them” (Botero, 1956, pp. 254 and 255-256Botero, G. (1956) The Greatness of Cities (1606). Translated by R. Peterson. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.). In short, the greatest city was one that possessed “supreme authority and power” and jurisdiction “over others” as well as the public and private wealth of men, which were naturally drawn to these things (Botero, 1956, pp. 258 and 259Botero, G. (1956) The Greatness of Cities (1606). Translated by R. Peterson. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.).

Population size was essential for a great city, which, as mentioned, should possessed a multitude of people, but what exactly was meant by “multitude” by Botero was not made entirely clear. In general terms, however, Botero stood against the Aristotelian notion that a city should limit its population to those it could readily sustain. Instead, Botero argued that since disease and death could quickly decimate a city’s population, a multitude of people was the best safeguard against catastrophe. He did not advocate endless growth, however. Rather, in his view a great city would reach an equilibrium based on what it had to offer and what was available; when this balance was broken the city’s population would decline, as indeed it had in the case of Rome. Be that as it may, the “multitude” of any great city must include distinguished members who could lend the city an aura of grandeur and authority. Italian cities in his view were greater than those of France because Italian gentlemen dwelled in them and not in distant country castles surrounded by moats. In short, the residences of noblemen made cities more glorious and more populous. The noble presence also had civilizing effects on the urban population: daily contact with those who were refined in dress, speech, and manners “educated” the common man. Moreover, as the “gorgeous and gallant buildings” of nobility fomented the arts, they were also part of the civilizing process. Notably, Botero illustrated this point by holding up the Incas as a primary example. In Cuzco, noted Botero, “The kings of Peru, to populate and ennoble the City ordered to all their Native Lords [Caziques] each build a Palace, and send their children to live in them, and as evidence of the greatness of their empire, and the variety of nations contained by it, by decree established that each dress in the attire of its land, and wear a distinctive insignia of it on his head; invention of rich luster and gallantry.”⁹ Biblioteca Nacional de España [BNE], GMM/2961, Descripcion de todas las provincias, Reynos, Estados, y Ciudades principales del Mundo, sacada de las Relaciones Toscanas de Juan Botero … Por Fr. Iayme Rebullosa… Gerona: Por Jayme Brò Impressor… Año 1748, p. 331; subsequent citations = BNE, GMM/2961, Descripcion, 1748, p. 331. Through this practice the Incas had made their city “magnificent and great” (Botero, 1956, p. 260Botero, G. (1956) The Greatness of Cities (1606). Translated by R. Peterson. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.).

Geography and place, and material attributes and wealth were all surely important to Botero’s formulation, a determining element of any great city, however, rested ultimately on its material and symbolic capital, which could only be bestowed upon it by the nobility among its population. What would have Rome become, asked Botero, were it not for the Pope making it the permanent seat of his court? If not for the ambassadors, ministers, and guests who came to reside in the city, and their infinite numbers of servants, and the magnificent buildings in which they all lived; and the multitudes of peoples who inhabited the different sections of the city, and the glory provided by the service to God, with magnificent churches, prelates, and the like, would Rome not be “just a bunch of hills in a desert?” (Botero, 1956, p. 273Botero, G. (1956) The Greatness of Cities (1606). Translated by R. Peterson. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.).

The greatness of New World courtly cities

In 1604, a long poem titled Grandeza Mexicana was published in Mexico by Bernardo de Balbuena, a peninsular who, born in Valdepeñas, Castile in 1562, was raised in New Galicia, studied in Mexico, and died in Puerto Rico in 1627, where he was bishop. In his petition to publish his poem, addressed to Fray Garcia de Mendoza y Zuñiga, Archbishop of Mexico, Balbuena argued he had been moved to write “these excellences of Mexico with the wish to make them known to the entire world seeing them augmented since the arrival of his excellency,” which had further moved him to offer “this portrait of this fortunate city.”¹⁴ BNE, R/8773, Bernardo de Balbuena, Grandeza Mexicana, 1604, n.p.n.; subsequent citations = BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, f. 140. The license for publication was granted in 1603 by the Viceroy of New Spain, Count of Monterrey and by archbishop Mendoza. Leaving aside Balbuena’s political intentions, his poem divided into nine chapters with some 140 fojas, dealt with various aspects of the city of Mexico, ranging from its location, preconquest and conquest history, its buildings, trade and commodities, letters and arts, professions and government, as well as religion and the church, celebrating their contributions to the greatness and magnificence of the city of Mexico¹⁵ For various literary aspects of this poem, including Balbuena’s political intentions, see Barrera, 2003; Egan, 2001; Joset, 2014; Pardo, 2001; Terukina Yamauchi, 2012. . As the head of New Spain, Mexico in Balbuena’s poem, was “the noblest, the richest, and [most] populous city of this new America,” and a dynamic and cosmopolitan center linking East and West, as well as South and East¹⁶ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, f. 140. . As with the case of viceregal Lima, this viceregal head city was also conceived here, as both, a work of art, or as orderly, harmonious and beautiful, and as the product of human labor and intelligence (Osorio, 2008, pp. 150-157Osorio, A. B. (2008) Inventing Lima. Baroque Modernity in Peru’s South Sea Metropolis. New York: Palgrave.). Mexico was a city, “Carved in large proportion and calculation / Of towers, spires, windows / [where] Its fabric [machina] magnificent presents itself.”¹⁷ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, f. 64). Maquina: “Fabrica grande e ingeniosa del nombre latino Machina,” (Covarrubias 1995 [1611], p. 736). A city, furthermore, where even nature did not surpass it in perfection; as the sky did “not have as many stars,” as Mexico had “flowers in its garland,” nor did the “sky have more virtues” than the viceregal city¹⁸ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, f. 64. . In Balbuena’s poem, Mexico, understood as the viceregal city but also as synecdoche for New Spain, was depicted as a connector or passage in Botero’s sense; a clearing center for the goods that came to it from Asia and Peru, and from where they dispatched to various points in Europe and beyond, and also where the wealth of products from Europe came to be distributed to other points in America.¹⁹ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, f. 76 and ss. Mexico was, therefore, a prime city within the large continent, gallant, generous and great of heart, but also of habits. A great metropolis, “The richest and most opulent city / Of greatest procurement or greatest treasure,” where come to, the “silver of Peru from Chile gold,” and from “Ternate refined clove and cinnamon from Tidore.”²⁰ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, f. 75r-76. Mexico was the center of the world, connected on all sides, to the south with Peru, to the west with Maluku and China, and to the east with Britain, France, Germany, Flanders, Italy, Greece and Spain, as well as Berberia, Egypt, Syria, Ethiopia, and Turkey, and “With all makes contracts and communicates [cartea] / And its stores warehouses and shops / The best of these worlds carry.”²¹ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, f. 78. This interconnectedness, furthermore, made Mexico the synthesis of all their combined greatness. As Mexico supplied them with gold and silver, they returned most precious goods and in it “Spain is joined with China / Italy with Japan.”²² BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, ff. 89. A pious and devoted city, Mexico also enjoyed a population with a clear conscience, noble habits, honesty, and style.²³ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, ff. 83r, 84 and ss. A virtuous city, Mexico was characterized by the feminine beauty and gentility of its honest and elegant ladies, and by the nobility of its citizens.²⁴ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, f. 89 r. And where the abundance of the city’s surroundings enriched “its plazas” with great varieties of fruits, vegetables, flowers, fish, meats, game, poultry, and so on, bringing, “Revelries, gifts, hobbies, tastes / Joy, recreation, enjoyment, happiness / Peace, quietude, of just souls,” and with it beauty, pride, gallantry, nobility, discretion, delicacy, order, virtue, loyalty, wealth, and courtesy to its large populations.²⁵ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, ff. 89r-90r-91.

Balbuena made no direct references to Madrid or to its court. In a section titled “Illustrious government,” however, Mexico appeared as center of a nobility, whose members descended from “Spain’s best nobility.” The “Azcuedo, Çuñiga, Mendosa, Velasco,” and the Enríquez families were, therefore, each provided with a history of their illustrious lineages, lending authority to his claims that they made the city “distinguished and famous in the world,” and its government virtuous.²⁶ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, f. 98-98r. Balbuena enumerated the offices present in the city, from viceroy down to the city government, and those in the larger viceroyalty, both as further reflection of the status of the city of Mexico as viceregal court and center of power, and as evidence of its indisputable rank as head city of the kingdoms of New Spain.²⁷ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, ff. 99-100r. And, where “Mexico in the worlds of the Occident / [Is] An Imperial city of great district / Place, diversity, and population of people / Surrounded by…two lakes [upon which] it seats / With infinite delights / Orchards, gardens, enjoyable recreations / Pleasurable playful outings / By land and water that originate in them.”²⁸ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, f. 110r. The offices, and their officials in Mexico were, in his view, in the “Empire and Monarchy, the poles, the columns, the mainstay of its peace, order, and discipline.”²⁹ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, f. 100r.

The city of Mexico appeared, therefore, as one of the kind; it not only compared to the great emporia of Europe, but surpassed them, as not in “Milan, Lucca, or Florence / Or the other two rich states [Venice and Genoa?] / Is a Merchant dignified.”³⁰ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, f. 112. Nor had Greece or Athens more doctors of great science or knowledge, and professors of “the seven liberal arts.”³¹ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, ff. 112- 112r. Attributes that, furthermore, made its rich noble principal cities in New Spain, populated by illustrious souls and generous blood. Two verses called out Spain, “O crowned brave Spain / By a monarch of the Old and New World / Of that feared and of this tribute.”³² BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, f. 118r. “O proud faithful Spain, golden centuries / Have given to your monarchy haste / And to your triumph a thousand Kings exchanged.”³³ BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, f. 119. In similar fashion to how Guido Cappacio would later praise Naples as famous arguing how it was the envy of other European cities, Balbuena ended his poem by noting how Mexico was the most noble, and the richest “and populous city of this new America…illustrious City head and crown of these Occidental worlds, famous for its name, illustrious for its place and settlement, and for its ancient and present power known and respected in the world.”³⁴ Capaccio, Il Forastiero; BNE, R/8773, Balbuena, 1604, f. 140.

In 1631, fray Buenaventura de Salinas y Córdova published in Lima Memorial de las Historias del Nuevo Mundo³⁵ See Gálvez-Peña, 2008.. This work was intended as a prosopography of fray Francisco Solano to procure his canonization in Rome, or as noted on the book’s cover, “to incline your Majesty the Catholic king Philip IV to ask his Holiness [the Pope] for the canonization of his patron Solano.”³⁶ Francisco Solano was born in Montilla, Spain, came to Peru in 1589; was beatified by pope Clement X in 1675, and canonized by Benedict XIII in 1726. Beyond this intention, the book was also a 400-page treatise that, doing justice to its subtitle, Méritos, y Excelencias de la Ciudad de Los Reyes, Lima, narrated the merits and excellences of the viceregal city of Lima, at the same time that it also included a long and harsh critique of the abuses experienced by Indians at the hands of Spaniards, both peninsular and creoles, and of the indolence of the king before such excesses.³⁷ BNE, R/3130, Memorial de las Historias del Nvevo Mvndo Perv. Meritos, y Excelencias dela civdad de Los Reyes Lima, Cabeça de sus ricos, y estendidos Reynos… por… Benauentura de Salinas y Córdoua… Lima… 1631, Discurso II; most of this manuscript is unnumbered and ordered into CAP and Discursos; subsequent citations = BNE, R/3130, Memorial, 1631, Discurso II. A “natural” from “the city, metropolis and Court of Peru,” Fray Buenaventura was born in Lima in 1592. In his early life he participated in palace culture, initially as a page of viceroys, and later as the highest secretary of the governorship (secretario mayor de la gobernación) responsible for organizing the viceregal archive. He was educated by the Jesuits, and at age twenty-four left court life to profess as a Franciscan, order in which, he became an esteemed scholar and preacher. Fray Buenaventura was an ardent critic of the exploitation of the Indians by clerics and corregidores, but also of the monarchy for, in his view, taking more than giving to them in return. Fray Buenaventura’s criticisms generated accusations before the king and other authorities and was eventually exiled, living a good portion of his life between Spain and Rome where he was entrusted with obtaining the canonization of fray Francisco Solano. He died in 1653 in Cuernavaca, New Spain, where he spent the last years of his life (Salinas y Córdova, 1957, pp. ix-xiSalinas y Córdova, B. (1957) Memorial de las Historias del Nuevo Mundo Pirv. Meritos y Excelencias de… LIMA…Para inclinar a…Felipe IV…que pida…la Canonizacion de su Patron Solano…Impreso en Lima, Por Geronymo de Contreras. Año de 1630. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.).

In the Memorial the referent is the viceregal city of Lima. As court and “head of its rich and extended Kingdoms” of the Viceroyalty of Peru, Lima functioned in this work, much as did Mexico in Balbuena’s poem, as synecdoche for the imaginary political body also known as the Peruvian monarchy, or the Imperio peruano, represented in genealogies that wove in a seamless narrative the Inca emperors as predecessors to the Spanish Habsburg kings, found in writings, art, and prints (Fig. 1).³⁸ See for example, BNE, R/21926, Poema Heroyco Hispano-Latino Panegyrico de la Fvndacion, y Grandezas de la muy Noble, y Leal Ciudad de Lima… Rodrigo de Valdes… Madrid… 1687; also Estenssoro, 2005 Following this genealogy, the Memorial begins with a detailed political, geographical and cultural history of the Inca Empire, told through each one of the Inca “kings,” as Botero termed them, before the arrival of the Spanish, comparing “the majesty and power [potencia] of [each of] the Inca kings, of their superb buildings, palaces, fortresses, royal roads, warehouses and chambers they ordered built,” to then describe the Spanish conquest, arrival of religious orders, and the history of the viceroyalty, including an enumeration and discussion of its cities.

In Buenaventura’s book the influence of another of Botero’s works, his Relaciones Toscanas published in Spanish in 1603, can be traced as source in the structure and descriptions of his work. This is not surprising, given that Botero used the works of chronicles of the Indies, such as Antonio de Herrera, Josep de Acosta, and Pedro de Cieza de León, among others he citied, but also because Buenaventura himself often cited Botero as one of his own sources. Botero, as did these chroniclers of the Indies, granted in their writings a privileged space to the Incas, and to the city of Cuzco, as it was very impressive, orderly and majestic to the Europeans for its stone-carved buildings, cobbled streets, sophisticated irrigations systems, massive architectural complex at Sacsayhuaman, the Coricancha, or temple of the Sun reported to have had its walls covered in gold leaf to reflect sunlight, the numerous palaces of the Inca decorated with “infinite” gold and silver, and its spacious plaza “from where four roads lead to the four part of its Empire.”³⁹ BNE, GMM/2961, Descripcion, 1748, p. 331. This “City, the Seat of the Inca, or King of Peru and Head of the Empire,” as Botero denominated Cuzco, due to the utility and greatness of its tambos or warehouses, for this author “deserv[ed] to be placed before Egyptian and Roman [ones].”⁴⁰ BNE, GMM/2961, Descripcion, 1748, p. 327.

In the Relaciones Toscanas, Lima on the other hand, was described as being “built upon a plentiful river, two leagues away from the ocean, where possesses a port called Collao (sic),” and “constructed with much ingenuity, as all its streets and principal neighborhoods correspond to the plaza; and [where] there is not a house without a water pipe that feeds from the river,” and where “in it reside the Archbishop, the Viceroy, and the Royal Consejo; [and where] all the business and traffic [trafego] of the kingdom [are carried out].” Lima was also portrayed as a city rich in population of Spaniards as well as African slaves, with mild weather and bountiful and productive surrounding valleys, dynamic in its commerce, and that through its port of Callao, provided the silver to the monarchy that came from the rich mountain of Potosí.⁴² BNE, GMM/2961, Descripcion, 1748, pp. 327-328. After the description of all the important cities in the viceroyalty, it concluded that “The City of La Plata,⁴³ Today Sucre, Bolivia. Lima and Cuzco, are the biggest and richest, both in jurisdiction as in wealth, built by the Spaniards in Peru; and [the Imperial Villa of] Potosi, although not a City, does not recognize advantages, not even to Lima, in residents or riches.”⁴⁴ BNE, GMM/2961, Descripcion, 1748, p. 332. By comparison, the kingdoms of New Spain in Botero’s Relaciones received an inferior number of pages and much less detailed descriptions, even when noting how following the “judgment of Juzepe [Josep de] Acosta,” this province was the most pleasant and most fertile in the New World⁴⁵ BNE, GMM/2961, Descripcion, 1748, p. 295. . Where, however, and unlike the Incas, “the Octomios [Otomi] Chichimecos” were “barbarous peoples.”⁴⁶ BNE, GMM/2961, Descripcion, 1748, pp. 299-300. New Spain was, nonetheless, noted as being as magnificent, rich, orderly and noble as any “famous European province,” and only surpassed, “in abundance and refinement of its gold and silver,” by the provinces of Peru.⁴⁷ BNE, GMM/2961, Descripcion, 1748, p. 297. In similar form as in Balbuena’s Grandeza Mexicana, the plazas of Mexico in Botero’s pages were inundated by a wealth of various products from the lands, rendering the provinces of New Spain a New World cornucopia, a space of great agricultural and livestock richness and variety.

Fray Buenaventura’s conception of Lima did not fall far from Botero, as the “metropolis and head of the extended Kingdoms of Peru,” exceeded all other cities of the realm in grandeur.⁴⁸ BNE, R/3130, Memorial, 1631, Cap. II. The city’s greatness was found in its geography, that is, in its proximity to the ocean, its situation on a plain where waters did not gather in swamps, and where insects were almost unknown. Moreover, Lima’s airs were apparently healthy, and its summers and winters uniformly mild. As head of the extended kingdoms, discussion of other cities in the viceroyalty, began with that of Lima, therefore, its buildings, its surroundings, its political institutions, an enumeration of all the viceroys of Peru and each of their contributions to the royal treasury, of the oidores or royal magistrates, the members of its Cabildo or municipal government, the “services” provide to the king by Lima and the viceroyalty, as well as the bishoprics, the numbers of parishes, priests, and their monetary contributions to the royal treasury. Beyond describing the excellences of Lima, Buenaventura also placed the city’s historical development in relation to that of other world cities noting how, for example, initially the city had not possessed a very large population, which he argued, had also been the case in the early histories of Venice, Seville, and Lisbon. Given the benevolence of its location, however, Lima’s population had, nonetheless, steadily increased to the point where the city now rose “as head among the most illustrious cities of this [New] world;” one with a “perfect” layout, a centrally located plaza and very symmetric streets, “all at the same level,” and with opulent and magnificent temples, harmoniously designed.⁴⁹ BNE, R/3130, Memorial, 1631, Cap. II. Like Fray Diego de Ocaña and others, Fray Buenaventura described Lima’s adjacent Rimac River as gentle but plentiful, and as a source of sufficient water for the city’s numerous fountains, homes, and gardens.⁵⁰ See for example Ocaña, 1969.

Lima also had certain advantages, not only in terms of the variety of fruits it gathered from its own fertile lands, but also for its proximity to the South Sea where, according to Fray Buenaventura, its capacious port at Callao, attracted ships from around the world of all sizes and capacities, filling the city with merchandise and riches unknown in many Old-World cities. Worldly riches that were complemented by those the city received from other regions within the Viceroyalty. These goods, not produced by the city but enjoyed by it, came to it by what Alonso Núñez de Castro described for Madrid, as “transport,” and which was a source of criticism in its case.⁵¹ Biblioteca Pública de Burgos [BPB], sig. 2.677, Libro Historico Politico Solo Madrid Es Corte, Y El Cortesano en Madrid. Dividido en quatro Libros… Por Alonso Nuñez de Castro… En Madrid. Por Andres Garcia de la Iglesia. Año 1658, f. 4r; subsequent citations = BPB, sig. 2.677, Libro, 1658, f. 4r. In Lima, however, this made the city only richer by adding to its own local productions. And so, by sea came to Lima the products of her vast realms: the hardwoods of Guayaquil, the wines of Ica, Pisco, and Nazca, the wheat from the coastal valleys of the viceroyalty, sugar and preserves from Saña and Trujillo, meats from Chile, while from other points also flowed in honey, firewood, coal, and all those things “that pertain to human life, as much by necessity as for its delight and greater glory.”⁵² BNE, R/3130, Memorial, 1631, Cap. II. In his descriptions of the fruits of the land, Fray Buenaventura established a perfect balance between the products that came to Lima from near and far. Few European cities at the time possessed this variety of riches, and none also enjoyed the wealth that flowed from the world’s greatest silver mines at Potosi. As the great city in Botero, Lima also enjoyed a large and very diverse population, and Buenaventura repeatedly referenced the city’s “great numbers,” and diversity, which he considered to be one more source of the city’s wealth and marker of its greatness.⁵³ BNE, R/3130, Memorial, 1631, Cap. VI. In a section on Lima’s impressive Holy Office of the Inquisition, for example, he noted how the Auto de Fe performed in the Plaza Mayor in 1625 was witnessed by over twelve thousand people.⁵⁴ BNE, R/3130, Memorial, 1631, Cap. IIII. Note that there are two chapter four, the first is “Cap.IIII” followed by “Cap.IV.” On this Auto de fe, also see Osorio, 2008, pp. 103-119. He also provided the numbers and condition of its vecinos (citizens), as well as those who visited and dwelled in Lima, and their consumption, describing the abundance and variety of the foodstuff available in the city’s markets, the assortment of merchandises available in the great variety of city shops, and how much its inhabitants spent in them.⁵⁵ BNE, R/3130, Memorial, 1631, Cap. VI.

Great wealth and voluminous population was not, however, the only base of Lima greatness for Fray Buenaventura, as much of it also derived from its condition as the viceregal court, and the preeminence, reputation, and authority bestowed on it by the “illustrious lineages” of its nobility, the presence of illustrious viceroys who governed alongside the city’s Real Audiencia, the Royal Court of Justice, and all the other offices and officers of its government; whose power and preeminence was made evident in a detail history of the institutions, the men who had served each, and their salaries.⁵⁶ BNE, R/3130, Memorial, 1631, Cap. IIII. In annals fashion, Salinas listed all the viceroys who had ruled Peru, describing their more notable deeds, and noting the amount of silver that each viceroy had remitted to the kings of Castile. Since conquest and foundation, the wealth of viceregal Peru had in his estimation amounted to an almost unimaginable total of sixty-eight million one hundred thirty-eight thousand one hundred and eleven ducats, not including the remittances from its northern Kingdom of Quito.⁵⁷ BNE, R/3130, Memorial, 1631, Cap. III. As the university, founded by Charles V in 1548, was another source of distinction and cultural capital for the viceregal court, in similar fashion, Buenaventura described in detail, with a history of its founding, all of its chairs, past and present professors, as well as the salaries of all its various members. A similar pattern was followed in the section dealing with each of the Colegios Reales.⁵⁸ BNE, R/3130, Memorial, 1631, Cap. IV. The treatise also included a long and detailed chapter on the history of the church, convents, religious orders, and lists of its members, and their finances in Lima, as well as in the rest of the viceroyalty.⁵⁹ BNE, R/3130, Memorial, 1631, Cap. V. Buenaventura also found the royal fortifications at Callao, with its seven bastions, each named after viceroys and saints, and the impressive artillery pieces placed in each turret, to be one more marker of prominence, as in his view, they made this fortress one of the most imposing structures of defense in the entire Spanish world, and therefore, only fitting to a great city like Lima, the head of the extended Kingdoms of Peru.⁶⁰ BNE, R/3130, Memorial, 1631, Cap. II.

While the images of Lima in the Memorial, as those of the viceroyalty, were largely praising, Fray Buenaventura’s references to Madrid and to its royal court were much less pleasing. Madrid was mentioned indirectly as a point of reference to note, for example, how the great extents of the kingdoms of the Indies of Peru were “as long as from Madrid to the Caspian Sea.”⁶¹ BNE, R/3130, Memorial, 1631, Discurso II, Cap. I. More direct references to it served to critique Spanish rule in the viceroyalty and in the empire. In a passage referencing the entry on Friday, March 17, 1623, of the English prince Charles to the court in Madrid, of which an account was published in Lima, Fray Buenaventura critiqued the king, his government, and the excesses of the court.⁶² BNE, R/3130, Memorial, 1631, Discurso III, Cap. I, p. 253. This event functioned as both, example of the greatness of the royal court and of the Spanish king who bestowed on his visitor (but also received from him) “presents in gold and silver and precious stones” enormously pleasing “the Court, our Generous King, and Courtly Grandees of Castile,” as well as, to point out the avarice and crisis to which, such greatness and excesses could lead. Under Philip IV, Buenaventura noted how “she herself [the monarchy] suffers a thousand torments,” as much as those suffered by “her Indians, her cities and her kingdoms.”⁶³ “Verdadera relación de la entrada del príncipe Carlos de Inglaterra en la corte de Madrid, viernes diez y siete de marzo este año de 1623.” [Ciudad de los Reyes, s.n. 1623], cited in Wilkinson and Ulla Lorenzo, 2016, p. 1940; BNE, R/3130, Memorial, 1631, Discurso III, Cap. I, f. 253.

The Memorial de las Historias del Nuevo Mundo, much like the poem Grandeza Mexicana, followed in varying forms, the structures, characteristics, and many of the arguments posed by Botero in his Greatness of Cities, as well as those related to Cuzco and the Incas before the arrival of the Spanish, which seemed to come from his Relaciones Toscanas. Unlike Cuzco, Lima, or Mexico, however, Madrid did not figure prominently among the great worldly or European urban centers in the Relaciones Toscanas. In a description of Toledo, for example, Botero noted in passing, how towards the west of this city, “Madrid can be seen on a comfortable terrain [terreno affaz bueno],” the “villa where past kings made it their residence, and particularly today…lured to it by its healthy air, and the opportunity for hunting offered by its woods, a population has grown to be [one of] the largest in Spain.”⁶⁴ BNE, GMM/2961, Descripcion, 1748, p. 22.

Solo Madrid es Corte

Madrid was not endowed with many of the attributes of a great city as outlined by Botero, or those of Mexico as illustrated by Balbuena’s poem, or of Lima according to Fray Buenaventura’s Memorial. Madrid, however, had the king of the largest European empire at the time. And it was the king’s figure in residence that worked to balance, at least discursively if not also politically, the absences of more “natural” attributes and resources, like fertile lands and their products, large nearby navigable waters, or the production of luxury goods, possessed by other courts in Europe and in the New World (Tormo, 1929Tormo, E. (1929) “La capitalidad: Cómo Madrid es Corte.” Revista de la Biblioteca Archivo y Museo VI, (oct.), XXIV, pp. 420-455.). Its lack of “earthly things,” nonetheless, influenced Madrid’s economic conditions making it, among other things, a very expensive place in which to be and live (Domínguez Ortiz, 2003Domínguez Ortiz, A. (2003) “El reverse de la medalla. Pobreza extrema en el Madrid de Felipe IV.” Historia Social, 47, pp. 127-130.; Ringrose, 1973Ringrose, D. (1973) “The Impact of a New Capital City: Madrid, Toledo, and New Castile, 1560-1660.” The Journal of Economic History 33, 4 (Dec.), pp. 761-791. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700079195 and 1983Ringrose, D. (1983) Madrid and the Spanish Economy, 1560-1850. Berkeley: University of California Press. ). Its newness also presented problems for newcomers to the court, ranging from having to adjust to novel diplomatic comportments, to difficulties securing appropriate housing fit to their ranks.⁶⁵ For the political implications of the reordering of European powers represented at the court of Philip II, after establishing Madrid as “center” of the most important realm outside Rome, see Diario de Hans Khevenhüller, 2001. The court in Madrid was also aesthetically different from other European courts, seeming to some as understated or lacking in luxury, luster, and perhaps even, magnificence and beauty.

The Dutch diplomat Lodewijck Huygens, for example, in his diary of his travels to the Court in Madrid (1660-1661), beyond noting issues such as housing and safety, described the royal palace as lusterless, and devoid of any ornamentation or luxury. Two anterooms to the king’s chamber were in his view, not only very small, but also barely furnished; the king’s chamber was likewise small “with hardly room to bow,” sparsely furnished with an old bed covered with a sheet of silver “tisú,” with walls “hanged with old tapestries.” A hallway leading to the queen’s chamber was “long, narrow and without adornments.”⁶⁶ Un Holandés, 2010, pp. 175-176. The room where the queen ate “publicly” on Christmas day 1660 was furnished with “a long table without a tablecloth,” later covered, however, for her to eat on, with “an old red velvet baldachin” hanging above it, and walls covered with old tapestries “but of extraordinary execution subtle and precise, particularly the faces.” The chair on which she sat was also “old and embroidered in red velvet,” while the dresses of the queen’s ladies-in-waiting seemed “strange” and their headdresses simply “horrible,” making “none of them beautiful.”⁶⁷ Un Holandés, 2010, pp. 185-187. Huygens’ description of the dishes eaten by the queen, who apparently at times “gobbled down” large pieces of meat, noted the numerous times she added sugar to her food or simply ate it plain, certainly a marker of her status at the time.⁶⁸ See Stols, 2004; Thomas, 1965, pp. 110 and ss. Nonetheless, the Capilla Real was decorated with “beautiful tapestries that represented some of Jesus Christ’s miracles.”⁶⁹ Un Holandés, 2010, p. 183. And while the streets of the villa appeared to him as dangerous and filled with prostitutes, the interior of its palaces could be filled with great beauty, elegance and good manners, like that of the member of the Consejo Real, don Fernando de Borja, whose servants were extremely polite and well dressed, or that of the Duke of Alva, “a beautiful palace conditioned with very good taste.”⁷⁰ Un Holandés, 2010, p. 191.

Other travelers, like the Italian Francesco Gemelli Careri, who visited Madrid in the 1690s, could provide a more general sense of how the Villa looked, might have felt, but also smelled like then. Starting in 1693, Gemelli traveled to the Philippines and New Spain, as well as to Seville and Madrid, journeys he recounted in his Giro del Mondo, published in 1700, and where “La Real Villa di Madrid” is presented as a place of great contrasts. On the one hand, Gemelli praised the magnificence of the royal palace, which he described as being simply “superbissimi” for its magnificent structure, the richness of its furnishings, its famous paintings, its copies of fountains and clean and clear ponds, its Retiro gardens, and for its exuberant surrounding hunting forests.⁷¹Giro del Mondo del dottor D. Gio Francesco Gemelli Careri. Parte Sesta. Contenente le cose più ragguardevoli vedute Nella Nvova Spagna. Nella Stamperia di Giuseppe Roselli, 1700, p. 368; subsequent citations = Giro del Mondo, 1700, p. 368. He also extoled the palace of the Duke of Uceda, “one of the best” of its kind, for its great architecture and marble ornamentation “chosen by the Queen for her residence.” Gemelli also admired the Plaza Mayor for its “five-story houses with its iron balconies and perfect symmetries,” its perfectly square shape with multiple entrances, and “where in the shops of its lower porticoes one can see all sorts of rich merchandize.”⁷²Giro del Mondo, 1700, p. 369. This magnificence was surrounded, however, by low-wall houses of uneven height, made of mud “poorly constructed with wooden frames,” and where streets were always dirty by “the habit” of disposing of human waste “by throwing it out the windows onto the streets” below.⁷³Giro del Mondo, 1700, pp. 367-383.

Despite these peculiarities, presumably with respect to other courts, the sole presence of the king in Madrid, bestowed upon the Villa, prestige, magnificence, and reputation. It was this source of cultural and symbolic capital as center of royal and political power of the formidable empire that chroniclers of Madrid tapped into to refute, and/or clarify, what could be construed as criticism or ill-intentioned negative images of the Villa and of the court, such as those contained in Huygens or even Gemelli, but also in Botero. An example of such refutations is the book Libro Historico Politico, Solo Madrid es Corte, by the royal chronicler Alonso Núñez de Castro, first published in Madrid in 1658.⁷⁴ This title, along with Día, y noche de Madrid and Dozenas de Comedias de Madrid, appeared in a catalog of books to be sold in the Indies in the seventeenth century (see Torre Revello, 1930, pp. 22, 29, 30). In structure, as in many of its arguments, this book resonates with the abovementioned works by Botero, and with the 1631 Memorial by Buenaventura de Salinas y Córdova. The Libro Historico, while praising the many attributes of Madrid, also contradicted many of the prescriptions for a great city found in Botero, as well as critiques and/or representations of its geography, location, economy, and/or population as problematic, or of its physical material structures and their appearance as being less than fit for the urban head of the great Spanish empire.

Núñez de Castro defined Court as where “on the apparatuses of population, adds the presence of the Prince, of his Councils, Grandees, and Titles of the Kingdom.”⁷⁵ BPB, sig. 2.677, Libro, 1658, f. 1. Adding that Court was also the place where resided reason, noting the vital importance of the councilors to the prince, and concluding the history of its etymology, by quoting the law from the Siete Partidas, “What the Court Is, Why It Is So Named, and What It Should Be,” previously mentioned, as example of the best summary of this concept.⁷⁶ BPB, sig. 2.677, Libro, 1658, ff. 1r, 2r. Concept that, as also noted, according to Covarrubias’s in his 1611 definition of Court, was “the place where the King resides,” with his vassals and his officials, who, among other things, were to continuously advise and serve him.⁷⁷ Covarrubias, 1995 [1611], p. 360. Very much in line with these definitions, the subject of Book One of the Libro Historico was the King, while Madrid stood as a secondary backdrop theme. The institutions and etiquette around the king’s body, shared in with the councils and officials that advised and served him, and with the religious and fiscal bodies to which his vassals, throughout the empire, contributed. In this order, these parts composed the political body that in concert made up the Spanish Habsburg monarchy the most powerful in the world. And where Madrid was the place where all this came together. In the first edition of this book, with few descriptions of Madrid’s physical space and/or characteristics, the Villa served primarily as backdrop to the story of the prince, as Núñez often referred to the king, and his empire. The Libro Historico went through three more editions, in 1669, 1675 and one posthumous in 1698, and while throughout, the definition and etymology of Court remained constant, Madrid gained more prominence and presence, as it were, in the later editions, particularly in those of 1675 and 1689, reflecting perhaps its consolidation as the urban head in the empire, but perhaps also its consolidation as its administrative center.

The Libro Historico Politico, Solo Madrid es Corte according to María José del Río Barredo, was conceived primarily as a “manual for courtiers,” possibly intended for the numerous nobles, gentlemen and aristocrats who came to the court during the second half of the seventeenth century (Rio Barredo, 2000, p. 124, n. 12). This was clearly the case in its first edition of 1658, where out of the four books that composed the Libro Historico, three were dedicated to the courtier, and only one and shortest, dealt specifically with the Villa of Madrid.⁷⁸ BPB, sig. 2.677, Libro, 1658, ff. I-41b. In this first edition, Book One was divided into eight sections, on the definition of the court and its etymology, as already mentioned, on the villa’s population, a comparison with the court in Rome, an enumeration of all the councils of “Madrid Court of Spain” and their functions, a short description of the etiquette observed around the body of the king, and a final section on the provisions of offices made by the king inside and outside of Spain. Arguments in this first edition are rather confusing and often seem to ramble on countering and/or correcting various writings about the Villa, its characteristics and/or shortcomings, while also praising its greatness in sometimes vague form, reflecting the fact that, as Núñez notes in its prologue to this edition, the section on Madrid grew out of notes he had gather over the years and which, to him seemed not to be very “polished,” as the real focus was on the three books that follow it dealing squarely with the courtier.⁷⁹ BPB, sig. 2.677, Libro, 1658, Prologo.

Be that as it may, later editions, particularly the third of 1675 and the posthumous of 1698, expanded “descriptive elements,” but not only of “the institutions of the villa,” as noted by Río Barredo, as the chronicle in effect became a long political treatise that in content, structure and detail, produced and established the space and geography of the imperial body politic of the Spanish Habsburg, as well as of its various members. This political body, as mentioned, sat in Madrid, its imperial urban courtly head and the spatial location of the court, and where the king embodied all those other parts of the body politic that made up the Spanish Habsburg monarchy (Álvarez-Ossorio, 1997, p. 74Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, A. (1997) “El cortesano indiscreto: Itinerario de una ciencia áulica (ss. XVI-XVII).” Historia Social, 28, pp. 73-94.). The additions made to these later editions are too numerous to deal with here. In general terms, however, the Libro Historico became a well-ordered and clearly argued institutional and political-economic history of the monarchy. In it, Núñez provided a comparison of the Court in Madrid with that in Rome, noting, for example, the latter’s antiquities, its new constructions, temples, palaces, buildings, government, and the imperial city’s wealth, thus grounding the newly made Villa in a deep ancestral past by association, much as did New World cities earlier in the century in their own histories of political constitution in order to establish their authority among other cities in the empire (Osorio, 2018, pp. 102-106Osorio, A. B. (2018) “Of National Boundaries and Imperial Geographies: A New Radical History for the Spanish Habsburg Empire.” Radical History Review 130, pp. 100-130. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-4217907 ; MacCormack, 2007MacCormack, S. (2007) On the Wings of Time: Rome, the Incas, Spain, and Peru. Princeton: Princeton University Press.). Núñez also provided lengthy descriptions of the institutions of government and revenue collection, in both Spain as well as its empire, with special details for those of Castile and Leon. The advisory Councils to the king were ordered in chronological order by date of their creation, with histories of their constitution, their members, and their functions. The kingdoms and provinces of the empire, as well as the bishoprics and archbishoprics were all treated with historical and political details as well as with the revenue sums each contributed to the monarchy. Another section on the Royal Household, detailed the offices that surrounded the king’s body and their function and uses. This Book One also included a section titled “Other courts with whom Madrid does not want competencies,” which constitutes an interesting criticism of other European courts, as in Nuñez’s view, they “not only have… their evil in their head [but also] in their whole achey body, because none of them have hands to defend themselves, they all need help from strangers to be saved,” and since the Spanish king was often their savior, Madrid had nothing to envy of them.⁸⁰ BPB, sig. 2.677, Libro, 1658, ff. 12-12r.

Núñez offered subtle critiques to claims that the Villa lacked natural characteristics that made other places in Europe great cities, when, for example, in response to those who might have thought there was not a great river in Madrid, he noted how this was due to ignorance, as “there is a river in Madrid, the Manzanares, of temperate currents,” which served “for recreation without danger, for enjoyment without the risks,” of the mighty rivers of Germany.⁸¹ BPB, sig. 2.677, Libro, 1658, f. 7. In the later editions, Madrid was also described in more detail, as a large urban space, with “four hundred streets, sixteen plazas, sixteen thousand houses where more than sixty thousand vecinos live, thirteen parishes, thirty convents, and twenty six monasteries, twenty four hospitals, a variety of shrines and devotional sites.”⁸²Libro Historico Politico, Solo Madrid es Corte, y el Cortesano en Madrid. Quarta Impression, con diferentes Adiciones, dividido en quatro Libros… En Barcelona: Por Vicente Suria, Impressor… Año 1698, p. 7; subsequent citations = Libro Historico, 1698, p. 7. Descriptions of the fabric of the chapels, churches, buildings and plazas in the villa, while occasionally also offering dates of their construction or refurbishment and their costs, also conveyed the magnificence of the Villa. The Plaza Mayor, “the most sumptuous work that Spain celebrates. It was completed in the year one thousand six hundred and sixteen, surpassing nine hundred thousand ducats its fabric,” and was where “four thousand people live; and [where] in the public celebrations with bulls it is possible for more than sixty thousand people to enjoy themselves.”⁸³Libro Historico, 1698, pp. 7-8. He also pointed out, how in the great numbers of houses, palaces, churches, customs house, and the “royal houses of the grand palace,” Madrid had nothing to envy other courts because the Villa was “adorned by [the] many houses of grandees,” which in magnificence could be “the Palaces of other princes [in other places], [and] possessing more than one hundred thousand balconies and iron bars, …[they] embellish [all] the houses of the Villa.”⁸⁴Libro Historico, 1698, pp. 8-9. Not disputing claims that the exterior of the buildings in Madrid were unimpressive, possibly rendering them less beautiful and magnificent than those in other worldly courts, Núñez explained this was only because in the Villa these building’s interiors were the “true palaces, where magnificence and comfort are to be found in their ornaments, attires, riches and comforts,” something Huygens had also noted in his diary. As a way of critique, Núñez argued further, how this was unlike in those other courts where luxurious palaces on the outside hid interiors often “not fit for the habitation of a commoner,” as they could be empty and poorly attired.⁸⁵ BPB, sig. 2.677, Libro, 1658, f. 4; Libro Historico, 1698, p. 9.

Madrid’s magnificence was further reflected in its excellent and sophisticated cuisine, which had immensely improved with time due to its wealth of available provisions but was also revealed by the sheer availability of a variety of rich cloths and clothing trimmings, all so common in the Villa that many, particularly critics, Núñez argued, took them for granted, going unnoticed and unappreciated. He also rejected criticisms that all of Madrid’s provisions and goods came to it from afar by “transport,” rather than being produced locally. Such notions, he argued, made it seemed as if “its courtiers not owing to their soil, more conveniences for life than the natural ones of its healthy nature, of its fresh waters, of its benign airs.”⁸⁶ BPB, sig. 2.677, Libro, 1658, f. 4r; Libro Historico, 1698, p. 10. He reasoned instead, that since no large population could owe only to its own soil all of its subsistence, there was a level playing field for all, where the advantage was to be had by those who could actually acquire the most from foreign regions. He offered how, in the court of King Salomon, where “all its pomp was due to its foreign nations, to Ophir its gold and precious stones, to Saba its frequent aromas,” Salomon “did not lose his court” or himself “for owing to foreign climates their happiness,” nor was he less celebrated for it. And making a clear case for empire, he argued, how a prince did not “stop being a prince for needing from others for his livelihood,” nor did a court “stop being the head of all others because it needed from them, as tributaries, the fruits of many for the enjoyment of the whole.” On the contrary, this was the very source of the prince’s greatness and power. And proof of it was the fact that artists flocked to the court in Madrid in search of recognition and fair compensation, as there was no other place, he argued, where “foreigners from nations prominent in some art” looked for praise (aplausos), “like they do in Madrid.” And either because in their nations they were “not appreciated, or because they cannot be afforded,” their “more prominent work” was more frequently displayed and seen, therefore, in “our court rather than in that of their birthplace.” This was also, however, because Madrid, unlike their birthplaces, placed a deserving price (and value) on their works.⁸⁷ BPB, sig. 2.677, Libro, 1658, f. 5; Libro Historico, 1698, p. 12. And so it followed that, while luxurious cloths were manufactured in London, Holland, Florence, India, and Milan, and statues and tapestries, in Italy and Flanders, these were all “enjoyed in our court,” further proving (figuratively) “that all nations raise officials for Madrid” (crian oficiales para Madrid) making it the “Lady of the Courts, since they all serve it, while it serves no one.”⁸⁸ BPB, sig. 2.677, Libro, 1658, f. 5; Libro Historico, 1698, p. 12.

This form of vassalage for Núñez had its costs, nonetheless, as Madrid’s gold and silver, ultimately enriched all those other nations that provided it with luxurious goods. Such expenses were a limited cost, however, as they did not take away Madrid’s magnificence, but rather made evident the end to which that gold was put, thus making them in fact reasonable and legitimate uses of its wealth. This was followed by an apologia of the expenses of the court, and by extension, of the high cost of living in Madrid. Núñez conceded things costing more in Madrid than in those places where they were produced, due both to a surplus of money to pay for them, but also because products were more highly valued there, than elsewhere. In his view, in those courts with lower costs of living, either the “sweat” of their officials was simply deemed “worthless” and they worked for nothing (de valde), or there was just no money to pay for, or purchase, the fruits of their labor.⁸⁹ BPB, sig. 2.677, Libro, 1658, f. 5r-6; Libro Historico, 1698, p.13.

Núñez adamantly contradicted claims that Madrid could not be the “Crown” among other courts because its population was smaller than theirs. The dictum that a city with a smaller population could not rule over (dominar) those with larger ones was, in his view, plain wrong. Madrid in his estimate had what it needed to claim its rightful place as Court, as it not only enjoyed a sufficient number of citizens “without the dangers of excesses,” but also surpassed other courts in grandees, and nobles. The Villa also exceeded in the quality of its ordinary people and of its plebes, whose “spirit” was so noble “that, though tempting, it is necessary not to claim that all of Madrid is composed of lords (Señores).”⁹⁰Libro Historico, 1698, pp. 14-15. Madrid was, in short, the rightful head as the place of residence of a king whose rich kingdoms provided him with unimaginable wealth enjoyed by the royal court and its numerous residents. A place where, furthermore, the true value of labor was not only recognized but also compensated fairly. As the center of a great empire, Madrid was immensely rich, as the king’s many “tributary” kingdoms that supplied it with a wealth of foodstuff and luxury items required for and by its “magnificence,” offset its presumed lack of more earthly local resources. A head whose population, furthermore, although potentially less “populous” than that of other courts, made up for it by exceeding in nobility and gentility.⁹¹ Antonio de Léon Pinelo in his Anales de Madrid, in 1561 placed the population of Madrid at twelve to fourteenth thousand peoplelivingintwothousandfivehundredandtwentyhouses(León Pinelo, 1971, p. 85). By contrast, in 1547, the city of Naples had a population of 212,000 inhabitants (Marino, 2011, p. 10).