On August 10, 1809, a group of Quito aristocrats, headed by the Marqués de Selva Alegre, formed a Junta, following the example set by Peninsular Spain. The movement was not seconded by the other provinces of the Audiencia. Threatened by the viceroys of Santa Fe and Lima, the quiteños reinstated in his functions the president of the audiencia, Ruiz de Castilla. Still, troops from Lima and Panama occupied the city, and the members of the Junta, with the exception of Selva Alegre, who went into hiding, were thrown into prison. Their chief persecutor was a cuzqueño, Aréchaga, secretary of Ruiz de Castilla.
In the meantime the Regency sent out as royal commissioner Colonel Carlos Montúfar, son of Selva Alegre and who, with other quiteños, had been fighting in Spain against the French intruders. But Montúfar was still on his way when the limeño troops murdered in their cells the political prisoners and followed up by sacking Quito.
On his arrival Montúfar founded a new junta, with Ruiz de Castilla as president and Selva Alegre as vice-president. But Viceroy Amar of Santa Fe, who had accepted Montúfar’s commission, was overthrown, and the viceroy of Lima, Abascal, whose constant ambition was to absorb the Audiencia of Quito, refused to recognize him. Hostilities broke out. Though the quiteños had superior numbers, their offensive came to a standstill since Montúfar—still feeling himself the representative of the Cádiz government—was reluctant to accept the responsibility of a civil war. Then the quiteños eliminated him, his father, and Ruiz de Castilla from the junta, now presided over by the Bishop of Quito. Internal dissentions did not help their cause, and in 1812 General Toribio Montes occupied Quito and its province.
To write this book, Dr. Navarro did intensive research in Madrid. Unhappily, it lacks clarity and organization. The author evidently was not able to digest his material. On the basis of his sources, he acknowledges quite often that the Quito movement drifted gradually from a demand for self government towards a final declaration of independence, and he attributes rightly this change to the repressive policies of Ruiz de Castilla, Aréchaga, Arredondo, and Abascal and to the excesses of the limeños who garrisoned Quito. At the same time, however, Navarro is unable to get rid of his preconceived idea that from the 16th century on, and chiefly since the end of the 18th century, quiteños were conspiring consistently for independence; and that August 10 was the “primer grito de independencia” in Spanish America that set into motion the emancipation movement all over the continent. To this effect he cites and puts into thick type certain opinions of President Molina, who came to the Audiencia of Quito only in 1810, and who was not qualified to write on what was happening elsewhere. Molina wanted only to paint as dark a picture as possible of the character of the quiteños. Thus, in other cases Navarro accuses him of “mentir descaradamente” (p. 427).
Finally, it is clear that the author is not treading solid ground when he cannot depend on his documents. This is quite disconcerting when referring to the history of his own country. For instance, he repeatedly affirms that cuencanos started to call their city Cuenca del Perú after August 10, 1809, in order to express their hatred for Quito and their sympathy for Peru. But the Relación of Merisalde, written in 1765 by order of the Viceroy of Santa Fe, starts with the words: “La ciudad de Cuenca, perteneciente al reino del Perú.” This was a geographical and not an administrative term. It is also very strange that Dr. Navarro should insist that since 1806 Guayaquil belonged absolutely to the Viceroyalty of Lima. The documents he cites do not bear him out. It is well known that in 1803 Guayaquil was subordinated to Lima in military affairs; in 1806 it was declared that Guayaquil—logically enough—would be under the Consulado of Lima, instead of the one in Cartagena. On November 9, 1807, the king expressly declared that the Viceroy of Lima should not meddle in other than military affairs. It was only in 1810 that Abascal incorporated Guayaquil into the district of the Audiencia of Lima—in view of the situation prevailing in Quito—a provisional solution that lasted until 1819.
Though there are references to the documents, these are used inconsistently and cannot be trusted. On page 68 he cites a letter of Luis Quijano, “Alférez Real de Guayaquil,” though it is well known that this position belonged to José Joaquín Pareja. The residencia of Governor Cucalón is cited as to be found in Sección Estado of the Archivo Histórico Nacional in Madrid, though it is in Sección Consejos. One also misses in such a book the Memoria de Gobierno of Viceroy Abascal. But in general terms, this is an example of a disappointing book based on excellent research.
