Historians studying the political and administrative history of Bourbon Peru have no comprehensive survey of viceregal memorias de gobierno comparable to that produced by Lewis Hanke for the viceroys of New Spain and Spanish America serving the House of Austria. Apart from particular modern studies of the relaciones left by the Viceroys Manuel de Amat, the Marqués de Avilés, and José Fernando Abascal, they have been forced to depend on the antiquated 1859 edition of viceregal memorias produced by Manuel Fuentes or the equally musty set of relaciones edited by Sebastián de Lorente between 1867 and 1872. Thus, the appearance of this updated version of Viceroy Agustín de Jáuregui’s Relación de gobierno, covering the years 1780-84, is a welcome addition to the field, as is the news that Alfredo Moreno Cebrián is preparing a similar study of the relación left by Viceroy Manso de Velasco, the Conde de Superunda. While even the modern versions of these official histories betray their partial, incomplete, and idealized version of events as seen from Lima, the panoramic view provided by Spain’s chief official in each geographic region allows historians to reflect on how these officers perceived the behavior of the subjects in these vast dominions.

Contreras has located a longer and more complete version of Jáuregui’s Relación in Madrid’s Real Academia de Historia, thus improving on Loreilte’s earlier edition. It is presented along with considerable historiographical information, biographical data, and a documentary appendix not previously published. Numerous annotations refer to pertinent documentation from the Jáuregui administration located in the Archivo General de Indias.

The Jáuregui years were dominated by the massive rebellion of José Gabriel Túpac Amaru Inca in Tinta, which was not definitively ended until 1783, with the capture of Felipe Velasco Túpac Inca Yupanqui in Huarochirí. Unfortunately, historians interested in this event will find little that is new among these records. Correspondence between Jáuregui and his field subordinates, however, does reflect the detached and often inaccurate impression of the rebellion received in Lima, particularly the depth of native grievances and the larger opposition by provincials toward their domination by Lima and even Madrid. Similarly, it is clear that the government’s major concern was to end the rebellion in order to revive commerce and that little attention was given to the causes of the rebellion itself.