Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

to Seville represented on an average all of the quinto reserved to the Crown proves to be incorrect.

Furthermore, the proportionate amounts assigned by Lexis for gold and silver were wide of the mark. He far over-estimated the production of gold, and underestimated that of silver. Soetbeer's approximation for gold was much closer to the truth. Both were unaware how great was the decline in the yield of gold within twenty-five years after the coming of the Spaniards. The production of silver, on the other hand, began earlier and made greater strides than either imagined. The famous silver mines of Zacatecas were not discovered till 1548. Ten years later were opened the deposits at Guanajuato, the richest the world has ever known.1 But even before 1548 the exploitation of less celebrated mines had vastly augmented the metallic output of the country. The average annual yield in 1540-44 was over three times that of the decade immediately preceding, and was itself almost doubled by the yield of the years 1544-48.

An idea of the variations in the production of gold and silver may be gained from the following table, which summarizes my own conclusions:

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

III. PERU

When we investigate the gold and silver production of the vice-royalty of Peru and its dependencies, the difference between the figures obtained in Seville and those of Soetbeer and Lexis becomes more striking. The two German scholars made separate estimates for Peru proper (the confines of the present-day republic) and for each of the outlying regions of Upper Peru (Bolivia) and Chili. But in the sixteenth century all three were part of the same vice-royalty, and seem to have been in financial administration dependent upon the royal treasurer at Lima. There are no individual accounts in Seville for Upper Peru or Chili; and in the reports of the precious metals brought back by the great fleets, the gold and silver coming from the Pacific coast of South America is always entered under the rubric "Peru," and not itemized separately for the three districts. The presumption, therefore, is that the receipts of the "Hacienda Real" in Upper Peru and Chili- or at least the quinto — entered into the accounts of the royal treasurer at Lima. And this presumption is borne out by an examination of the accounts themselves.

It is impossible with any assurance of accuracy however, to separate in these ledgers the receipts coming from the three regions. The silver of Potosí and the gold from the vicinity of Cuzco passed through the city of Arequipa for shipment up the coast to Lima; and are noted in the treasurers' books merely as coming via Arequipa, or as oro y plata que se trae de fuera desta ciudad." It will be necessary, therefore, to compare the results from the figures in the Sevillan archives with the

[ocr errors]

1 Doubtless, too, the gold which the conquistadores may have found in Chili.

figures of Soetbeer and of Lexis for Peru, Upper Peru and Chili combined.

For Peru in the sixteenth century, Soetbeer and Lexis had for guidance only the reports of booty secured from the natives by the initial conquerors, and the scattered and often untrustworthy figures of travelers and historians like Cieza de Leon, Zarate, Gómara and Herrera. Their conclusions which at most could be merest guess-work - differed considerably, Lexis increasing Soetbeer's figures for gold-production and greatly decreasing those for silver. Their results in tabular form are as follows: 1

[blocks in formation]

For the gold-production of Chili there were even less available data than in the case of Peru, and the figures of Soetbeer and Lexis are consequently even more problematical. Lexis accepts the approximation of Soetbeer, which for the years 1545-60, amounted to 12,800,000 pesos.2 We have no knowledge of any production of silver in Chili during this period.

For Upper Peru, and especially for the mines of Potosí, more information of a reasonably reliable sort was to be had. There was the testimony of Cieza de Leon, who visited Potosí in 1549, to the effect that the

1 Soetbeer, op. cit., p. 69; Lexis, op. cit., pp. 397-399. The figures for gold-production are based on the currency standard in Spain in the sixteenth century, which implied a ratio of gold to silver of 1-10.11. The original figures in the works cited are based on the standard of 1879: 1-15.5. I have made the same correction for the gold-production of Chili and Upper Peru.

[blocks in formation]

quinto of the silver mined in that year amounted to about 120,000 pesos de minas a month (or 1 millions a year). It was known that over a million ducats were brought to Spain from Peru by the great Jesuit statesman Gasca in 1550, after he had extirpated the unholy brood of the Pizarrosa sum which presumably rep-resented all the funds in the royal chests gathered in the previous four or five years and surviving the chaos of the civil wars. José de Acosta relates that when he was in Peru in 1574, the viceroy Toledo had an estimate prepared of the sums from which the quinto had been collected at Potosí since the opening of the mines in 1545. The report was based for the earliest years on the memory of surviving officials, the books having been lost; and the estimated figure was 76 million pesos de minas.2 Finally, there were the reports made to the Spanish crown in 1784 and 1802 by the royal treasurer at Potosí, D. Lamberto de Sierra, of the royalties collected each year since 1556. The earlier of these was used by Humboldt without his being aware, apparently, of its original source. Soetbeer quotes it from Humboldt and also refers to the later report of 1802. Lexis for the first time indicates their common origin. Sierra, in his second report, estimates the average annual yield of the quinto during the first eleven years (1545-55) at 443,000 pesos.

All of these data were used in turn by Humboldt, Soetbeer and Lexis, but with somewhat different results. Humboldt calculated that the average yearly return of the quinto at Potosí during the eleven problematical years was 2,300,000 pesos of 8 reals; which presupposes an annual silver production of 11,500,000 pesos, and a total registered production for the eleven

1 Cronica del Peru, cap. cviii.

Hist. Nat. y Moral de las Indias, lib. iv, cap. 7.

years of 127,500,000 pesos.1 As he assumed that a fifth of the metal extracted was never registered and taxed, another 32 millions must be added to cover this fraud.

Soetbeer, and Lexis after him, believed that Humboldt's figures were greatly exaggerated. Soetbeer evidently used as the basis of his calculations the estimate of Sierra. Presuming that Sierra meant pesos de minas of 13 reals, and that in this early period at least half the silver mined was not registered, Soetbeer reckoned the average annual production of silver in Potosí and the rest of Upper Peru at 7,820,000 pesos of 8 reals, the total production for the eleven years at 86 millions.

Lexis, however, makes it clear that Sierra meant pesos fuertes, and also throws doubts upon the trustworthiness of Sierra's estimate. He prefers to base his computations on the figures secured by Toledo in 1574, as related by Acosta. Assuming that the 76 millions represents the total amount of silver produced from 1545 to 1574, and using the official figures furnished by Sierra for the quinto in the years 1556-74, he concludes that the total amount extracted between 1545 and 1555 was about 54 million pesos de minas or about 89 million pesos of 8 reals. This result is so close to the approximation of Soetbeer, 86 millions tho obtained by so entirely different a method that Lexis accepts Soetbeer's figure.

For the period 1556-60, Soetbeer and Lexis both make use of the official figures supplied by the treasurer Sierra. As Soetbeer, however, reads Sierra's table in

1 Humboldt is silent regarding the possible gold-production of Upper Peru.

? The conclusion of Lexis is borne out by a seventeenth century document in the British Museum (Add. Mss. 13,976, fol. 405), which covers the same ground as does Sierra's report up to the year 1640, but with results reckoned in pesos de minas. It is referred to in the text as Echavarria's table.

Acosta gives this sum as representing only the silver registered.

« ForrigeFortsett »