In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Polycentric Monarchies: How did Early Modern Spain and Portugal Achieve and Maintain a Global Hegemony? ed. by Pedro Cardim et al.
  • Liam Matthew Brockey
Cardim, Pedro, Tamar Herzog, José Javier Ruiz Ibáñez, and Gaetano Sabatini, eds. Polycentric Monarchies: How did Early Modern Spain and Portugal Achieve and Maintain a Global Hegemony? Eastbourne, UK: Sussex Academic Press, 2012. Introduction. Notes on Contributors. Index. 241 pp.

This collection of essays proposes a new conceptual framework for understanding the unity of the Spanish and Portuguese empires in the early modern period. At issue is the fundamental question of the mechanisms that permitted the Iberians to maintain globe-spanning empires for several centuries, in spite of the centrifugal forces of tradition and identity. The notion that the volume proposes, most forcefully stated by Alberto Marcos Martín in his epilogue, is that the “grand multinational organizations of the early modern period” were polycentric, rather than purely hierarchical. In other words, “politics” existed in far more corners of the vast Iberian domains than just the courts of Madrid and Lisbon. In this view, the different structures that comprised the Habsburg monarchy, for instance, could exist in parallel, since they were grouped around different centers instead of being subordinate to the concerns of the Castilian court. It was therefore the degree of flexibility built into the structures of the Iberian empires that permitted them to achieve such longevity. Moreover, contemporaries were aware of this factor and actively sought to “opt-in” to a system in which their own centers of power would be maintained and new opportunities for social promotion and enrichment abounded.

The essays in Polycentric Monarchies are divided into three parts: “Spaces of Integration,” “Spaces of Circulation,” and “External Projections.” In general, the themes discussed fall under the broad rubrics of political culture and high politics, socio-economic dimensions, and case studies. In the first part, Jean-Frédéric Schaub and Pedro Cardim contribute chapters about Luso-Castilian relations in the Azores during the Philippine period and the representation of the colonial cities of Goa and Bahía at the Portuguese Cortes, respectively. Óscar Mazín Gómez offers a contribution about the political thought of Juan de Solórzano Pereyra on the Americas, while Rodrigo Bentes Monteiro examines the diplomatic dimensions of the marriage between Catherine of Braganza and Charles II. The second part of the volume turns to social and economic questions. Enrique Soria Mesa addresses the marriage strategies and family connections of members of the imperial administration, while Gaetano Sabatini examines the Vaaz family, a Portuguese merchant clan resident in Naples during the Philippine period, and Giuseppe de Luca analyzes the role of Milanese financiers in royal administration. Questions of identity are discussed by Jean-Paul Zúñiga and Tamar Herzog, with chapters on the casta paintings of colonial Mexico and the categories of “Spaniard” and “European” used in the American context. Juan-Francisco Pardo Molero’s analysis of political vocabulary and ritual in the kingdom of Valencia completes this section, while the two final articles deal with the “foreign relations” of the Philippine period. Manuel Herrero Sánchez discusses the relations between the crown, Genoa, and the United Provinces in light of republican [End Page E4] theory in the early modern period, while José Javier Ruiz Ibáñez considers the four-year stay of a “Spanish” garrison in Paris during the final phase of the Wars of Religion. The volume is bookended by an introduction from the editors and the conclusion, both of which revisit the notion of “polycentric monarchies” in dialogue with the material presented in the various chapters.

As suggested by the wide range of topics covered in the essays in this volume, the question of coherence is raised. Indeed, one of the main flaws of the volume is that there is a tension between the theoretical ambition of the editors and the extreme focus (in some cases) of the essays. For instance, some chapters immerse the reader in a level of detail that clouds the relationship between the case in question and the broader themes. Perhaps a single editor, rather than a quartet, would have been able to goad the authors towards more...

pdf

Share