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

7 The Riot of 1692 In the seventeenth century, New Spain and its capital seemed to epitomize the order, stability, and continuity of the colonial system. Even in the midst of Spain's collapse as a European power, a steady stream of peninsular bureaucrats maintained an imposing and virtually unchallenged state apparatus in Mexico. Earlier scholars tended to view this as a static, even somnolent age-"the long siesta." We now know that beneath its placid surface, Mexico City witnessed a constant round of political scheming, intrigue, and alliance and counteralliance.1 Still, the pax hispanica was shattered only twice, in the riots of1624 and 1692. Both featured violence, destruction of property, and the frightening spectacle ofthousands ofpeople raging in the plaza mayor, shouting for the viceroy's blood. But the second offered a more direct and threatening challenge to Spanish authority. Recent studies ofthe 1624 riot suggest that it may have been encouraged by members of the elite as one move in an elaborate political struggle.2 The riot of 1692 did not fit into any such framework of intraelite conflict, seeming rather to reflect pronounced popular anger at the wealthy and at Spanish rule in general: "Death to the gachupines!" Indeed, elite commentators were inclined to see this riot as an indigenous uprising, a tumulto de indios, and thus as especially alien and dangerous. Unfortunately, the 1692 riot has not received the close scrutiny of its earlier counterpart. The few historical narratives are based, for the most part, on published accounts written by elite Spaniards. These accounts suffer from an obvious bias. But more important, they give us the views of observers and reactors rather than instigators and participants. The voices of the rioters themselves remain unheard. The following analysis of the tumulto-its causes, development, and aftermath-provides for the first time both plebeian and elite perspectives. As so often happens, the extraordinary illuminates the commonplace. The paper trail left in the riot's wake allows us to probe more deeply into seventeenth-century social relations, to discover the colonial regime's underlying strengths and weaknesses as well as the tensions within plebeian society itself The tumulto of 1692 has generally been viewed as a classic com riot. It is certain that it occurred after a year of unremitting agricultural disaster. Heavy rains and flooding in June and July 1691, combined with an out125 126 The Riot of 1692 break ofblight, ruined both the autumn wheat and maize harvests. Mexico City residents faced shortages and price increases in both grains throughout that winter and the following spring. Indeed, maize prices in 1692 reached their highest in the century. Moreover, the riot took place in early June, precisely the time of year in which demand for maize was greatest.3 All this argues for the centrality of grain shortages in any explanation of the 1692 riot. Yet to draw a direct line from heavy clouds and empty maize stalks to the rioting, burning, and looting of June 8, to comment (as one observer did) on "the fire into which the water was transformed by the stress of hunger,"4 is to adapt a simplified view of causality that belittles its human subjects. A generation of research on European crowd behavior has cast serious doubts on this "spasmodic view of popular history," the idea that "we need only bring together an index ofunemployment and one ofhigh food prices to be able to chart the course ofsocial disturbance."5 In studying the 1692 uprising, one must give heed not only to the economic but also to the social and political circumstances-particularly since maize shortages played a curiously ambiguous role in contemporary explanations for the riot. Few of those who gave legal testimony in the aftermath of the riot ventured an opinion on its cause. For many witnesses (especially Indians), this was no doubt part ofa broader attempt to disassociate themselves from the riot, to present themselves as mere bystanders or onlookers without any special knowledge. But references to maize shortages do appear, usually attributed to someone else. Thus, the Indian porter (cargador) Antonio de la Cruz (who eventually went to the gallows for possession of stolen goods) claimed that he heard Indians running toward the plaza, shouting that they would burn it down "because of the lack of maize."6 Another suspect "heard it said that the Indians of Santiago [Tlatelolco] had burned the Royal Palace and all the rest . . . [because] there was no maize for the said Indians...

Share