1. AGN, RA, CCI, L 103, C 1093, Rioja contra Rioja, 1811. [BACK]

2. Menefee (1981) documents the sale of wives in eighteenth-century England as a symbolic means husbands used to hand over adulterous women to their lovers. [BACK]

3. AGN, RA, CCI, L 110, C 1161, María Encarnación contra Centeno, 1812. [BACK]

4. Men's competition for a slave woman occasionally caused badly disguised demonstrations of jealousy, such as the worries of D. Agustín Valdéz (whom his female slave accused of"committing sin daily"): he requested that the slave be returned, because "she could die at the hands of one of those neglectful slaves, who would require her to come up with her own subsistence" (AGN, Cabildo, CCI, L 33, C 561, Adrianzén contra Valdez, 1816). [BACK]

5. AGN, RA, CCI, L 33, C 368, Neyra contra Balada, 1803. [BACK]

6. AA, CD, L 87 (1815-1820), Teresa contra Torquera, 1817. [BACK]

7. AA, CN, L 36 (1816-1855), Juana Manuela Básquez, morena esclava del Señor Regidor del Ayuntamiento, Francisco Alvarado, 1817. [BACK]

8. Burkett (1975) discusses the experiences of women of all racial groups and the characteristics of their interaction. [BACK]

9. AA, CD, L 87 (1815-1820) Teresa contra Torquera, 1817. [BACK]

10. AA, CD, L 87 (1815-1020), 1819, Gutierrez contra Prio. [BACK]

11. AA, L 1, Comunicaciones, (1765-1818), 1816, Santa María contra Carrillo. [BACK]

12. AA, LM, L 7 (1800-1009), 1805, Baset contra Guiyón. [BACK]

13. AGN, RA, CCR, L 102, C 1247, 1804, Comín contra Lamas, C 1247. [BACK]

14. AA, CD, L 86 (1810-1814), Vargas Machuca contra Sánchez. [BACK]

15. These figures come from a reading of wills and marriage licenses, in the AGN and AA, respectively. [BACK]

16. I extrapolate percentages from Table 1, on methods of manumussion in rural and urban areas; see chapter 1. Aguirre (1991) examines cartas de libertad from 1840 to 1854 but considers only urban cases; hence my figures for manumission through purchase in 1840 and 1850 differ from his: 69.0 percent in 1840 and 70.0 percent in 1850 versus Aguirre's 58.7 percent and 81.7 percent (my cases for 1840 and 1850 are 139 and 106; his cases, 63 and 60). Aguirre's figures express even more clearly the acceleration of the process of self-purchase in the final decades of the slave system. The discrepancies may reflect different methods as well as areas.

For an assessment of similar indicators for an earlier period, see Bowser (1977, 363; 1984, 375); for a comparison with other Latin American cities, see Aguirre (1993, 218). Lima had the highest percentage of self-manumitted slaves. Aguirre states that of Lima's slaves, 26.2 percent were granted freedom between 1840 and 1854 and the rest made payments to owners (73.8 percent); his findings are close to my own: for 1830 31.3 percent, for 1840 36 percent, and for 1850 30 percent. [BACK]

17. Reddock (1985, 66 ff.) discusses recent work on the "buy or breed" dilemma by Craton (1978) and Patterson (1967). [BACK]

18. Islamic slave owners often liberated concubines who bore their children; the practice spread with Islamic expansion to become one of the most common characteristics of slave systems (see Lerner 1983, 188). [BACK]

19. AGN, RA, CCI, L 131, C 1343, Nuñez contra Dominguez, 1815. [BACK]

20. AGN, C5 CCI, L 662, Paniso contra Alvarado, 1857. [BACK]

21. We are dealing with a record in the AA I believe to be complete (see Table 10). Haitin (1983) also uses marriage licenses, and his figures complement my results. My subsequent comparison with the record books of the registry of marriages confirmed the reliability of the data. [BACK]

22. A caveat is in order here. Most likely, changes in archival criteria within the Archivo Arzobispal explain discrepancies between my figures and those in Haitin's thesis (1983, 217) on marriages during these years (in a graph that is difficult to read). Haitin counts roughly 300 marriages in 1800, 400 in 1810, 250 in 1820, 280 in 1830, and 250 in 1850; only in 1810 and 1820 do his estimates approach mine. Since Haitin's figures are older, I would guess that I have not seen all the records (through lack of opportunity but certainly not of will) but that our final interpretations of the relative importance of marriage between slaves and between slaves and free persons would not vary. [BACK]

23. The slaves in most of my case studies come from these two parishes: Santa Ana's census statistics in 1813 showed a high number of white residents; San Lázaro was the black parish par excellence and had strong ties to the rural sphere. After the parish of La Catedral (or Sagrario) with 19,619 inhabitants, Santa Ana and San Lázaro had the largest populations ( 11,432 and 9,711, respectively), followed by San Sebastián and el Cercado (5,444 and 5, 122). The record books in the Archivo Arzobispal had information on ethnic descent for blacks, mulatos, morenos, chinos, zambos, pardos, quinteronas , and quarteronas .

Of the three record books in the Archivo Arzobispal for the parish of Santa Ana, book 3 referred to pardos and morenos and recorded ethnic identity for both contracting parties in 93.3 percent of the eases (502 of 538), whereas the other two books listed only a total of fifteen slaves. For this reason I use only book 3 to refer to Santa Ana. Of the two books (nos. 7 and 8) in the Archivo Arzobispal for San Lázaro, only book 8 had information for the years I consider but included no more than four years, from 1817 through 1820. Information about the ethnic descent of both spouses existed in only 49.6 percent of the cases for Santa Ana, and 59.4 percent for San Lázaro. The archives for San Lázaro included a record book for marriages of Indians with members of casta groups (eleven marriages between Indians and slaves—three chinos , one zamba , and two mulatas ). Neither the record book for Indians nor that for blacks referred exclusively to a single ethnic group. [BACK]

24. Santa Ana's small sample of slaves married to members of other black ethnic groups coincides with the pattern Haitin (1986, 293) describes in a much bigger sample. [BACK]

25. These precepts found support in a royal warrant dated 31 May 1789, which ordered the encouragement of marriage among slaves, even if they belonged to different owners, and the display of owners' humanity in finding ways to unite spouses; it declared that slaves were to have the right of free matrimonial choice (Labarthe 1955, 9). [BACK]

26. AA, CN, L 35 (1799-1814), Barraza contra Arroserena, 1803. [BACK]

27. AA, Estadística, Parroquia de Santa Ana, 1808. [BACK]

28. Unfortunately we lack a similar residential census for San Lázaro from which we might infer owners' tactics of opposition. [BACK]

29. Haitin ( 1986, 233, 238) calculates 21.7 years as the average matrimonial age of slave women, the highest among all ethnic groups between 1820 and 1840, and 24.0 years as the average of slave men, the lowest among all ethnic groups. The relatively higher matrimonial age of slave women might reflect their attempt to save enough to buy freedom before marriage to a husband of higher social status. [BACK]

30. AA, CN, L 35 (1799-1814), 1813, Roxas contra Puente. In this case the man was the slave of the marqués of Villafuerte, which perhaps explains the meticulous argument on possible grounds for annulment of the marriage. [BACK]

31. My reading of all the cases that requested annulment of a marriage in Lima between 1800 and 1860 turned up only four decrees of annulment and none of these involved slaves. [BACK]

32. AA, LM, L 7 (1800-1809); CD, L 84 (1805-1807); NM, L 58 (1799-1809), Natallana contra Venegas. [BACK]

33. AA, CN, L 35 (1799-1814), 1808, Torres contra Astorga; emphasis added. [BACK]

34. AGN, Cabildo, CCI, L 23, C 376, 1812, Autos seguidos por Juan Abril, marido de Rosa Balenzuelos contra D. Alejandro Martínez, arno de la mencionada Rosa, sobre que se le extienda boleta de venta. Rosa was a "white mulata ," the wife of a black carpenter. [BACK]

35. AGG, CCI, L 16, C 246, San Miguel contra Salazar, 1810. [BACK]

36. AA, Particulares, L 1, 1605-1839, 1812. [BACK]

37. On panaderías and sales outside the city see AA, Particulares, L 2 (1840-1922), as well as some episodes noted earlier. On criminal charges see AA, CN, L 35 (1799-1814), Guerrero contra Astorga, 1808. On raising a slave's price see AA, CN, L 36 (1816-1855), Gusman contra Ramírez, 1820. And on reappraisal of a slave's price see AA, EM 1805, Escrito del esclavo José Diaz al Provisor. In this last case, José Diaz was the sponsor of the marriage of two slaves, Joaquín and Juana, and paid Juana's owners 12 pesos for the proceedings. Later he paid the owner 450 pesos for Juana's price, which the owner rejected because he wanted 526 pesos. Finally the godfather requested that the owner accept the money or sign his consent in the marriage license so that the couple could marry. Here again freedom and con-

sent were inextricably linked to a strategy designed to undo the arguments of owners. [BACK]

38. AA, CN, L 35, 1799-1814, Barrionuebo contra Casillas, 1799; AGN, RA, CCI L 71, C 1093; AGN, RA, CCI, L 66, C 670; AA, CN, L 35, (1799-1814), Mendoza contra Mendoza, 1811; AA, CN L 35, (1799-1814), Catalina contra Querejazu, 1806; AA, CN, L 35, (1799-1814), Vásquez contra Valdivieso, 1801. [BACK]

39. AA, CN, L 36, (1816-1855), Bellido contra Moles, 1817; AA, CN, L 35, (1799-1814), Encalada contra Mena, 1803; AA, L 36, (1816-1855), F. Jacoba contra Yayo, 1816. And in AA, L 35 (1799-1814), Barela contra Gutierrez, 1805, the owner's claim to ignorance of the marriage did not affect the judgment. [BACK]

40. AA, EM, Miranda contra del Carmen, 1816. [BACK]

41. AGN, RA, CCI, L 33, C 367, 1813, Autos seguidos por Da. Bárbara Tixero contra Da. Mariana Noriega, sobre la redhibitoria de un esclavo. [BACK]

42. AGN, CCR, [s.n.] 1854, Causa criminal contra José del Patrocinio por habérsele sorprendido oculto en la casa del Dr. D. Antonio Arenas. [BACK]

43. AA, Sección Comunicaciones, 1815, del Cristo contra Carabali. [BACK]

44. AA, CN, L 36 (1816-1855), Gusman contra Ramírez, 1820. [BACK]

45. AA, CN, L 35 (1799-1814), Tagle contra Tagle, 1814. [BACK]

46. AA, CN, L 35 (1799-1814), Espellier contra Marris, 1808. [BACK]

47. AA, CD, L 86 (1810-1814), —contra Iturrizaga, 1818. [BACK]

48. AGN, Cablido, CCI, L 6, C 62, Autos seguidos pot Manuel Góngora, marido de María Aparicio, contra D. Manuel Aparicio, arno de ésta, sobre que la venda, 1803. [BACK]

49. The cases refer to complete sets of the existing documentation from four documentary series (LM, CD, NM, and CN) for the years between 1800 and 1820 and between 1840 and 1860. After 1854 slaves became ''servants." [BACK]

50. Political turbulence probably overrode domestic conflicts, given that between 1840 and 1860, what we find is a diminution of marital conflicts in general, not only of those involving slaves. Between 1800 and 1820, marital conflicts for all of Lima amounted to 409, between 1840 and 1860, they fell to 213 despite demographic growth. [BACK]

51. AA, LM, L 7 (1800-1809), María Candelaria contra Rosales, 1808. [BACK]

52. AA, CD, L 86 (1800-1814), Luisa contra López, 1812. [BACK]

53. AA, CD, L 83 (1802-1804), Nieto contra Betbelem, 1803. [BACK]

54. AGN, Cabildo, CCI, L 29, C 476, Villaverde contra Bernal, 1814. [BACK]

55. AA, LM, L 7 (1800-1809), Matallana contra Venegas. [BACK]

56. AA, CN, L 35, 1799-1814, Juana contra Casanova, 1807; AA, L 36, (1816-1855), Marín contra Romero, 1818; AA, CN, L 35, 1799-1814, Martinez contra Tagle, 1799, in which the husband approved relocation, and AA, CN, L 83, (1802-1804), Nieto contra Bethelem, 1803, in which the woman did the same. [BACK]

57. For examples of economic arguments between slave spouses, see AGN, Protocolos Notariales, Notaría Julián de Cubillas, Libro 202 (1818-1820) and AA, LM (1810-1819), Texada contra Escobar, 1819. [BACK]

58. AA, LM, L 8, 1811, Casaverde contra Cuellar. [BACK]

60. AGN, CS, CCR, L 116, 1851, Espinoza contra Larrosa (concubinos). [BACK]

61. Santa Ana's residential census of 1808 stated that only 17.3 percent of the registered slaves were married. Therefore, there was a significant correlation between the number of married slaves in an owner's household and the frequency of conflicts. [BACK]

62. AGN, Cabildo, CCI, L 6, C 61, Autos seguidos por Mariana Espinoza contra D. Faustino Guerrero, su amo, sobre que la venda, 1803. [BACK]