A New Look into Diogo Botelho's Stay in Pernambuco, 1602-1603

Author(s): Francis A. Dutra

Source: Luso-Brazilian Review, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring, 1967), pp. 27-34
Published by: University of Wisconsin Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3512688
Accessed: 11-02-2016 02:08 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Luso-Brazilian Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 02:08:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A New Look into
Diogo Botelho's Stay in
1602-1603"
Pernambuco,
FrancisA. Dutra

On 1 April 1602 Diogo Botelho, instead of going to Bahia the capital to

serve his term of office as the eighth governor-generalof Brazil, stopped
first at Pernambucoand remainedthere for more than a year and a half.
In doing this he not only became the first governor-generalever to set
foot in the proprietarycaptaincy of the Albuquerque Coelhos, but he
also set a precedentwhich was followed by his successors.1
All sorts of reasons were alleged for this innovation.Frei Vicente do
Salvador, though he thought that Diogo Botelho probably stayed in
Pernambucoin orderto inspect the captaincyand the fortificationswhich
were to be underhis jurisdiction,reportedthat otherswere of the opinion
that Ant6nio da Rocha, the Pernambucantreasury clerk accompanying
Diogo Botelho from Portugal,had encouragedhis travelling companion
to stay in Pernambucoby describingthe riches of that captaincy and the
many opportunitiesto profit personally from them.2 The author of the
* Parts of this
paper were originally presented as a "comunicagaolivre" at the VI
Luso-BrazilianColloquium held at Cambridge and New York in September of 1966.
Research was done with the aid of a grant from the Organizationof American States
which made possible a visit to Brazil during the summer of 1964 and an NDEA-
Fulbright Fellowship which enabled me to spend ten months in Spain and Portugal,
1965-1966.
1 Frei Vicente do Salvador, Historia do Brasil, ed. Capistrano de Abreu and Ro-
dolfo Garcia (3rd ed.; Sao Paulo, 1931), p. 383. Cf. also the collection of manu-
scripts in the Biblioteca da Ajuda of Lisbon (hereafter BA), 51-IX-29, entitled
Governo da India de Diogo Botelho and published under the title of "Correspon-
dencia de Diogo Botelho" in Revista do Instituto Historico Geogrdfico Brasileiro
(hereafter cited as Correspondencia), vol. 73, part 1 (Rio de Janeiro, 1910), p. 23.
Though both the original and printed versions were used in preparing this article,
to simplify matters only the printed Correspondgnciawill be cited.
2 Frei Vicente do
Salvador, Histdria, p. 383.
Luso-BrazilianReview, Vol. IV, No. 1, June 1967 27

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 02:08:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
28 Luso-Brazilian Review

Dialogos das Grandezasdo Brasil seems also to have been of this latter
opinion, for he, too, insinuatedthat the governors-generalwere engaged
in extra-curricularmoney-makingactivities in the AlbuquerqueCoelhos'
captaincy. In discussing this practice of staying in Pernambucorather
than Bahia he has Brand6niowondering aloud, tongue-in-cheek,to Alvi-
ano whether the governors-general"preferredto remain in the captaincy
of Perambuco ... because they can draw more profitfrom it, or because
it is nearerto Portugal."3Diogo Botelhohimself seems to have justifiedhis
stay by pointing to the clause in his regimento which instructed him to
visit all the captaincies.Since Pernambucowas the most importantand
one which had never been visited by his predecessors,the governor-gen-
eral claimed that there was a need both for his presence and for the ref-
ormationof much in the way of "thetreasury,justice, and war."4
Behind all these reasons was the importantfact that Jorge de Albu-
querque, the third donatdrioof Pernambuco,had just died in Lisbon in
1601, and, that as heir and successor,his eleven-year-oldson Duarte de
AlbuquerqueCoelho would also be runningthe captaincyfrom Portugal
throughloco-tenentesor substitutesseveralthousandmiles away.5In fact,
the last male AlbuquerqueCoelho to direct personallythe fortunesof his
family's captaincy from Pernambuco had been the second donatdrio,
Duarte Coelho de Albuquerque,Jorge'sbrother,who had left Brazil in
1572 and had died several years later in North Africa from wounds suf-
fered at the battle of Alcacer-Kebir.These thirty years of absenteeismon
the part of the captaincy'sproprietorshad set the stage for abuses and in
many ways had provided the occasion for Diogo Botelho'sstay. Further-
more, to make mattersworse from the donatarialpoint of view, Peram-
buco during this particular period of the donatdrio'sabsence was in
charge of Manuel MascarenhasHomen, one of the few governorsof that
captaincy who had not been related to the AlbuquerqueCoelhos and a
capitao-morwho was frequently away from Pernambucoand busy lead-
ing expeditionsagainstthe Indiansand openingup new frontiersin north-

Didlogos das Grandezas do Brasil, ed. Jose Antonio Gonsalves de Mello (Recife,
3

1962), p. 31.
4
Correspond4ncia,pp. 59-60.
5
During this time the young donatdrio and his estate were under the guardianship
of his uncle, Matias de Albuquerque, councillor of the King and former viceroy of
India. For details, cf. Archivo General de Simancas (hereafter AGS), Secretarias
Provinciales for Portugal (hereafter Sect. Prov.), lib. 1465, fl. 175-181v., "Consejo
de Portugal. Consulta sobre la tutoria de los hijos de Jorge d'Albuquerque."Cf. also
Arquivo Nacional de Torre do Tombo (hereafter ANTT), Chancelaria de Filipe II
(III of Spain), Privilegios. liv. 2, fl. 13. For the date of Jorge de Albuquerque'sdeath,
also cf. the above cited documents.

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 02:08:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Francis A. Dutra 29

eastern Brazil.6 Although Mascarenhas Homen was a fine Indian fighter,

there seems to have been some question regarding his administrative abil-
ity. Frequently he was at odds with his subordinates, and there were
many charges of abuses and corruption during his administration.7
Diogo Botelho's presence in Pernambuco soon gave rise to cries of pro-
test. Some, but interestingly enough not all, of the relatives of the dona-
tdrio complained to the king.8 In addition, there were probably those who
had no desire for "outside interference"-much like those who had pro-
tested to Duarte Coelho in 1549 and 1550 when word was received in
Pernambuco regarding Joao III's plan for a centralized government and
a cutback of their privileges.9 Finally, there were those who felt they had
personally been wronged by the governor-general.l0 As a result of these
complaints, the King ordered that the actions of Diogo Botelho be inves-
tigated, not once but twice."1
The first of these devassas or judicial inquiries was held in Pernambuco
in 1603, and is well known to students of Brazilian history, having been
one of the chief sources for their evaluation of the eighth governor-gen-
eral and his administration. Its records are in the Biblioteca da Ajuda in
Lisbon, and with a few errors were published in the Revista do Instituto
Hist6rico Geogrdfico Brasileiro (vol. 73, part 1). For all practical purposes
they are a whitewash of the charges against the governor-general and in

6 From 1572 to 1601

during the second and third donatdrios'absence the following
relatives (and possibly others) governed Pernambuco: D. Brites de Albuquerque
(their mother); Jer6nimo de Albuquerque (their uncle and D. Brites' brother);
Cristovao de Melo (Jer6nimo's father-in-law); Filipe de Moura (the donatdrios'
cousin and Jeronimo'sson-in-law); Pedro Homen de Castro (the donatdrios'nephew);
and Filipe de Cavalcanti (Jer6nimo's son-in-law). Cf. Francisco A. Pereira da Costa,
Anais Pernambucanos (Recife, 1952-1962), I, II, passim. For MascarenhasHomen's
activities during the time he was capitao-mor of Pernambuco, cf. Frei Vicente do
Salvador,Historia, pp. 357-379.
7 Ibid.,
p. 383; also Correspondencia,passim, but especially p. 89 and the responses
of the other witnesses to question 42 (p. 68).
8 One relative of the Albuquerque Coelhos who evidently did not complain was
Feliciano Coelho de Carvalho. He gave Diogo Botelho a clean bill of health. cf.
Corresponddncia,pp. 24-29 and 83-90. For Coelho de Carvalho'stestimony in refer-
ence to the governor-general'sstopping in Pernambuco, cf. Ibid., pp. 83, 89-90.
9 Cf. the letters of Duarte Coelho to
King, dated Olinda, 14 April 1549 and 24
November 1550. They are published (with several paleographical errors) in C. Mal-
heiro Dias (ed.), Historia da Colonizagio Portuguesa do Brasil (Oporto, 1921-24),
III, 318-321. The originals are in ANTT, Corpo Cronologico, Parte I, mago 82, doc.
88 and Parte I, mago 85, doc. 103 respectively.
10Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa (hereafter BNL), Res. Coleado Pombalina (here-
after Col. Pomb.), 249, fls. 205-206. Cf. also Correspondencia,p. 68.
11AGS, Sect. Prov., lib. 1487, fl. 24-24v. King to Viceroy of Portugal (Pedro de
Castilho), Valladolid, 30 August 1603.

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 02:08:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
30 Luso-Brazilian Review

many places could be taken for a eulogy. The tenor of the documentsis
perhapsbest expressedby the litany-likestatementsmade by the cdmara
or town council of Olinda to the effect that the governorhad conserved
the authorityof his post, dispensed justice to all, lived honestly, given a
good example of himself, been very zealous in the service of the King,
increased royal income, performednotable services and "governedwith
much tranquilityand the applause of all."12Furthermore,as soon as he
had arrivedin Pernambuco,"he put it [the captaincy]in order and regu-
lated many things that had special need of his presence and help."13
But many of those returningto Portugal from Brazil had a different
storyregardingthe governorand his activities.To satisfythe Albuquerque
Coelhos and their relatives in Portugal,as well as the considerablenum-
ber of Portuguesecoming back to the mother countrywith complaintsof
Diogo Botelho'sbehaviorin Pernambuco,the King held anotherdevassa
or inquiry-this one, however, in Lisbon-the same year of 1603.14This
he placed in charge of one of his most trusted aides and councillors,Bel-
chior do Amaral,a member of the Desembargo do Paso.15Though the
recordsof the judicialinquiryitself are still missing (as will be explained
later), Belchior do Amaral'sseveral-foliosummaryfor the King is extant
and is now in the Biblioteca Nacional in Lisbon (Colegao Pombalina,
249, fls. 205-207v.). Accordingto the samplingof chargesenumeratedby
Amaral,the majorityof the complaintsmade by those testifyingin Lisbon
were in reference to the governor-general'sillicit activities in Pernambu-
can commerce,from the slave trade to the sale of wine. In addition,some
of the plaintiffs charged that Diogo Botelho was cutting down on the
soldiers'rationsand selling what was left over for personalprofit.l6How-
ever, for Belchiordo Amaral,the governor-general'schief guilt lay in the
fact that "in his regimento Your Majesty commanded him to go directly
to Bahia. He did not do this, but went to Pernambucoinstead and spent

12 24.
Correspondencia,p.
13 25.
Ibid., p.
14AGS Sect. Prov., lib. 1487, fl. 24-24v. King to Viceroy, Valladolid, 30 August
1603; BNL Col. Pomb., 249, fls. 205-207, Belchior do Amaral to King, Lisbon, 26
July 1604. Both Capistrano de Abreu and Rodolfo Garcia erroneously assert that
Amaral's inquiry into the actions of the governor-generalwas held in Pernambuco.
Cf. Prolegomenos to Frei Vicente do Salvador'sHistoria do Brasil (3rd ed.), p. 254,
and Francisco Adolfo de Varnhagen,Historia Geral do Brasil antes da sua separaao e
independencia de Portugal, revised and annotated by Capistrano de Abreu and
Rodolfo Garcia (7th ed.; Sao Paulo, 1962), II, 92, respectively.
15 AGS, Sect. Prov., lib. 1491, fl. 85.
King to Viceroy, Valladolid, 11 January 1605.
Belchior do Amaral also helped in the compilation of the new ordinances for the
Kingdom of Portugal. Cf. AGS, Sect. Prov., lib. 1459, 64-64v.
16 BNL, Col. Pomb., 249, fls. 205-206v.

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 02:08:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Francis A. Dutra 31
considerable time there as is widely known. It is this offense, because it is
disobedience, that I hold as the greatest of all."17 The desembargador
concluded with the recommendation that "Your Majesty ought to send
another governor to that Province [Brazil] because Diogo Botelho is act-
ing without proper authority, and is little liked by the populace and hence
might be poorly obeyed, thus offering encouragement to the enemy."'8
However, Philip III (II of Portugal) does not seem to have heeded his
councillor's advice. Perhaps he felt that the charges made at the Lisbon
devassa were exaggerated or without foundation. But if this were so, why
the King's later insistence on rediscovering and reviewing the inquiry's
findings?19 Another, and perhaps more likely, reason for not removing
Diogo Botelho from office might have been the tense international situa-
tion. The majority of the King's letters to his governor during this period
dealt with the foreign threat to Brazil, and the monarch might not have
wanted to jeopardize that area's security by changing governors at this
time.20 Furthermore, by the time Belchior do Amaral's recommendations
reached the King, Diogo Botelho had long left Pernambuco for his as-
signed post of Bahia, thus eliminating the major source of the complaints.
At any rate, Diogo de Menezes, Diogo Botelho's successor, was not named
until 22 August 1606, and because of various delays did not reach Brazil
until early January of 1608.21As a result, Diogo Botelho ended up spend-
ing almost six years in the post of governor-general.
Capistrano de Abreu, who most probably never saw the original of
Belchior do Amaral's summary, using instead the copy in the Biblioteca
Nacional in Rio de Janeiro, attributed little value to the Lisbon devassa,
stating that it could not merit much faith-"p6de nao merecer grande
fe."22However, this judgment by the great Brazilian historian is seriously
open to question, and it is time for a re-evaluation of Diogo Botelho's
behavior in Pernambuco.
Before listing several reasons why the Lisbon inquiry should be given
17Ibid., fl. 206v.
18Ibid.
19BA, 51-VII-16, fl. 237, Viceroy to Conde de Sabugal, Lisbon, 2 June 1612. Yet
cf. the King's letter to Diogo Botelho of 19 March 1605 in Correspond6ncia,p. 7.
20 Of the
eighteen letters sent by the King to Diogo Botelho and preserved in the
Governo da India and published in the Correspondencia (pp. 1-22), almost two-
thirds dealt with enemy threats to Brazil. Varhagen, Historia Geral, II, p. 91, states
there were nineteen cartas regias. However, the two dated 22 August 1605 (pp. 3-4
and 8) are duplicates.
21Varnhagen,Historia Geral, II, p. 103. However, the carta de nomea9ao in ANTT,
Chancelariade Filipe II (III of Spain), Doao6es, liv. 14, fls. 342v.-343 gives 11 No-
vember 1606 as the date. Diogo Botelho was governor-general"five years, nine months
and seven days." Cf. Correspondencia,p. 23.
22
Proleg6menos to Frei Vicente do Salvador'sHistoria do Brasil, p. 254.

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 02:08:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
32 Luso-Brazilian Review
at least equal status with the much more widely divulged Perambucan
investigation,it is importantto realize that it is exceedingly risky for an
historianto take the complaintsor testimonialsin either of the two devas-
sas at face value. In light of the great outcry against Diogo Botelho's
behavior in Pernambuco,the results of the inquiry taken in Brazil seem
a bit too laudatory.Furthermore,there is always the possibilitythat those
who testifiedwere intimidatedor, more likely, were having their interests
served by the governor-general'sstay. In like manner,those testifying in
Lisbon against the governor-generalhad the advantage of being several
thousand miles from the accused with the result that he was unable to
face his accusersand deny their accusations.Hence both documentsmust
be used-a fact that Belchior do Amaralrealized when he wrote to the
King.23But are the results of the two inquiriesof equal value?
In favor of the partial veracity of the Lisbon devassa at least three
points should be considered:first, the investigatorBelchior do Amarars
backgroundand his opinion as to the governor-general'sguilt; second,
Diogo Botelho'sfriendshipwith the corruptPerambucan treasuryclerk,
Ant6nio da Rocha, and his failure to bring the latter'sillicit activities to
light; third, the mysteriousdisappearanceof the records of AmaraYsin-
quiry when it came time for Diogo Botelho'sresidencia.
As far as I have been able to ascertain,there was no bias on the part of
Belchior do Amaral.From all the evidence at hand he was competent,
fair, and experienced.A corregidorin the court of Sebastiao,he accom-
panied his monarchto North Africa on the ill-fated expeditionof 1578.24
It was he who wrote to the CardinalHenriquethe officialaccount of the
death and burial of Sebastiao.25Under Philip II and especially Philip III
he presided over many inquiries similar to the one of Diogo Botelho in
1603.26In fact, he was also put in charge of the devassa of Francisco de
Sousa, Brazils seventh governor-generaland Diogo Botelho's predeces-
sor.27In 1605 Belchior do Amaralwas also given the task of presiding

23
BNL, Col. Pomb., 249, fl. 207.
24
QueirozVelloso, D. Sebastiao 1554-1578 (3rd ed.; Lisbon, 1945), p. 301.
25
Queiroz Velloso, O Reinado do Cardeal Henrique: A Perda da Independencia
(Lisbon, 1946), I, 11.
26
E.g., cf. AGS, Sect. Prov., lib. 1550, fls. 158-167v. for an inquiry into the actions
of the captains of Cape Verde and Sao Tome; AGS, Sect. Prov., lib. 1487, fl. 6 and
AGS, Sect. Prov., lib. 1491, fl. 113v., for Amaral'sinvestigations of shipwrecks; AGS,
Sect. Prov., lib. 1488, fl. 91, regarding the Bishop of Guarda; AGS, Sect. Prov., lib.
1491, fl. 85v, to review the devassa of D. Antonio Mascarenhas, the Dean of the
Royal Chapel, just to cite a few.
27 BA, 51-VII-20, fl. 191v. King to Viceroy, Valladolid, 30 July 1605; BA, 51-VII-
8, fl. 123. King to Viceroy, Valladolid, 6 August 1605. But see also AGS, Sect. Prov.,
lib. 1492, fl. 44v., King to Viceroy, Valladolid, 30 September 1605.

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 02:08:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Francis A. Dutra 33
over a devassa of the most important ministers of Portugal, a job of such
import that it had originally been entrusted to the Viceroy and Inquisitor
General of Portugal himself, Pedro de Castilho.28 Writing on 11 January
1605 to notify Amaral of his role in this general devassa in Portugal, the
King praised the desembargador for his "integrity, learning, and expe-
rience."29 It was this man who recommended to the King that Diogo
Botelho be removed from his post. Surely he would not have done so
without good reason. Prescinding from the charges of corruption, the
desembargador focused his attention on the governor-general's disobedi-
ence and his acting without authority. It was on these grounds that he
urged his removal.
Diogo Botelho's relationship with Ant6nio da Rocha also left much to
be desired and gave support to the accusations made at the Lisbon in-
quiry of 1603. The Perambucan treasury clerk was one of the governor-
general's most vocal supporters during Diogo Botelho's stay in Pernam-
buco.30 Yet at the same time Antonio da Rocha was one of the most venal
office-holders in that captaincy and was later imprisoned several times
for his corruption.31It seems strange that a governor-general who stopped
in Pernambuco to reform matters regarding the "treasury, justice, and
war" and who had uncovered similar fiscal abuses as well other irregular-
ities would fail to uncover the treasury clerk's. By 1604, however, the
King was well aware of this ambivalence on the part of his governor.
When orders were issued for Ant6nio da Rocha's apprehension, Philip III
felt it necessary to send special instructions to Diogo Botelho not to inter-
fere in any way with their execution.32
Finally, Diogo Botelho had important friends at Court. He was married
to D. Maria Pereira, sister of the Court Secretary Pedro Alvares Pereira.33
It is interesting to note that when it came time for the ex-governor-gen-
eral's residencia, the damaging devassa of Belchior do Amaral could not

28AGS, Sect. Prov., lib. 1491, fl. 85. King to Viceroy, Valladolid, 11 January 1605;
AGS, Sect. Prov., lib. 1491, fl. 164-165, King to Viceroy, Valladolid, 10 May 1605.
29AGS, Sect. Prov., lib. 1491, fl. 86. King to Belchior do Amaral, Valladolid, 11
January1605.
30
Correspondencia,pp. 46-47 and passim.
31 A discussion of the deeds
or, better, misdeeds of Ant6nio da Rocha in Pernam-
buco could easily be the subject of another paper. However, some of the documents
which best help to throw light on his activities in Pernambuco are the following:
BA, 51-VII-7, fls. 16, 43, 50v.; BA, 51-VII-8, fls. 99v., 200v.; and AGS, Sect. Prov.,
lib. 1461, fls. 45ff.
32AGS, Sect. Prov., lib. 1489, fl. 48. King to
Diogo Botelho, Valladolid, 25 March
1604. Cf. also AGS, Sect. Prov., lib. 1489, fl. 47v. King to Martim Gonsalves da
Camara,Valladolid,25 March 1604.
33 Frei Vicente do Salvador,Historia, 395.
p.

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 02:08:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
34 Luso-Brazilian Review
be found. On 8 June 1612 Pedro de Castilho, the Viceroy of Portugal,
wrote to D. Duarte de Castelo Branco, the Conde de Sabugal: "His
Majestyordersthat the devassa which was taken by Belchior do Amaral
regarding Diogo Botelho when he was governor of Brazil and which I
gave to the secretaryCristovaoSoaresbe seen along with the other one34
in the Conselho da India. As of yet, this has not been done because the
devassa has not been found. I have orderedthat it be searchedfor."35In
a marginalnote to the viceroy'sletter, the Conde de Sabugal made the
telling reply that the inquiry'sloss would not have been an important
matter if it had not reprimandedsuch grievous offenses.36A year later
the missing devassa had still not yet been found.37A cryptic marginal
note in 1613 states that Diogo Botelho claimed he could not have stolen
the recordsof the inquiry, and it appearsthat the search was soon after-
ward discontinued.38
Which of the two inquiries-the one of Pernambucoor the one of Lis-
bon-gives the truerpicture of Diogo Botelho'sstay in Pernambuco?It is
difficultto say, but there seems to be slightly more evidence in favor of
the Lisbon devassa.There is no doubt that there were abuses in the cap-
taincy of the AlbuquerqueCoelhos before Diogo Botelho and his three
successorsmade a practiceof spendingvariedlengths of time there before
going to Bahia as they were ordered.But as it turned out, the abuses they
supposedly stayed to remedy frequently got worse rather than better.39
Judged in this light, Diogo Botelho's stay in Pernambuco deserves a
closer scrutiny.

34i.e. the devassa made in Pernambucoand favorable to Diogo Botelho.

35BA, 51-VII-16, fl. 237. Viceroy to Conde de Sabugal, Lisbon, 2 June 1612.
In addition, when the King ordered that Diogo Botelho's residdncia be taken in
Pernambuco, the man who was given the job became ill and it was never com-
pleted. Cf. Anais da Biblioteca Nacional do Rio de Janeiro, LVII (1935), p. 70.
36BA, 51-VII-16, fl. 237.
37 BA, 51-VII-16, fl. 202. Viceroy to King, Lisbon, 1 March 1613.
88Ibid.
39Arquivo Hist6rico Ultramarino (hereafter AHU), Pernambuco. Papeis, Avulsos,
caixa 1(1590-1626). Many of these are briefly described by Jose Ant6nio Gonsalves
de Mello in his typewritten guide to the Pernambucanain the AHU, a copy of which
is in the archive. Also cf. AHU, Bahia. Papeis, Avulsos, caixa 1. The latter are cata-
logued by Luiza da Fonseca in Anais do Primeiro Congresso de Hist6ria da Bahia
(Bahia, 1950), II, pp. 7ff.

This content downloaded from 130.240.43.43 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 02:08:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions